alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LOWDEN et al v. EXCISE BOARD OF CADDO COUNTY.

No. 25551.

Jan. 8, 1935.

IV. R. Bleakmore, IV. L. Farmer, John Barry, and Robert E. Lee, for plaintiffs in error.

Amos Stovall, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with the opinion in case No. 25479, Lowden et al. v. Excise Board of Pittsburg County, this day decided, 170 Okla. 181, 40 P. (2d) 16, this cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to the Court of Tax Review to enter judgment in accordance with the stipulation as follows:

> “It is stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the questions of law involved in this appeal, affecting each and all of the respective thirteen assignments of error have been settled by this court by the decision in cause No. 25203, entitled School District No. 33, Choctaw County, Oklahoma, v. A. W. Trice, et al., filed herein on February 16, 1934, and petition for rehearing thereafter denied. (168 Okla. 344, 32 P. [2d] 906.) It is agreed that the law as stated in said opinion definitely settles this case in favor of the plaintiffs in error, and upon the authority of said Choctaw County Case, the trial court erred as to each and all of the assignments of error contained in this appeal, and said cause should be reversed and remanded to the Court of Tax Review, with directions to sustain each of the items of protest involved in this appeal.”
U.S. Individual Income Tax Declaration
for Electronic Filing

vm 8453
Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service For the year January 1-December 31, 1985

|_OMB No. 1545.0936_

1985

Your first name and initial (if joint return, also give spouse's name and initial) Last name

Your social security number

Spouse's social security number

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice.—We ask for this information to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. We need it to
ensure that taxpayers are complying with these laws and to allow us to figure and collect the right amount of tax. You are required to give
us this information.

GE] Ss Tax Return Information

1 Total income (Form 1040, line 23; Form 1040A, line 10; Form 1040EZ, line 3) . 1
2. Adjustments to income (Form 1040, line 31; Form 1040A, line 13) . 2
3 Adjusted gross income (Form 1040, line 32; Form 1040A, line 14; Form 1040EZ, line 3) . 3
4 Taxable income (Form 1040, line 37; Form 1040A, line 19; Form 1040EZ, line 7) . 4
5 Total tax (Form 1040, line 56; Form 1040A, line 23; Form 1040EZ, line 9) 5
6 Total payments (Form 1040, line 64; Form 1040A, line 25; Form 1040EZ, line 8) . 6
7__Refund (Form 1040, line 66; Form 1040A, line 26; Form 1040EZ, line 10) 7

[ Part 11| Declaration of Taxpayer

Under penalties of perjury, | declare that the above described amounts agree with the amounts shown on the corresponding lines of my
1985 Federal income tax return shown or given to me by my tax return preparer/transmitter, and that | have also compared the information
contained on my return with the information | provided to my preparer/transmitter. To the best of my knowledge and belief, my return is
true, correct, and complete. | consent that my return, including this declaration and accompanying schedules and statements, be sent to
the Internal Revenue Service by my tax return transmitter. | understand that portions of my return will be transmitted to the Internal
Revenue Service electronically by a communications company.

Please
Sign
Here

» Your signature

Declaration of Preparer /Transmitter (If the transmitter also prepared the tax return, check here > L] .)

Date » Spouse’s signature (if filing jointly, BOTH must sign)

| declare that the above taxpayer's return is based on all information of which | have knowledge. A copy of all forms and information to be
filed with the Internal Revenue Service has been or will be provided to the taxpayer.

Paid » Date Your social security number
M af Check if

Preparer S/o re selremplyed [_] Lg

fansmitter’s Fim’s name oy » E.I.No. i

Use Only Sndaddress ZIP code

Form 8453 (1985)
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - ITonis Inc. - Exhibit 10.10




EXHIBIT 10.10

 PROMISSORY NOTE

 CZ 400,000Kc

JULY 3, 2006

           FOR VALUE RECEIVED,
  the undersigned, ITonis Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Maker”),
  hereby promises to pay to the order of Nicolas Lavaud or his assigns (the “Payee”),
  at such place as the Payee may designate in writing, from time to time in immediately
  available lawful money of the Czech Republic, the principal sum of Four Hundred
  Thousand Czech Republic Korunos (CZ 400,000Kc) (the "Loan").

           Payment on Demand.
  The Loan shall be due and payable on the demand of the Payee. 

