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

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23358]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

October 12, 2004.

    The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before November 18, 
2004 to be assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1010.
    Form Number: IRS Form 1120-RIC.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: U.S. Income Tax Return for Regulated Investment Companies.
    Description: Form 1120-RIC is filed by a domestic corporation 
electing to be taxed as a RIC in order to report its income and 
deductions and to compute its tax liability. IRS uses form 1120-RIC to 
determine whether the RIC has correctly reported its income, 
deductions, and tax liability.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 3,277.
    Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/Recordkeeper:

Recordkeeping--57 hr., 9 min.
Learning about the law or the form--20 hr., 43 min.
Preparing the form--36 hr., 30 min.
Copying, assembling, and sending the form to the IRS--4 hr., 1 min.

    Frequency of response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden: 380,325 hours.

Clearance Officer: Paul H. Finger (202) 622-4078, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20224.
OMB Reviewer: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr. (202) 395-7316, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

Lois K. Holland,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-23358 Filed 10-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```
Exhibit 99.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-121865, 333-109817 and 333-98405 on Forms S-8 of our
reports dated March 14, 2013, relating to (1) the consolidated financial statements of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and subsidiaries (the Company) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes explanatory paragraphs relating to i) the reconciliation to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and ii) the convenience translation of New Taiwan dollar amounts into U.S. dollar amounts) and (2) the
effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2012.









|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ Deloitte & Touche
|Taipei, Taiwan       
|The Republic of China
|                     
|April 2, 2013
Joint Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice

Victor Casado v. NAS Component Maintenance, Case No. 1:20-cv-22698-JEM

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22698-JEM

VICTOR CASADO, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NAS COMPONENT MAINTENANCE,

INC., a Florida corporation, and NESTOR 

CAMACHO, individually,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, Victor Casado, and Defendants, NAS Component Maintenance, Inc., and 

Nestor Camacho (collectively the “Parties”), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

41(a), hereby file this Joint Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice as to all claims. The 

Parties agree to each bear their own attorney fees and cost incurred in connection with this 

action. The Plaintiff will refile his claims in the Miami Dade County State Court.

Date: September 22, 2020

Case 1:20-cv-22698-JEM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2020 Page 1 of 2
Joint Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice

Victor Casado v. NAS Component Maintenance, Case No. 1:20-cv-22698-JEM

Page 2 of 2

Respectfully submitted, 

DORTA & ORTEGA, P.A.

_/s/ Omar Ortega_________

Omar Ortega, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 0095117

Valerie M. Hassan, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1000379

3860 SW 8th Street, PH

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Phone: (305) 461-5454

Facsimile: (305) 461-5226

oortega@dortaandortega.com

vhassans@dortaandortega.com

dgomez@dortaandortega.com 

Attorneys for Defendant. 

MICHEL O. WEISZ, P.A.

/s/ Michel O. Weisz__________

Michel O. Weisz, Esq. 

11901 Southwest 91st Avenue

Telephone: 305-613-6192

Primary: moweiszpa@gmail.com

Secondary: weisz.carmen@gmail.com

 

Case 1:20-cv-22698-JEM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2020 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32

Securities
and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20549



In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Eastern American Natural Gas Trust (the "Trust") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



The
above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a
separate disclosure document.

The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., Trustee, Trustee for Eastern American Natural Gas TrustBy:

/s/ MIKE ULRICH Vice PresidentThe Bank of New York Mellon Trust
Company, N.A.


Date:
August 8, 2012

---



QuickLinks
----

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2005 — First Data Corp. and Others v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-28/02) (1)

(Competition - Article 81 EC - Visa payment card scheme - The ‘no-acquiring-without-issuing’ rule - Negative clearance - Rule abolished during the proceedings - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 10/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: First Data Corp. (Wilmington, Delaware, USA), FDR Ltd (Dover, Delaware, United States), and First Data Merchant Services Corp. (Sunrise, Florida, USA) (represented by: initially, P. Bos and M. Nissen, then P. Bos, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially, R. Wainwright, W. Wils and V. Superti, then R. Wainwright and T. Christoforou, Agents)

Application for

annulment of the fifth indent of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2001/782/EC of 9 August 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/29.373 — Visa International) (OJ 2001 L 293, p. 24)

Operative part of the Order

----

(1)OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.

