alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### PART III—TAXATION OF BUSINESS INCOME OF CERTAIN EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS

Sec.
511.
Imposition of tax on unrelated business income of charitable, etc., organizations.
512.
Unrelated business taxable income.
513.
Unrelated trade or business.
514.
Unrelated debt-financed income.
515.
Taxes of foreign countries and possessions of the United States.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–141, div. U, title IV, §401(a)(125), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1190, substituted "Imposition of tax on unrelated business income of charitable, etc., organizations." for "Imposition of tax on unrelated business income of charitable organizations, etc." in item 511.

**1969**—Pub. L. 91–172, title I, §§101(a), 121(d)(3)(C), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 492, 548, substituted "PART III" for "PART II" as part designation and substituted "Unrelated debt-financed income" for "Business leases" in item 514.
### §503. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 503 was editorially reclassified as section 5203 of this title.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

November 6, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00943-CV

IN RE VINCENT FRANZESKOS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

246th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2004-68975

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 5, 2015, relator Vincent Franzeskos filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable 

Charley Prine, presiding judge of the 246th District Court of Harris County, to 
2

vacate his denial of and grant relator’s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc of an 

order that modified the child possession provisions of a final divorce decree.

Relator has not satisfied his burden to demonstrate his entitlement to the 

extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. See In re State Bar of Tex., 113 S.W.3d

730, 733 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding) (“‘Mandamus issues only to correct a clear 

abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no 

other adequate remedy by law.’” (quoting Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 

(Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)) (emphasis added). Relator may file a motion to 

modify the possession order. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.101. Thus, he has an 

adequate remedy at law. See In re Hernandez, 14-13-01038-CV, 2014 WL 

6854621, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 4, 2014, orig. proceeding).

Additionally, the record for a petition for writ of mandamus must contain 

either a written order from the trial court or a reporter’s record of the trial court’s 

oral order denying a motion for relief. See In re Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd., 209 

S.W.3d 311, 316 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding). In this 

case, relator has not provided either a written order or a reporter’s record showing 

that the trial court denied his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. Relator has only 

provided an affidavit of his attorney that the trial court denied the motion. An 

affidavit may not serve as a substitute for the official record. See In re Whitney, 14-

13-00999-CV, 2013 WL 6157121, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 

21, 2013, orig. proceeding) (citing Hamilton v. Empire Gas & Fuel Co., 134 Tex. 

377, 384–85, 110 S.W.2d 561, 566 (1937); Res. Health Servs., Inc. v. Acucare 
3

Health Strategies, Inc., No. 14–06–00846–CV, 2007 WL 4200587, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 29, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus because: (1) 

he has an adequate remedy at law, and (2) he has not provided this court with an 

adequate record.

Relator also filed a motion for emergency stay. Because we deny the 

petition, we also deny the motion for emergency stay.

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Busby, and Brown.
#### Brown *v.*The State.

October 12, 1910.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Seabrook. Liberty superior court. April *22,*1910.

*Ben. A. Way,*for plaintiff in error. *H. A. Hall, attorney-general,*and *N. J. Norman, solicitor-general,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

There was no exception to any ruling upon any question .of law. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. The discretion of the judge in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Donald O. Wilson, Respondent, against Rochester Products Division, General Motors Corporation, Appellant, Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by a self-insured employer from a decision and award made to claimant by the Workmen’s Compensation Board for permanent partial disability. Appellant contends the award fixed an excessive rate of compensation *in*view of claimant’s refusal of the employer’s offer to re-employ him. There was medical and lay evidence *934to sustain the board’s finding that claimant was justified in refusing the offer, and to support the award. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Poster and Bussell, JJ.
#### Echo Bay Waterfront Corporation, Appellant, v. City of New Rochelle et al., Respondents.

Jurisdiction of the subject matter was possessed by the County Court and vested in it when the delinquent list was filed. (Tax Law, § 165-a.) The failure of the plaintiff to invoke the alleged defect, although it answered in the foreclosure action, bars it thereafter from seeking to revive the alleged defect. *(Jahn*v. *Berzon,*255 App. Div. 1023; *Dineen*v. *Trust Co. of Northern Westchester,*272 App. Div. 938.) In the foreclosure action, summary judgment was granted on the pleadings, including the answer of the present plaintiff and the undisputed averments in the moving and supporting affidavits and annexed exhibits. *(City of New Rochelle*v. *Echo Bay Waterfront Corp.,*268 App. Div. 182, affd. 294 N. Y. 678, certiorari denied 326 U. S. 720.) The waterfront property was included in and covered by the pleadings and proof in the proceedings in rem. The principle of *res judicata*presents an insuperable barrier to the maintenance of this action. Defenses may not be advanced piecemeal any more than causes of action may be split. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ. [See *post,*p. 718.]
San Mateo, CA
                                                                February 8, 2000
                                                                $300,000