          Interest. The Loan
  shall not bear any interest.

           Applicable Law.
  The validity, construction and enforceability of this Note shall be governed
  by the internal laws of the State of Nevada, without giving effect to conflict
  of laws principles thereof.

           Waivers. The Maker
  hereby waives presentment for payment, notice of dishonor, protest and notice
  of payment and all other notices of any kind in connection with the enforcement
  of this Note.

           Obligations Absolute.
  The obligations of the Maker under this Note shall be absolute, and the Maker
  waives any and all rights to offset, deduct or withhold any payments or charges
  due under this Note for any reason. 

          Assignment. The
  Maker may not assign, delegate or otherwise transfer any of its obligations
  under this Note, whether by merger, consolidation or other business combination,
  without the prior written consent of Payee.

           Costs of Collection.
  If this Note is not paid or otherwise performed when due or required, the Maker
  shall pay Payee’s reasonable costs of collection, including reasonable
  attorney’s fees.

	 	ITONIS INC. 
	 	 	 
	 	By 	/s/ Antonin Kral                  
	 	 	Antonin Kral
	 	 	Director
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2069 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2069

To revive, and extend until January 1, 1999, the suspension of duty on 
                   decorative lace-braiding machines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 1993

 Mr. Machtley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To revive, and extend until January 1, 1999, the suspension of duty on 
                   decorative lace-braiding machines.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    Heading 9902.84.50 (relating to decorative lace-braiding machines 
using the jacquard system) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States is amended by striking out ``12/31/92'' and inserting 
``12/31/98''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies with 
respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, 
on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Application to Termination of Previous 
Suspension.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, upon proper request filed 
with the appropriate customs officer before the 90th day after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, any entry, or withdrawal from warehouse 
for consumption, of any good described in heading 9902.84.50 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992; and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act;
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or withdrawal 
occurred on the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
Form 843

(Rev. January 1997) Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement OMB No. 1545-0024

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service © See separate instructions.

Use Form 843 only if your claim involves (a) one of the taxes shown on line 3a or (b) a refund or abatement of interest, penalties,

or additions to tax on line 4a.

Daytime telephone number

Name of claimant

( )

Address (number, street, and room or suite no.)

City or town, state, and ZIP code

Please type or print

Spouse’s social security number

Your social security number

Employer identification number

Name and address shown on return if different from above

1 Period—prepare a separate Form 843 for each tax period 2 Amount to be refunded or abated

From , 19 , to , 19 $

b Dates of payment ©

3a Type of tax, penalty, or addition to tax:

Employment

Penalty—IRC section ©

Estate Gift

4a Request for abatement or refund of:

Interest caused by IRS errors or delays (if applicable—see instructions).

A penalty or addition to tax as a result of erroneous advice from the IRS.

Type of return filed (see instructions):

706 709 990-PF 4720 940 945

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions. Cat. No. 10180R Form 843 (Rev. 1-97)

b

5 Explanation and additional claims. Explain why you believe this claim should be allowed, and show computation of tax

refund or abatement of interest, penalty, or addition to tax.

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this claim, including accompanying schedules and statements, and, to the best of my knowledge and

belief, it is true, correct, and complete.

Signature (Title, if applicable. Claims by corporations must be signed by an officer.) Date

Signature Date

Signature. If you are filing Form 843 to request a refund or abatement relating to a joint return, both you and your spouse must

sign the claim. Claims filed by corporations must be signed by a corporate officer authorized to sign, and the signature must be

accompanied by the officer’s title.

Do not use Form 843 if your claim is for—

● An overpayment of income taxes;

● A refund of fuel taxes;

● An overpayment of excise taxes reported on Form 720, 730, or 2290 (see General Instructions).

Excise (unless reported on Form 720, 730, or 2290—see instructions.)

941 943 Other (specify)
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 01-30649 Summary Calendar

___________________________ MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JOSEPH F. WEGMANN, III AND SUSAN W. COLLINS, Defendants-Appellants.

___________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans

USDC Civil Action No. 00-3096

___________________________________________________ December 27, 2001 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we

are satisfied that the district court correctly granted summary judgement in favor of the plaintiff. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s orders of January 19, 2001, and March 12, 2001.
AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent Vidal MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-11795

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 30, 2010.

