alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 220

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reinstate the tax on interest

received by foreigners on certain portfolio investments.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. JACOBS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reinstate

the tax on interest received by foreigners on certain

portfolio investments.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That (a) the following provisions of the Internal Revenue

4 Code of 1986 are hereby repealed:

5 (1) Section 871(h) (relating to repeal of tax on

6 interest of nonresident alien individuals received

7 from certain portfolio debt investments).

8 (2) Section 881(c) (relating to repeal of tax on

9 interest of foreign corporations received from certain

10 portfolio debt instruments).
2

•HR 220 IH

1 (3) Section 1441(c)(9) (relating to exception for

2 interest income from certain portfolio debt invest3 ments).

4 (b)(1) Paragraph (1) of section 871(a) of such Code

5 is amended by striking out ‘‘Except as provided in sub6 section (h), there’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘There’’.

7 (2) Subsection (a) of section 881 of such Code is

8 amended by striking out ‘‘Except as provided in subsection

9 (c), there’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘There’’.

10 (3) Paragraph (2) of section 864(c) of such Code is

11 amended by striking out ‘‘section 871(a)(1), section

12 871(h), section 881(a), or section 881(c)’’ and inserting

13 in lieu thereof ‘‘section 871(a)(1) or 881(a)’’.

14 (4) Subsection (b) of section 2105 of such Code is

15 amended—

16 (A) by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

17 (1),

18 (B) by striking out ‘‘and’’ at the end of para19 graph (2),

20 (C) by striking out paragraph (3), and

21 (D) by striking out ‘‘AND CERTAIN OTHER

22 DEBT OBLIGATIONS’’ in the subsection heading.

23 (5) The last sentence of section 1442(a) of such Code

24 is amended by striking out ‘‘, the references in section
3

•HR 220 IH

1 1441(c)(9) to sections 871(h) and 871(h)(3) shall be

2 treated as referring to sections 881(c) and 881(c)(3)’’.

3 (c) The amendments made by this section shall apply

4 to interest received after the date of the enactment of this

5 Act with respect to obligations issued after such date.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0480

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DAVID JOEL EATON, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 14, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 7 2022

01/07/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0480
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6713
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BEAUTANOUS COOR, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-72-5-F, CA-95-974-5-F) Submitted: October 15, 1996 Decided: November 1, 1996 Before HALL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Beautanous Coor, Appellant Pro Se. Jane H. Jolly, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court's earlier order denying his various motions, including a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed therecord and the district court's opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Coor , Nos. CR-92-72-5-F; CA-95-974-5-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 19, Feb. 5, & Apr. 15, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7860
WALLACE MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JOHN F. JACKSON; JOSEPH JENKINS EL; FOREST JONES; REGINALD GOLDER; KIMYON MARSHALL; ANDRE MINOR EL; JEAN NAAR; RAYMOND POPE; MARCEL K. ROM; HERBERT WHITE, JR.; CURTIS L. WRIGHT, Plaintiffs, versus THOMAS CORCORAN; LIEUTENANT HALL; OFFICER BARKSDALE; T. ROWLAND, Officer; SERGEANT BURNS; CAPTAIN RAULING; OFFICER BURNS, C.O. II; M. SINGHAS; D. SQUIRE, Officer; CAPTAIN REID; OFFICER BRUNO, C.O. II; P. KRAUSS, Officer; OFFICER JANNEY; CAPTAIN LUTZ; OFFICER PURVIS, C.O. II; OFFICER SPAIN; OFFICER WHEELER, C.O. II; C. MYERS, Officer, C.O. II; OFFICER BARR, C.O. II; SERGEANT WILLIAMS; LIEUTENANT JOHNSON; OFFICER TILLMAN, C.O. II; SERGEANT EVANS; RAYMOND WHITE, Officer; MAJOR TUTHILL; KATHY LANDERKIN, Lieutenant; SERGEANT HOLLAND; SERGEANT DEMBY; BARBARA BROWN, in their personal and professional capacity, Defendants - Appellees.2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-97- 298-L) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 3, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wallace Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief onhis 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mitchell v. Corcoran , No. CA-97-298-L (D. Md. Dec. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

                                  EXHIBIT 27.0

                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

     This  schedule  contains  summary  information  extracted  from the Balance
Sheet,  Statement  of  Operations,  Statement  of Cash  Flows and Notes  thereto
incorporated  in Part I, Item 7, of this Form 10 - KSB and is  qualified  in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.