----
### §61f–9. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 61f–9 was editorially reclassified as section 6596 of this title.
### §5125. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–244, div. B, title I, §118(a), (b), Sept. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 2930

Section, Pub. L. 91–665, ch. VIII, Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1989; Pub. L. 93–532, §1, Dec. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 1723; Pub. L. 99–225, Dec. 28, 1985, 99 Stat. 1743, related to the right of every former Speaker to retain an office furnished and maintained by the Government in an appropriate condition.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 115–244, div. B, title I, §118(c), Sept. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 2930, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [repealing this section and sections 5126 to 5129 of this title] shall apply with respect to any individual who serves as a Representative in Congress during the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress or any succeeding Congress."
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-14279-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS/Reid

JOHN HAILE, 

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, 

Respondent. 

_________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lisette Reid’s Report (DE 6), 

recommending dismissal of Petitioner John Haile’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (DE 1). In this petition, Petitioner challenges the same state court 

conviction that he challenges in a previously-filed counseled habeas petition which is currently 

pending in Case No. 20-14257-CV-Middlebrooks. Judge Reid characterizes the previously filed 

habeas case as a “duplicate petition” and recommends dismissing the instant pro se petition.

Petitioner filed objections to Judge Reid’s report. (DE 7). Petitioner’s objections are 

handwritten and largely unintelligible, however he appears to be arguing that the pro se petition in 

this case raises an additional ground for relief which the earlier-filed petition does not raise. Id. 

Moreover he alludes to errors contained in the petition filed by his lawyer in the earlier case, and 

references certain disagreements, or perhaps an inability to communicate with his lawyer in that 

case. Id. 

I have considered the Report, the record in both cases, and Petitioner’s objections. 

Petitioner is not permitted to have two different habeas petitions pending in this court challenging 

Case 2:20-cv-14279-DMM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

the same state court conviction. This later filed petition shall be dismissed, and Petitioner should 

coordinate with his lawyer on the handling of his earlier filed pending habeas petition. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 

(1) Magistrate Judge Reid’s Report (DE 6) is hereby ADOPTED.

(2) John Haile’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (DE 1) 

is DISMISSED.

(3) No reasonable jurist would dispute this procedural ruling and therefore no 

certificate of appealability shall issue.

(4) The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

(5) Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in West Palm Beach, Florida, this 31st day of 

October, 2020.

Donald M. Middlebrooks

United States District Judge

Copies to: Counsel of Record;

John Haile

H44084 

Northwest Florida Reception Center 

Inmate Mail/Parcels 

4455 Sam Mitchell Drive 

Chipley, FL 32428 

PRO SE

Case 2:20-cv-14279-DMM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 2 of 2
8040.5 

# ~AA-2-0l0-0'''tJ 09/29106



### Contacts. With whom outside the FAAhasthis proposal been discussed?

Organization National Business Aircraft Association Regional Airline Association Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association ATA ATA 

### Person Contacted Eli Cotli Dave Lottcrcr Robert Hackman Craig Fabian M LOJlez 

## Date Response
(iv) during any period of 12 months, individuals who at the beginning of such periodconstituted the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board), together with any new directorswhose election by the Board or whose nomination for election by the stockholders of theCompany was approved by a vote of a majority of the directors of the Company (then still inoffice) who were either directors at the beginning of such period or whose election ornomination for election was previously so approved, cease for any reason to constitute amajority of the Board, then in office;provided, however, that such transaction also constitutes a change in control event withinthe meaning of Section 409A.The term Permitted Holders as used above shall mean any of (i) Blackstone or its affiliates,(ii) an employee benefit plan (or trust forming a part thereof) maintained by (A) theCompany or (B) any corporation or other person or entity of which a majority of its votingpower of its voting equity securities or equity interest is owned, directly or indirectly,by the Company, and (iii) VHS Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, or any ofits subsidiaries. The term Blackstone as used above shall mean each of of Blackstone FCHCapital Partners IV L.P., Blackstone Health Commitment Partners L.P., Blackstone CapitalPartners IV-A L.P., Blackstone Family Investment Partnership IV-A L.P., Blackstone HealthCommitment Partners-A L.P., Blackstone FCH Capital Partners IV-B L.P., and Blackstone FCHCapital Partners IV-A L.P., and their respective Affiliates.”3. Amendment to Section 11(e)(i). Section 11(e)(i) of the EA shall be amended byadding the following phrase to the end of the paragraph as follows:“; for greater certainty, the pro-rata portion of the Executive’s current year annual bonuswill be determined following the end of the applicable measurement period and will be paidat the same as annual bonuses are otherwise paid to the Company’s senior executives.”4. Amendment to Section 11(g). Section 11(g) of the EA shall be amended by adding thefollowing sentence to the end of Section 11(g):“Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of Section 409A, the right to a series ofinstallment payments under this Agreement shall be treated as a right to a series ofseparate payments and, in addition, any payment that is otherwise exempt from theapplication of Section 409A shall not be included in the calculation of DeferredCompensation Separation Benefits.”5. Ratification. All other provisions of the EA remain unchanged and are herebyratified by the Company and the Executive.
 