Terry Flynn, Thomas F. Kirwin, Eric K. Mountin, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, Pamela A. Moine, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William Rourk Clark, Jr., Chet Kaufman, Randolph P. Murrell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before EDMONDSON, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Chet Kaufman, the Federal Public Defender assigned to represent Vincent Mitchell in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Mitchell’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### Edward Lee BOONE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14-6198.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2014.

Decided: April 22, 2014.

Edward Lee Boone, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edward Lee Boone seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as second or successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a *197circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court dénies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Boone has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,158
<SECURITIES>                                    14,715
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,264
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,254
<INVENTORY>                                     19,733
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,814
<PP&E>                                          84,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                (53,756)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 161,697
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,099
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           181
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,090
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   161,697
<SALES>                                        178,569
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,569
<CGS>                                          142,648
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  142,648
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,017
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,716
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,461
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,554
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,907
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,907
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38


</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JAMES T. AYERS, JR. ,

Petitioner , Case No. 5D 16 - 3776 STATE OF FLORIDA ,

Respondent

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed March 24, 2017 Petition for Belated Appeal A Case of Original Jurisdiction. James T. Ayers, Jr. , Wewahitchka , pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney Gener al Tallahassee, and, Marjorie Vincent - Tripp Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the November 9, 2015 , judgment s and sentence s in C ase N o s . 2013 - CF - 1014 , 2014 - CF - 1562 , 2014 - CF - 1613, 2014 - CF - 1614 , 2014 - CF - 1624 , 2014 - 1625 - CF, 2014 - 1626 - CF, 2014 - CF - 1627 , 2014 - CF - 1628 , 2014 - CF - 1629 , 2014 - CF - 1631 , 2014 - CF - 1633 , 2014 - CF - 163 4 , and 2014 - CF 1635, in the Circuit Court in and for Putnam County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)( 6 )(D). PETITION GRANTED

. ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., and JACOBUS , B.W., Senior Judge , concur.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**











**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Weingarten Realty Investors (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew
      M. Alexander, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











BY:
            /s/
                Andrew M. AlexanderAndrew
                M. AlexanderPresident/Chief
                Executive OfficerAugust
                9, 2006











A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Weingarten Realty Investors and will be retained by Weingarten and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2005 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2005

     To suspend until January 1, 1995, the duty on p-Acetanisidide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 1993

Mr. Ballenger introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend until January 1, 1995, the duty on p-Acetanisidide.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ACET-P-ANISIDINE.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new heading:

      

       ``  9902.31.12  p-Acetanisidide (CAS No. 51-66-1) (provided for in                          No change        No change        On or before 12/   
                        subheading 2924.29.09)..................................  Free                                                31/94           ''

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
#### Sreang SEA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-72139.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 8, 2014.*

Filed April 11, 2014.

Peter Duong, Law Offices of Peter Duong, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stuart Nickum, Trial, Oil, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Sreang Sea, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his application for asylum and his application for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review.

The BIA agreed with the Immigration Judge that Sea had abandoned his asylum application after he failed to meet a filing deadline. The IJ was well within her discretion to pretermit Sea’s asylum application as having been abandoned under these circumstances. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (“The Immigration Judge may set ... time limits for the filing of applications and related documents and responses thereto, if any. If an application or document is not filed within the time set by the Immigration Judge, the opportunity to file that application or document shall be deemed waived.”).

Second, Sea argues that the IJ took an overly restrictive interpretation of “extreme cruelty” in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) and thus erred in denying his application for cancellation of *552removal. The court reviews questions of law and statutory interpretation in immigration proceedings *de novo. Singh v. Holder,*638 F.3d 1196, 1202-03 (9th Cir.2011). Sea’s evidence that he was subjected to extreme cruelty (his wife ignoring him, going out with other men, and making hurtful comments) paints a picture of marital misconduct and “unkindness,” as the IJ held, but not of the “extreme cruelty” contemplated by the statute for purposes of cancellation of removal. *See Hernandez v. Ashcroft,*345 F.3d 824, 840 (9th Cir. 2003) (“extreme cruelty” is not “mere unkindness” and must rather to rise to a level of an “extreme concept of domestic violence” in which a spouse engaged in “manipulative tactics aimed at ensuring [his or her] dominance and control”). By failing to meet the threshold for extreme cruelty, Sea is ineligible for cancellation of removal. *Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales,*405 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.2005).

The petition for review is DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.