alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §84. Transfer of appreciated property to political organizations

#### (a) General rule

If—

(1) any person transfers property to a political organization, and

(2) the fair market value of such property exceeds its adjusted basis,

then for purposes of this chapter the transferor shall be treated as having sold such property to the political organization on the date of the transfer, and the transferor shall be treated as having realized an amount equal to the fair market value of such property on such date.

#### (b) Basis of property

In the case of a transfer of property to a political organization to which subsection (a) applies, the basis of such property in the hands of the political organization shall be the same as it would be in the hands of the transferor, increased by the amount of gain recognized to the transferor by reason of such transfer.

#### (c) Political organization defined

For purposes of this section, the term "political organization" has the meaning given to such term by section 527(e)(1).

(Added Pub. L. 93–625, §13(a)(1), Jan. 3, 1975, 88 Stat. 2120; amended Pub. L. 115–141, div. U, title IV, §401(a)(35), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1186.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–141 substituted "political organizations" for "political organization" in section catchline.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 93–625, §13(b), Jan. 3, 1975, 88 Stat. 2121, provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) [enacting this section] shall apply to transfers made after May 7, 1974, in taxable years ending after such date."

#### Nonrecognition of Gain or Loss Where Organization Sold Contributed Property Before August 2, 1973

Pub. L. 93–625, §13(c), Jan. 3, 1975, 88 Stat. 2121, provided that in the case of the sale or exchange of property before Aug. 2, 1973, which was acquired by the exempt political organization by contribution, no gain or loss shall be recognized by such organization.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 13, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

129797 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. HARLEYSVILLE LAKE STATES Stephen J. Markman, INSURANCE COMPANY, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 129797 COA: 255195 Ingham CC: 02-001427-CK MASON INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., and PETER HANOVER, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e September 22, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s0406 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 13, 2006

Clerk
###### Editorial Note on Part 126

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 126 appear at 72 FR 50041, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 126.102 What is the effect of the HUBZone program on the section 8(d) subcontracting program?

The HUBZone Act of 1997 amended the section 8(d) subcontracting program to include qualified HUBZone SBCs in the formal subcontracting plans described in § 125.3 of this title.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration

                    By Notice dated March 5, 2004, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 15, 2004, (69 FR 12179), Mallinckrodt Inc., Mallinckrodt & Second Streets, St. Louis, Missouri 63147, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Morphine (9300), a basic class of Schedule II controlled substance. The drug code was inadvertently dropped during the preparation of the Notice of Registration dated July 28, 2004 and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51331).                

The company plans to manufacture the basic class of controlled substance for internal use and for sale to other companies.

No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Mallinckrodt Inc. to manufacture Morphine is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Mallinckrodt Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR  1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of Morphine (9300).

Dated: September 16, 2004.

William J. Walker,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. 04-21941  Filed 9-29-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateEnforcementIssued Significant Enforcement Actions

# 2022 Individual Actions

Mr. Joseph Berkich (IA-21-062)

On March 2, 2022, the NRC issued an Order prohibiting Mr. Joseph Berkich from involvement in NRC-licensed activities. Mr. Berkich, former owner of Steel City Gamma, LLC (SCG), deliberately caused SCG to be in violation of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 150.20 and 10 CFR 30.3, when he conducted licensed activities using radiography in NRC jurisdiction without filing for reciprocity and without a specific NRC license. Specifically, Mr. Berkick will be prohibited from conducting, supervising, directing, or in any other way engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years and immediately cease all current involvement in NRC-licensed activities. After the five-year prohibition has expired, Mr. Berkich will be required to notify the NRC, within 20 days following acceptance of his first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, November 20, 2023

