alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 851; Pub. L. 97–248, title III, §329(a), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 618.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1982—Pub. L. 97–248 substituted "$100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation)" for "$10,000".

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

#### Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Pub. L. 97–248, title III, §329(e), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 619, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [amending this section and sections 7203, 7206, and 7207 of this title] shall apply to offenses committed after the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 3, 1982]."
**Exhibit 12.2****Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Klaus Kühn, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Bayer AG;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 6, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 159 (Friday, October 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22695]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 332-463]


Logistic Services: An Overview of the Global Market and Potential 
Effects of Removing Trade Impediments

AGENCY: International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Change of hearing date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The date of the public hearing in this investigation has been 
changed to 9:30 a.m. on November 19, 2004, from the previously 
announced date of November 18. All deadlines for filing briefs and 
other submissions, including requests to appear at the hearing, remain 
the same as in the original notice of investigation and public hearing 
that was published in the Federal Register of September 2, 2004 (69 FR 
53735).

    Issued: October 4, 2004.
    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-22695 Filed 10-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
§ 2201.3-3 Appraisal report standards. Appraisals prepared for exchange purposes shall contain, at a minimum, the following information: ( a ) A summary of facts and conclusions;
( b ) The purpose and/or the function of the appraisal, a definition of the estate being appraised, and a statement of the assumptions and limiting conditions affecting the appraisal assignment, if any;
( c ) An explanation of the extent of the appraiser's research and actions taken to collect and confirm information relied upon in estimating value;
( d ) An adequate description of the physical characteristics of the lands being appraised; a statement of all encumbrances; title information, location, zoning, and present use; an analysis of highest and best use; and at least a 5-year sales history of the property;
( e ) A disclosure of any condition that is observed during the inspection of the property or becomes known to the appraiser through normal research that would lead the appraiser to believe that hazardous substances may be present on the property being appraised;
( f ) A comparative market analysis and, if more than one method of valuation is used, an analysis and reconciliation of the methods used to support the appraiser's estimate of value;
( g ) A description of comparable sales, including a description of all relevant physical, legal, and economic factors such as parties to the transaction, source and method of financing, effect of any favorable financing on sale price, and verification by a party involved in the transaction;
( h ) An estimate of market value;
( i ) The effective date of valuation, date of appraisal, signature, and certification of the appraiser;
( j ) A certification by the appraiser signing the report to the following: ( 1 ) The appraiser personally contacted the property owner or designated representative and offered the owner an opportunity to be present during inspection of the property;
( 2 ) The appraiser personally examined the subject property and all comparable sale properties relied upon in the report;
( 3 ) The appraiser has no present or prospective interest in the appraised property; and
( 4 ) The appraiser has not, and will not, receive compensation that was contingent on the analysis, opinions, or conclusions contained in the appraisal report; and
( k ) Copies of relevant written reports, studies, or summary conclusions prepared by others in association with the appraisal assignment that were relied upon by the appraiser to estimate value, which may include but is not limited to current title reports, mineral reports, or timber cruises prepared by qualified specialists.
§ 3900.61 Federal minerals where the surface is owned or administered by other Federal agencies, by state agencies or charitable organizations, or by private entities. ( a ) *Public lands.* Unless consent is required by law, the BLM will issue a lease or exploration license only after the BLM has consulted with the surface management agency on public lands where the surface is administered by an agency other than the BLM. The BLM will not issue a lease or an exploration license on lands to which the surface managing agency withholds consent required by statute.
( b ) *Acquired lands.* The BLM will issue a lease on acquired lands only after receiving written consent from an appropriate official of the surface management agency.
( c ) *Lands covered by lease or license.* If a Federal surface management agency outside of the Department has required special stipulations in the lease or license or has refused consent to issue the lease or license, an applicant may pursue the administrative remedies to challenge that decision offered by that particular surface management agency, if any. If the applicant notifies the BLM within 30 calendar days after receiving the BLM's decision that the applicant has requested the surface management agency to review or reconsider its decision, the time for filing an appeal to the IBLA under part 4 of this title is suspended until a decision is reached by such agency.
( d ) The BLM will not issue a lease or exploration license on National Forest System Lands without the consent of the Forest Service.
( e ) Ownership of surface overlying Federal minerals by states, charitable organizations, or private entities. Where the United States has conveyed title to the surface of lands to any state or political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including a college or any other educational corporation or association, to a charitable or religious corporation or association, or to a private entity, the BLM will send such surface owners written notification by certified mail of the application for exploration license or lease. In the written notification, the BLM will give the surface owners a reasonable time, not to exceed 90 calendar days, within which to suggest any lease stipulations necessary for the protection of existing surface improvements or uses and to set forth the facts supporting the necessity of the stipulations, or to file any objections it may have to the issuance of the lease or license. The BLM makes the final decision as to whether to issue the lease or license and on what terms based on a determination as to whether the interests of the United States would best be served by issuing the lease or license with the particular stipulations. This is true even in cases where the party controlling the surface opposes the issuance of a lease or license or wishes to place restrictive stipulations on the lease.
### §6315. Payments of estimated income tax

Payment of the estimated income tax, or any installment thereof, shall be considered payment on account of the income taxes imposed by subtitle A for the taxable year.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 778.)
#### § 3584.1 Lands to which applicable.