                             SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE

For  value  received,  the  undersigned,  Hypermedia  Communications,   Inc.,  a
California  corporation  ("Borrower") promises to pay MK GVD Fund ("Lender") the
principal sum of three hundred thousand dollars  ($300,000),  with interest from
the date hereof at a rate of ten percent (10%) per annum,  which amount shall be
secured  by all of the  assets  of  Borrower.  Said  principal  shall be due and
payable on demand by  Lender,  which  demand may be made at any time,  but in no
event shall the principal be paid later than one hundred eighty (180) days after
the date of this Note. This Note may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

In the event of liquidation,  merger, sale, or winding up of the company, Lender
shall be entitled to receive,  prior and in  preference  to any other holders of
debt or equity securities,  (except as provided in item 1. below), the principal
value of this Note plus accrued interest.

The  following is a statement of the rights of the Borrower of this Note and the
conditions to which this Note is subject,  to which the Borrower and Lender,  by
the acceptance of this Note agree:

         1.  Security  Interest  - Borrower  hereby  grants to Lender a security
interest  in all assets of  Borrower  to secure  repayment  of the  indebtedness
represented  by this Note.  Borrower  hereby  represents and agrees that it will
take all actions  contemplated above including the execution of a UCC1 financing
statement,  which for the purposes of such  execution,  Borrower hereby appoints
Lender as its attorney-in-fact to execute such UCC1 financing statement.

         2. Attorneys' Fees - If any action or proceeding  shall be commenced to
enforce  this Note or any right  arising  in  connection  with  this  Note,  the
prevailing  party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover from
the other party the reasonable  attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred by
such  prevailing   party  in  connection  with  such  action  or  proceeding  or
negotiation to avoid such action or proceeding.  In the event that any provision
of this Note should be deemed unlawful or unenforceable, such provision shall be
struck and the remainder  hereof shall be enforced to the fullest  extent of the
law.

         3.  Governing  Law - This Note is  issued  in and shall be  interpreted
under the laws of the State of California.

Issued this 8 day of February, 2000.

                                              Hypermedia Communications, Inc.



                                              By: __________________

                                              Title: ________________
### §5137. Removal of duplicative appraisals

Notwithstanding any other law (including regulations), in making loans under section 5136 of this title, borrowers who are Indian tribes, members of Indian tribes, or tribal corporations shall only be required to obtain 1 appraisal under an appraisal standard recognized as of February 7, 2014, by the Secretary or the Secretary of the Interior.

(Pub. L. 113–79, title V, §5403, Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 840.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 488a of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Definition of "Secretary"

"Secretary" as meaning the Secretary of Agriculture, see section 9001 of Title 7, Agriculture.
### §5842. Identification of firearms

#### (a) Identification of firearms other than destructive devices

Each manufacturer and importer and anyone making a firearm shall identify each firearm, other than a destructive device, manufactured, imported, or made by a serial number which may not be readily removed, obliterated, or altered, the name of the manufacturer, importer, or maker, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.

#### (b) Firearms without serial number

Any person who possesses a firearm, other than a destructive device, which does not bear the serial number and other information required by subsection (a) of this section shall identify the firearm with a serial number assigned by the Secretary and any other information the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.

#### (c) Identification of destructive device

Any firearm classified as a destructive device shall be identified in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.

(Added Pub. L. 90–618, title II, §201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1230; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5842, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 725, related to books, records, and returns, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 90–618.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior section 5843, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 725, as amended by act Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §203(e), 72 Stat. 1427, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 90–618.

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" wherever appearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur J. MUHAMMAD, also known as Arthur James Jordan, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10031.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

Susan B. Cowger, Jeffrey J. Ansley, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Cheryl B. Wattley, Law Offices of Cheryl B. Wattley, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Arthur J. Muhammad appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for making false statements to a federally insured financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1041. He argues that his guilty plea was involuntary because his counsel was ineffective in permitting him to sign and file a factual resume that admitted fraudulent conduct beyond that required to establish a factual predicate for his plea. Because the record is not sufficiently developed with regard to counsel’s strategy, this claim is not ready for review. *See United States v. Gibson,*55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir.1995).

Muhammad argues that the Government breached the plea agreement because it did not orally recommend at sentencing a sentence at the low end of the guideline range. However, the Government’s agreement to recommend a low-end sentence was incorporated into the presentence report, meaning it was before the court at sentencing. The recommendation was therefore “self-executing.” *See United States v. Reeves,*255 F.3d 208, 210-11 (5th Cir.2001). The Government did not breach the plea agreement.

Muhammad has moved for release pending appeal. The motion is denied as the rules provide only for review by this court of such motions filed in the district court, *see*Fed. R.App. P. 9(b), and because the motion is now moot.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

*

 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.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4830 

To reaffirm actions taken by the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit 

of Indian Tribes, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 

Mr. MORAN (for himself and Mr. TESTER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To reaffirm actions taken by the Secretary of the Interior 

for the benefit of Indian Tribes, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RATIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION OF AC4 TIONS. 

