alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §206. Bulk sales and bottling

#### (a) Offenses

It shall be unlawful for any person—

(1) To sell or offer to sell, contract to sell, or otherwise dispose of distilled spirits in bulk except, under regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, for export or to the following, or to import distilled spirits in bulk except, under such regulations, for sale to or for use by the following: A distiller, rectifier of distilled spirits, person operating a bonded warehouse qualified under the internal-revenue laws or a class 8 bonded warehouse qualified under the customs laws, a winemaker for the fortification of wines, a proprietor of an industrial alcohol plant, or an agency of the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof.

(2) To sell or offer to sell, contract to sell, or otherwise dispose of warehouse receipts for distilled spirits in bulk unless such warehouse receipts require that the warehouseman shall package such distilled spirits, before delivery, in bottles labeled and marked in accordance with law, or deliver such distilled spirits in bulk only to persons to whom it is lawful to sell or otherwise dispose of distilled spirits in bulk.

(3) To bottle distilled spirits unless the bottler is a person to whom it is lawful to sell or otherwise dispose of distilled spirits in bulk.

#### (b) Penalty

Any person who violates the requirements of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, and shall forfeit to the United States all distilled spirits with respect to which the violation occurs and the containers thereof.

#### (c) "In bulk" defined

The term "in bulk" mean in containers having a capacity in excess of one wine gallon.

(Aug. 29, 1935, ch. 814, title I, §106, formerly §6, 49 Stat. 985; 1940 Reorg. Plan No. III, §2, eff. June 30, 1940, 5 F.R. 2108, 54 Stat. 1232; renumbered title I, §106, Pub. L. 100–690, title VIII, §8001(a)(1), (2), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4517.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

"Secretary of the Treasury" was substituted in subsec. (a)(1) for "Administrator", meaning the Administrator of the Federal Alcohol Administration, pursuant to Reorg. Plan No. III of 1940, see note set out under section 201 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<LEGEND>
                                  EXHIBIT 27.1

                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X

         This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from
Balance  Sheet,  Statement  of  Operations,  Statement  of Cash  Flows and Notes
thereto  incorporated in Part 1, Item 1, of this Form 10-QSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               mar-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                  392,968
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           152,078
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             12,247,019
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        14,132,907
<PP&E>                                  9,904,258
<DEPRECIATION>                          (4,321,223)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          22,646,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   20,532,917
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                4,550
<OTHER-SE>                              (5,492,420)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            22,646,000
<SALES>                                 6,508,565
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        6,508,565
<CGS>                                   3,763,214
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           3,763,214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        4,004,479
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      315,394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (963,364)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (963,364)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            (963,364)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (0.21)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5257 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5257

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the time during 
   which a qualified disaster may have occurred for purposes of the 
              special rules for personal casualty losses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 14, 2022

 Mr. Cassidy (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the time during 
   which a qualified disaster may have occurred for purposes of the 
              special rules for personal casualty losses.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED DISASTER FOR PURPOSES 
              OF PERSONAL CASUALTY LOSS RULES.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 304(b) of the Taxpayer 
Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``this subsection, the term'' and inserting 
        ``this subsection--
                    ``(A) In general.--The term'', and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(B) Extension.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
                section 301(1)(A) shall be applied by substituting 
                `December 31, 2023' for `the date which is 60 days 
                after the date of the enactment of this Act'.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to areas with respect to which a major disaster was declared by 
the President under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act on or after the date which is 60 
days after the date of the enactment of the Taxpayer Certainty and 
Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Alexander E. Dubroff (also Known as Alexander E. DuBroff), an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

May 10, 1948.

*Einar Chrystie*for petitioner.

*Louis B. Brodslcy*of counsel *(Kalma/n I. Nulman*with him on the brief), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was chárged with professional misconduct in that he failed to deposit in a special or trust account" a fund of $1,200 received from a client; that when requested by her to return a portion of the fund he refused to do so and converted the money due his client to his own use.

The official referee found that respondent was guilty. In his report the referee stated: *“ *** * it is my opinion that it has been established by credible evidence that the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct in that having been retained to commence a matrimonial action he advised his client to withdraw all of her money from a savings bank and spend it so that in an application to the court for alimony and counsel fee to be made in the action on her behalf she could state she was without means. That he also advised her that when she had withdrawn the money to turn it over to him and he would hold it in trust for her use until she had *634expended it. That acting upon his advice she withdrew the sum of $1,200 from her savings bank account, and on the 29th day of October, 1945, gave it to him to hold in trust for her use as aforesaid; that he failed to comply with his agreement to hold and keep said sum for her use and failed to deposit it in a special or trust account, but converted it to his own use. ’ ’

In an attempt to justify his retention of the entire fund when his client requested that he return a portion thereof, respondent took the position that the client had discharged him thus releasing him from his retainer agreement, whereupon he asserted an unwarranted claim for compensation in an exorbitant amount .exceeding the total of the funds then held by him. Although it appears that throughout the period involved respondent had at his disposal a fund in excess of the $1,200 received from his client, the record establishes a conversion.

In all the .circumstances we find that respondent is entitled to no compensation for the services rendered. He is directed, therefore, to return to his client the $1,200 received from her less the $237 expended for insurance premium.

The respondent should be suspended from practice for a period of one year with leave to apply for reinstatement at the expiration of that term upon proof of his compliance with the conditions incorporated in the order.

Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended one year.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6271

TEVARIS CRAWFORD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MACK BAILEY, Warden of Lunenburg Correctional Center for the Virginia 

Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Virginia,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00527-CMH-IDD)

Submitted: October 18, 2022 Decided: October 21, 2022

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tevaris Crawford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6271 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/21/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Tevaris Crawford seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 

759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Crawford 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6271 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/21/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 25, 2000 AND THE RELATED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE 13 WEEKS ENDED MARCH 25, 2000 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000895364
<NAME> DUANE READE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-25-2000
<CASH>                                           1,116
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,515
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    154,103
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               213,114
<PP&E>                                         124,216
<DEPRECIATION>                                (30,999)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 517,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,707
<BONDS>                                        339,081
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           175
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   517,944
<SALES>                                        226,275
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               226,275
<CGS>                                          171,629
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  171,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,967
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,238
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,441
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,515
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,926
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,926
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11


</TABLE>
Exhibit 5.3

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 Annual Report of TransAlta Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the dated hereof (the “Report”), I,
Stephen G. Snyder, President and Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
materials respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.







signed
“S.G. Snyder”

Stephen
G. Snyder

President
and Chief Executive Officer



Dated:
 March 29, 2005.







The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany
the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF M.O., JR., A 

JUVENILE.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-13-00148-CV

Appeal from the

65th District Court 

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 1100958) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below.

It appearing to this Court that Appellant is indigent for purposes of appeal, this Court 

makes no other order with respect thereto. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.613 What documentation do I need for fees and expenses? You must submit a separate itemized statement or invoice for the services of each provider for which you seek reimbursement. Each separate statement or invoice must contain: ( a ) The hours worked in connection with the proceeding by each provider supplying a billable service;
( b ) A description of the specific services performed by each provider;
( c ) The rate at which fees were computed for each provider;
( d ) The total charged by the provider on that statement or invoice; and
( e ) The provider's verification that the statement or invoice is true to the best of his or her knowledge and that he or she understands that a false statement is punishable by fine and imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 441

**Question 441:** If the declared pregnant woman's estimated date of conception encompasses a previous period of employment at another licensee's facility, what assumptions should be made by the current licensee for compliance purposes under each of the following conditions?
> 
a. Until records are received from the previous licensee;

 b. If previous monitoring records are incomplete or otherwise unavailable; and

c. If monitoring by the previous licensee of the woman's deep dose equivalent and/or the committed effective dose equivalent was not required, and therefore dose records were not maintained, but the woman is likely to have received dose due to the nature of her employment at the previous licensee's facility.

**Answer:** See the answer to the related Question 406 under the heading for Regulatory Guide 8.36.
> 
a) As provided in 10 CFR 20.2104 (c), the licensee may accept, as a record of the prior dose to the embryo / fetus, a signed statement from the declared pregnant woman. ("Records from the previous licensee" are not required; however, as indicated in the answer to Question 371, it is considered good health physics practice to verify the information on prior exposure provided by the individual.)

b) The answer to this question is the same as the answer to part (a) of the question if the woman can provide the information on the prior dose to the embryo / fetus; that is, the licensee may accept, as a record of the prior dose to the embryo / fetus, a signed statement from the woman. If the woman cannot provide this information, the licensee should [as indicated in the answer to Question 406 (b)] make an effort to make a reasonable estimate of the dose using other information that the woman and her previous employer have concerning her exposure.

 c) As indicated in the answer to part (b) of the question and in the answer to Question 406, the licensee should make an effort to make a reasonable estimate of the dose using other information that the woman and her previous employer have concerning her exposure.

(References: 10 CFR 20.1208, 10 CFR 20.2104)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

The South Florida Hotel and 

Culinary Employees Welfare Fund 

and Unite Here, Local 355, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-22667-Civ-Scola

Order of Dismissal

The parties have dismissed this case with prejudice in accordance with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Joint Stip. for Dismissal with 

Prejudice, ECF No. 60.) 

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, this dismissal will not have 

prejudicial effect until July 30, 2021. Any party may move to reopen this case 

between July 16 and July 29, 2021, should Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC 

fail to fulfill certain obligations by July 15, 2021. 

Therefore, it is ordered and adjudged that:

(1) This matter is dismissed with prejudice according to the terms of 

the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal (ECF No. 60) and as set 

forth above;

(2) Each party shall bear its own fees and costs, except as otherwise 

agreed to by the parties; and

(3) The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter solely to hear a 

motion to reopen. 

The Court directs the Clerk to close this case. All pending motions, if 

any, are denied as moot. 

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on April 12, 2021.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-22667-RNS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2021 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6811

NICHOLAS R. CROWDER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LAWRENCE KELLEY, State’s Attorney; DAVID

GOADE, Sheriff for Allegany County, Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA98-1249-S)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas R. Crowder, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* We note that the dismissal of Crowder’s petition in the

district court is without prejudice to his refiling the petition

once he has exhausted state remedies.

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order summarily denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998) for failing to exhaust state remedies. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Crowder v.

Kelly, No. CA-98-1249-S (D. Md. Apr. 30, 1998).* Appellant’s motion

to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. His motion’s for habeas

corpus relief and bail pending appeal are denied. 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
#### Factors Fire Insurance Company, Appellant, v. William G. Whilden and Another, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to plaintiff to serve amended complaint on payment of costs in this court and in the court below. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.