The regulations in this subpart apply to certain lands patented to the State of California for park and other public purposes.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7199
FREDERICK L. OVERBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLAY HESTER, Sheriff, Newport News City Jail; MAJOR MOORE; CAPTAIN BOWER; LIEUTENANT HARRIS; LIEUTENANT WATERHOUSE; DOCTOR RUSSOTTO; DOCTOR ANDERSON; NURSE WILLIAMS, Defendants - Appellees, and
CITY OF NE WPORT NEWS AND ITS COUNCIL; JANE DOE, Nurse, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-787-2) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 6, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Frederick L. Overby, Appellant Pro Se. Robert A. Dybing, SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his FederalRule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinionsand find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Overby v. Hester , No. CA-94-787-2 (E.D. Va. June 10, 1996 & July 18, 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
Case 1:20-cv-22125-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2020 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:20-cv-22125-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2020 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:20-cv-22125-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2020 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:20-cv-22125-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2020 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:20-cv-22125-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2020 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:20-cv-22125-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2020 Page 6 of 6
#### Harris *v.*Brandon *et al.*

Beck, J.

1. In a suit upon a promissory note given in part payment of the purchase of timber upon several lots of land, where the contract for the sale and purchase is in writing, signed by the vendor and purchaser, and where the defendant *'pleads that he was ignorant of the numbers of the lots and relied upon the plaintiff for their correct designation, and that the. plaintiff fraudulently omitted from such writing- one of the lots which was intended to be conveyed, although he had pointed out the timber on that lot, indicating it as a part of the timber sold, and that as a consequence the consideration has failed to that extent and the defendant has sustained damages because thereof, which plea contains no prayer for the reformation of the contract: *Meld,*that as the defendant is claiming and has actually enjoyed the fruits of the contract relative to a part included in the sale, he can not insist upon a defense depending upon a parol contract of a date *132anterior to tlie writing, by virtue of which a part of the land, so alleged to have been omitted from the written contract because of fraud of the maker or mistake on his part, was to have been included, without first praying for a reformation of the contract.

September 22, 1910.

Complaint. Before Judge Fite. Bartow superior court. May 8, 1909.

*Neel & Neel,*for plaintiff.

*Thomas*17. *& Wait H. Milner,*for defendants.

2. The court erred in admitting in evidence the parol agreement and understanding in reference to the sale of the timber anterior to the execution of the written contract, and in his charge to the jury in reference thereto. *Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from
          Associated  Technologies  and  Subsidiaries  March  31,1997  financial
          statements  and is  qualified  in its  entirety by  reference  to such
          financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000894565
<NAME>                        Associated Technologies
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         24,887
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  22,090
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    160,573
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               980,954
<PP&E>                                         407,471
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (303,295)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,096,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          709,604
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,148
<OTHER-SE>                                     (213,381)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,096,980
<SALES>                                        156,552
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               156,552
<CGS>                                          76,268
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  76,268
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               390,499
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (398,441)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (398,441)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (398,441)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.19)
        


</TABLE>
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Telling All Americans' Stories





Contact Us
  Women’s History
 *"I am only one; but still I am one.  I cannot do everything but still I can do something. I  will not refuse to do something I can do**" -* Helen Keller  Women's history is full of amazing stories of both ordinary and extraordinary people. Instead of revealing a singular "womanhood," women's history makes the diversity of the American experience more visible. While women often faced social constraints and could be restricted by conventional ideas about gender roles, the realities of women's lives have never been neatly confined to the "domestic" spaces of the home. They have been active participants in American society—as political activists, intellectuals, innovators, entrepreneurs, laborers, and educators.
 Discover More Women's History
 Last updated: December 10, 2018
 Tools Site Index
Contact Us


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
#### Matilda Sussman v. Aaron Hershfield.

Motion for stay granted. Order tobe settled on notice. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
§ 428.4 Who must submit forms under this part. ( a ) You must submit RRA forms to districts annually as specified in § 428.6 if: ( 1 ) You provide services to more than 960 nonexempt acres westwide, held by a single trust or legal entity or any combination of trusts and legal entities; or
( 2 ) You are the ultimate parent legal entity of a wholly owned subsidiary or of a series of wholly owned subsidiaries that provide services in total to more than 960 nonexempt acres westwide, held by a single trust or legal entity or any combination of trusts and legal entities.
( b ) Anyone who is the indirect owner of a legal entity that is a farm operator meeting the criteria of paragraph (a) of this section must submit forms to us annually, if any of the land to which services are being provided by that legal entity is land that the part owner formerly owned as excess land and sold or transferred at an approved price.
( c ) If you must submit RRA forms due to the requirements of this section, then you may not use a verification form for your annual submittal as provided for in § 426.18(l) of this chapter to meet the requirements of this section.
( d ) If you must submit RRA forms solely due to the requirements of this section, then once you have met the requirement found in paragraph (a) of this section you need not submit another RRA form during the current water year, even if you experience a change to your farm operating arrangements. Specifically, the requirements of § 426.18(k)(1) of this chapter are not applicable.
#### Latin American Contracting and Improvement Company v. David F. Broderick, Impleaded, etc.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Scott and Dowling, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32.1


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 Brisam Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian Kitts, Principal
Executive and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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 results of operations of the
      Company.








Date:   September
12, 2008





/s/ Brian
Kitts


Brian
Kitts,


Principal
Executive Officer and


Principal
Financial Officer
#### § 3833.90 Defects in recordings or filings for mining claims and sites.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                                 5
<LEGEND>
                  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
                  from VisionGlobal, Corporation and Subsidiaries March 31, 1998
                  financial  statements  and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
                  reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                            0000894535
<NAME>                           VisionGlobal Corpoation

       

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                717
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      717
<PP&E>                                                11,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        46,306
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 142,450
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              11,000
<OTHER-SE>                                            (107,144)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          46,306
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      0
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      105,144
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (105,144)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (105,144)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (105,144)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.01)
        


</TABLE>
#### Harold Webb, an Infant, etc., Respondent, v. Walter Bradley and Another, Appellants.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Fata, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.; Van Voorhis, J., dissents and votes to dismiss the appeal from the order.