</LEGEND>
       


<S>                                  <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              Mar-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                   Mar-31-1998
<CASH>                                                           2,285,750
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 2,285,750
<PP&E>                                                             649,544
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   (249,648)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   2,710,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              267,900
<BONDS>                                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                                 0  
<OTHER-SE>                                                       2,208,358
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     2,710,681
<SALES>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                         0
<CGS>                                                                    0  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    4,036,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                             0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   (3,192,565)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        (.37)
        



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 8.1
 List of Significant Subsidiaries
  State or
    
    Proportion ofJurisdiction of
    
    OwnershipName of Significant Subsidiary
    
    Incorporation
    
    InterestTEEKAY CHARTERING LIMITED
    
    MARSHALL ISLANDS
    
    
    100
    %TEEKAY HOLDINGS LIMITED
    
    MARSHALL ISLANDS
    
    
    100
    %SINGLE SHIP LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES
    
    MARSHALL ISLANDS
    
    
    100
    %TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS LP
    
    MARSHALL ISLANDS
    
    
    58
    %(1)TEEKAY OFFSHORE PARTNERS LP
    
    MARSHALL ISLANDS
    
    
    50
    %(1)TEEKAY OFFSHORE OPERATING LP
    
    MARSHALL ISLANDS
    
    
    75
    %(1)TEEKAY NAVION OFFSHORE LOADING PTE LTD
    
    SINGAPORE
    
    
    75
    %(1)TEEKAY PETROJARL ASA
    
    NORWAY
    
    
    100
    %TEEKAY TANKERS LTD
    
    MARSHALL ISLANDS
    
    
    54
    %(2)
 (1)
    
    The partnership is controlled by its general partner. Teekay Corporation has a 100%
beneficial ownership in the General Partner. In limited cases, approval of a majority or
supermajority of the common unit holders (in some cases excluding units held by the general
partner and its affiliates) is required to approve certain actions.(2)
    
    Proportion of voting power held is 53%.
#### Walter E. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry CAMPBELL, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Leon County, Florida, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-13036.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 11, 2014.

Marie A. Mattox, Marie A. Mattox, PA, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert Wayne Evans, Jason Eric Vail, Allen Norton *&*Blue, PA, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before CARNES, Chief Judge, DUBINA and SILER,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Having studied the briefs and the relevant parts of the record and having had the benefit of oral argument, we affirm summary judgment in favor of the Sheriff on the grounds set out by the district court on pages 47-68 of the transcript of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. As counsel for Mr. Wilson noted at the end of that proceeding, the district court’ explanation of its ruling was “very thorough.”

Through his counsel, Mr. Wilson has offered us a number of arguments against the judgment, but none of them persuade us that summary judgment should not have been entered against his claim. We add our voice to the district court’s on two points. One is that the Sheriff bent over backwards not to put Mr. Wilson in a lower paying position and kept from doing so as long as he responsibly could. We agree with the district court that the Sheriff acted properly and generously as “one would hope and expect an enlightened employer to do,” and nothing he did is properly subject to criticism.