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024 Reactor Actions
          - 2023 Reactor Actions
          - 2022 Reactor Actions
          - 2021 Reactor Actions
          - 2020 Reactor Actions
          - 2024 Materials Actions
          - 2023 Materials Actions
          - 2022 Materials Actions
          - 2021 Materials Actions
          - 2020 Materials Actions
          - 2024 Individual Actions
          - 2023 Individual Actions
          - 2022 Individual Actions
          - 2021 Individual Actions
          - 2020 Individual Actions
          - 2020 Non-Licensee Actions
          - 2019 Non-Licensee Actions
          - 2016 Non-Licensee Actions
          - 2015 Non-Licensee Actions
          - 2014 Non-Licensee Actions
          - 2023 Fuel Cycle Facilities
          - 2019 Fuel Cycle Facilities
          - 2018 Fuel Cycle Facilities
          - 2017 Fuel Cycle Facilities
          - 2016 Fuel Cycle Facilities

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, November 20, 2023
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30687 Summary Calendar

JERRY EDWARDS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 96-CV-9-T

_____________________________________

August 4, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jerry Edwards appeals from a judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social

Securit y denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner applied the proper

legal standards in denying Edwards disability insurance benefits. S ee 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1995);

Leggett v. Chater
, 67 F.3d 558, 563 n.2 (5th Cir. 1995). A review of the record reflects substantial

evidence supporting the Commissioner’s decision. S ee Ripley v. Chater
, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir.1995). Even assuming this court had jurisdict io n t o review Edwards’ arguments that the

Administrat ive Law Judge’s hypothetical to the vocational expert was flawed, the arguments lack

merit. S ee Paul v. Shalala
, 29 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994); Bowling v. Shalala
, 36 F.3d 431, 435-

36 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
#### Genevieve B. Lalor, Respondent, v. John H. Lalor, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
### §2105. Scope of review; abatement

There shall be no reversal in the Supreme Court or a court of appeals for error in ruling upon matters in abatement which do not involve jurisdiction.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 963.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §879 (R.S. §1011; Feb. 18, 1875, ch. 80, §1, 18 Stat. 318).

The revised language is substituted for the provisions of section 879 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., to avoid any construction that matters of fact are not reviewable in nonjury cases. Such section 879 related to review upon a writ of error which applied only to actions at law. (See Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limiting the review of questions of fact which renders unnecessary any statutory limitation.)

Rule 7(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolished all pleas, and the rules adopted the motion as a substitute therefor.

Words "matters in abatement" were, therefore, substituted for the abolished "plea in abatement" and "plea to the jurisdiction."

Changes were made in phraseology.
PUBLIC LAW 109–28—JULY 12, 2005 119 STAT. 371

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1082:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 151 (2005):

May 4, considered and passed House.

June 29, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–28

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 120 East

Illinois Avenue in Vinita, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Francis C. Goodpaster Post Office

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

120 East Illinois Avenue in Vinita, Oklahoma, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Francis C. Goodpaster Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Francis

C. Goodpaster Post Office Building’’.

Approved July 12, 2005.

July 12, 2005

[H.R. 1082]
#### William Fox, Appellant, v. Lawrence Mulligan and Another, as Executors, etc., Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### **CHAPTER 176—FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE**

Subchapter
Sec. 1
A.
Definitions and general provisions
3001

B.
Prejudgment remedies
3101
C.
Postjudgments  2 remedies
3201

D.
Fraudulent transfers  2
3301

1  Editorially supplied.

2  So in original. Does not conform to subchapter heading.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 21, 2017

Order 

Clerk

April 21, 2017

155415(8)

MICHAEL RAY THOMAS, 

Plaintiff,

SC: 155415

v AGC: 0935-16

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 

April 3, 2017 order closing this file for failure to pay the initial filing fee is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that he attempted to pay the full filing fee in a timely 

manner and such fee has since been received by the Court. The Clerk of the Court is 

hereby directed to reopen this file.
**Exhibit 1.3**

**AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION**

Theshareholders of the Bank, by resolution passed at the Extraordinary General Meeting held on 27th March 2008, have approved the amendment to theMemorandum and Articles of Association of the Bank. 