5 Any action taken by the Secretary of the Interior pur6 suant to the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as 

7 the ‘‘Indian Reorganization Act’’) (48 Stat. 984, chapter 

8 576; 25 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), for any Indian Tribe that 

9 was federally recognized on the date of the action is rati10 fied and confirmed, to the extent such action is subjected 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4830 IS

1 to challenge based on whether the Indian Tribe was feder2 ally recognized or under Federal jurisdiction on June 18, 

3 1934, as if the action had, by prior Act of Congress, been 

4 specifically authorized and directed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 8.1**

**Subsidiaries of Silicon Motion Technology Corporation**

Lake Tahoe InvestmentCorporation, a corporation organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands (“Lake Tahoe”). 

Silicon Motion Korea Ltd., a corporationorganized under the laws of Korea (‘SMK”, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lake Tahoe). 

FCI, Inc., a corporation organized under thelaws of Korea (“FCI”, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lake Tahoe). 

Silicon Motion, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws ofTaiwan (“SMI Taiwan”). 

Lake Ontario Investment Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of Samoa (“LakeOntario”). 

Silicon Motion Hong Kong Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of Hong Kong (“SMI HK,” a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of Lake Ontario). 

慧帝科技(深圳)有限公司, a corporation organizedunder the laws of the People’s Republic of China (“SMI Shenzhen”, a wholly-owned subsidiary of SMI HK). 

慧国(上海)軟件科技有限公司, a corporation organized under the laws of thePeople’s Republic of China (“SMI Shanghai”, a wholly-owned subsidiary of SMI HK). 

慧钢(北京)科技有限公司, a corporation organized under the laws of the People’s Republicof China (“SMI Beijing”, a wholly-owned subsidiary of SMI HK). 

Silicon Motion International Corp. Holding Company, a corporationorganized under the laws of Labuan (“SMI Holding”). 

Silicon Motion International Corp. Trading Company, a corporation organizedunder the laws of Labuan (“SMI Trading”, a wholly-owned subsidiary of SMI Holding). 

Silicon Motion (Dutch) B.V., a corporationorganized under the laws of the Netherlands (“SMI BV”). 

Silicon Motion, Inc, a corporation organized under the laws of the State ofCalifornia (“SMI USA,” a wholly-owned subsidiary of SMI BV). 

Silicon Motion International, Inc., a corporation organized under thelaws of the State of Delaware (“SMI DE,” a wholly-owned subsidiary of SMI USA). 

Silicon Motion K.K., a corporation organized underthe laws of Japan (“SMI KK”, a wholly-owned subsidiary of SMI BV).
### §286h. Status, privileges, and immunities of the United States

The provisions of article IX, sections 2 to 9, both inclusive, and the first sentence of article VIII, section 2(b), of the Articles of Agreement of the Fund, and the provisions of article VI, section 5(i), and article VII, sections 2 to 9, both inclusive, of the Articles of Agreement of the Bank, shall have full force and effect in the United States and its Territories and possessions upon acceptance of membership by the United States in, and the establishment of, the Fund and the Bank, respectively.

(July 31, 1945, ch. 339, §11, 59 Stat. 516.)
<PAGE>

                            CERTIFICATION 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 TouchTunes Music Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John
Perrachon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


/s/ John Perrachon
-------------------
John Perrachon
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                        SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CEO

         In  connection  with the Annual  Report of Green Power Energy  Holdings
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Wayne Coverdale, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350,  adopted as pursuant to Section 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 result of  operations of the
Company.



                                                         /s/ Wayne Coverdale
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Wayne Coverdale
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         September 15, 2003



A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise adopting,  the signature
that  appears  in typed  form  within the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement  required by Section  906,  has been  provided  to Green Power  Energy
Holdings  Corp.  and will be retained by Green Power Energy  Holdings  Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         814,399               1,688,651<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                 2,196,980               4,177,322<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,671,408               1,124,379<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                  1,507,162               1,803,720<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               240,876                 285,904<F1>
<PP&E>                                       3,281,207               3,197,651<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,695,993               1,433,572<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,263,243              11,075,984<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,250,525               2,468,938<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0                       0<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0<F1>
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0<F1>
<COMMON>                                       130,126                 129,726<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,809,480               8,367,565<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,263,243              11,075,894<F1>
<SALES>                                      2,178,318                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,178,318                       0<F1>
<CGS>                                        2,012,295                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,012,295                       0<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,918,369                       0<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           (1,752,346)                       0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (43,795)                       0<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,695,317)                       0<F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0<F1>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0<F1>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0<F1>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0<F1>
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0<F1>
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,695,317)                       0<F1>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)                       0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0<F1>
        
<FN>
<F1>
March 31, 1996 numbers
</FN>

</TABLE>