The other point that we would second is the district court’s finding, that Mr. Wilson is “by all accounts a dedicated public serv*812ant,” who wants to keep working in as responsible and challenging position as he can. The mental impairments, the “very-substantial cognitive deficits” that the objective medical tests show that Mr. Wilson has, were caused by a tumor, seizures, and a stroke, which are not things for which he is being faulted. The issue in this lawsuit is not who, if anyone, is at fault for those disabilities. Instead, the issue is whether the law permitted the Sheriff to demote Mr. Wilson from the position of corrections officer because of serious concerns about whether someone with his disabilities could perform the duties of that position, particularly in an emergency or crisis. We agree with the district court’s resolution of that issue and affirm its judgment.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.3 At-will employment arrangement for Wm. Chris Mathers


 

Exhibit 10.3. Verbal at-will Compensation Arrangement

 

The Company pays Wm. Chris Mathers $3,000 a month as compensation for serving as the chief financial officer.
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2116

To authorize issuance of a certificate of documentation with appropriate

endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade of the United States

for the vessel PRINCE OF TIDES II.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 12, 1993

Mr. PRICE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To authorize issuance of a certificate of documentation with

appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade of the United States for the vessel PRINCE OF

TIDES II.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883) and section 12106 of title

5 46, United States Code, the Secretary of the department

6 in which the Coast Guard is operating may issue a certifi7 cate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for

8 employment in the coastwise trade of the United States
2

•HR 2116 IH

1 for the vessel PRINCE OF TIDES II (official number

2 903858).

Æ
#### David D’Ante HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-7050.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 28, 2010.

David D’Ante Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Erin M. Kulpa, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David D’Ante Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 denies 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 Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EXHIBIT 23 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

Cytec Industries Inc.: 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-80710, 33-83576, 33-85666, 333-62287, 333-11121, 333-45577, 333-107221, 333-122195, 333-151634 and 333-151635) on Form S-8 and in the registration statements (No. 333-127507 and333-160325) on Form S-3 of Cytec Industries Inc. of our reports dated February 24, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Cytec Industries Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the relatedconsolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which reports appear in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Cytec Industries Inc. 

Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to a change in the method of accounting for fair value measurements for non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities in 2009, a change inthe methods of accounting for the measurement date of pension and other postretirement plan benefits and for fair value measurements for financial assets and financial liabilities in 2008, and a change in the method of accounting for uncertainty inincome taxes in 2007. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Short Hills, New Jersey 

February 24, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         6,625,000
<SECURITIES>                                   18,918,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  22,632,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,589,000
<INVENTORY>                                    25,901,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               75,128,000
<PP&E>                                         15,403,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 90,845,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          29,984,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       15,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     60,846,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   90,845,000
<SALES>                                        149,561,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,698,000
<CGS>                                          124,914,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  33,515,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (490,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,636,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,636,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,636,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|                                           |  |                            |  |                                 
|------------------------------------------ |  | -------------------------- |  | --------------------------------
|Name of Incorporation or Organization      |  | State or OtherJurisdiction |  | Date ofIncorporation / Formation
|Macro International Inc.                   |  | Delaware                   |  | March 17, 1972                  
|                                           |  |                           
|Social & Health Services, Ltd.             |  | Maryland                   |  | June 17, 1991                   
|                                           |  |                           
|European Information Centre Limited        |  | United Kingdom             |  | December 20, 1991               
|                                           |  |                           
|ORC Holdings, Ltd.                         |  | United Kingdom             |  | July 17, 1996                   
|                                           |  |                           
|ORC Korea, Ltd.                            |  | Korea                      |  | November 30, 1996               
|                                           |  |                           
|ORC International Holdings, Inc.           |  | Cayman Islands             |  | March 18, 1997                  
|                                           |  |                           
|ORC TeleService Corp.                      |  | Delaware                   |  | March 26, 1997                  
|                                           |  |                           
|Opinion Research Corporation, S.A. de C.V. |  | Mexico, D.F.               |  | July 10, 1997                   
|                                           |  |                           
|O.R.C. International Ltd.                  |  | United Kingdom             |  | December 15, 1997               
|                                           |  |                           
|Rating Research LLC*                       |  | Delaware                   |  | January 8, 2001                 
|                                           |  |                           
|ORC Telecommunications Ltd.                |  | Maryland                   |  | October 3, 2002                 

---

|* | 50% of the voting shares are controlled by the Registrant
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------