The Clause V of the Memorandum of Association and Article 4 of the Articles of Association, asamended, are as under: 

*Clause V –*

*‘The Capital of the Company is Rs. 550,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Hundred and Fifty Crores only) divided into 55,00,00,000 (Fifty Five Crores) Equity Shares of Rs. 10/- each with a power to increase or reducethe share capital.’*

*Article 4 –*

*‘The Authorised Capital of the Company will be as stated in Clause V of the Memorandum of Association from time to time with power to increase or reduce the said Capital and to issue any part of its Capitaloriginal or increased with or without any priority or special privilege subject to the restrictions, if any, under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 or subject to any postponement of rights or to any conditions or restrictions so that unless theconditions of issue otherwise prescribe such issue shall be subject to the provisions herein contained.’*
### PART IV—OTHER PROVISIONS

Sec.
9708.
Effect on pending claims or obligations.
----

**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, J. William Rhea, IV, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this transition report on Form 10-KSB of Terax Energy, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 17, 2005 

*/s/ J. William Rhea, IV*  J. William Rhea, IV   Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) 

----
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateAdjudications (Hearings)10 CFR Part 2: Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders

# 2012 Amendments to Adjudicatory Process Rules (08/03/12)

## Overview

On August 3, 2012, the NRC amended its regulations to (1) revise the § 2.309 standards for hearing requests, intervention petitions, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions filed after the § 2.309(b) filing deadline; (2) adopt revised mandatory disclosure and discovery provisions that limit the NRC staff's mandatory disclosure obligations to documents related to the admitted contentions and that alter the timeline applicable to all parties' mandatory disclosures; (3) clarify the Secretary's authority under § 2.346(j); (4) allow for more limited certificates of service for documents filed through the NRC's E-Filing system; and (5) make other clarifications and corrections to the NRC's adjudicatory process rules. The final rule****was published in the *Federal Register* on August 3, 2012 and became effective on September 4, 2012.

## Applicability

The effective date of the final rule is September 4, 2012. These requirements will not be retroactively applied to presiding officer determinations and decisions issued prior to September 4, 2012 (e.g., a presiding officer order in response to a petition or motion). These requirements will also not be retroactively imposed on participants; participants will not need to compensate for past activities that were accomplished in conformance with the requirements in effect at the time, but would no longer meet the new or amended requirements in the final rule. Further, in ongoing adjudicatory proceedings, if there is a dispute over an adjudicatory obligation or situation arising prior to September 4, 2012, the former rule provisions would be used. However, the new or amended requirements will be effective and govern all obligations and disputes that arise after September 4, 2012.

## Final Rule - **2012 Amendments to Adjudicatory Process Rules and Related Requirements**

*Federal Register* Notice—Final Rule,****77 Fed. Reg. 46,562 (08/03/2012)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, June 09, 2020
119 STAT. 338 PUBLIC LAW 109–16—JUNE 29, 2005

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 483:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 151 (2005):

Apr. 13, considered and passed House.

June 15, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–16

109th Congress

An Act

To designate a United States courthouse in Brownsville, Texas, as the ‘‘Reynaldo

G. Garza and Filemon B. Vela United States Courthouse’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The United States courthouse located at the corner of Seventh

Street and East Jackson Street in Brownsville, Texas, shall be

designated and known as the ‘‘Reynaldo G. Garza and Filemon

B. Vela United States Courthouse’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the United States courthouse

referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the

‘‘Reynaldo G. Garza and Filemon B. Vela United States Courthouse’’.

Approved June 29, 2005.

June 29, 2005

[H.R. 483]
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Southern District of Florida

MARVELI RAYO

20-cv-21993-MGC

I.C. SYSTEM, INC., and MD NOW MEDICAL 

CENTERS, INC

MD NOW MEDICAL CENTERS, INC

CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

1200 SOUTH PINE ISLAND ROAD

PLANTATION, FL 33324

The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi, PLLC. 110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744, Fort 

Lauderdale, FL 33301. Phone: (844)542-7235 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com Fax: 

(855)529-9540

 

May 13, 2020 s/ Esperanza Buchhorst

Case 1:20-cv-21993-MGC Document 3-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2020 Page 1 of 1