2

 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its dulyauthorized officer and the Executive has executed this Amendment, each as of the day and year firstset forth above.         **Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.**           By: /s/ Ronald P. Soltman             Name: Ronald P. Soltman      Title:   Executive Vice President           **Executive:**    /s/ Joseph D. Moore           Joseph D. Moore  
 
3
§ 125.11 Cartage for examination in public stores. ( a ) *Government cartage.* The cartage of merchandise in Customs custody designated for examination at the public stores shall be done by a licensed customhouse cartman or a bonded carrier under contract or other specific authority for that purpose.
( b ) *Where there is no contract for Government cartage.* At ports where there is no contract for Government cartage in effect, the cartage of packages designated for examination at the public stores shall be done by a licensed customhouse cartman or a bonded carrier designated by the port director for this purpose.
( c ) *Payment for Government cartmen.* The cost of the cartage shall be paid by Customs.
[T.D. 73-140, 38 FR 13554, May 23, 1973, as amended by T.D. 94-81, 59 FR 51495, Oct. 12, 1994]
#### In the Matter of Samuel Rothenberg, as Secretary of Picture Frame Workers Union, Local 18465, A. F. of L., Appellant, against William J. Kelley et al., Constituting the New York State Labor Relations Board, Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Van Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 964.]
reports by e-mail as they are issued, send an e-mail to

listproc@nrc.gov with the following message: subscribe salp

yourfirstname yourlastname.
§ 7.5 Specific discriminatory actions prohibited. ( a ) A recipient to which this regulation applies may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, on ground of race, color, or national origin: ( 1 ) Deny any individual any service, financial aid, or other benefit provided under the program;
( 2 ) Provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to an individual which is different, or is provided in a different manner, from that provided to others under the program;
( 3 ) Subject an individual to segregation or separate treatment in any matter related to his receipt of any service, financial aid, or other benefit under the program;
( 4 ) Restrict an individual in any way in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service, financial aid, or other benefit under the program;
( 5 ) Treat an individual differently from others in determining whether he satisfies any admission, enrollment, quota, eligibility, membership or other requirement or condition which individuals must meet in order to be provided any service, financial aid, or other benefit provided under the program;
( 6 ) Deny an individual an opportunity to participate in the program through the provision of services or otherwise or afford him an opportunity to do so which is different from that afforded others under the program.
( b ) A recipient, in determining the types of services, financial aid, or other benefits, or facilities which will be provided under any such program, or the class of individuals to whom, or the situations in which, such services, financial aid, other benefits, or facilities will be provided under any such program, or the class of individuals to be afforded an opportunity to participate in any such program, may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respect individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin.
( c ) As used in this section the services, financial aid, or other benefits provided under a program receiving Federal financial assistance shall be deemed to include any service, financial aid, or other benefit provided in or through a facility provided with the aid of Federal financial assistance.
( d ) The enumeration of specific forms of prohibited discrimination in this section does not limit the generality of the prohibition in section 4.
[30 FR 321, Jan. 9, 1965. Redesignated at 45 FR 44575, July 1, 1980, and further redesignated at 55 FR 23078, June 6, 1990. 68 FR 51379, Aug. 26, 2003]
### §683. Use of trust as an exchange fund

#### (a) General rule

Except as provided in subsection (b), if property is transferred to a trust in exchange for an interest in other trust property and if the trust would be an investment company (within the meaning of section 351) if it were a corporation, then gain shall be recognized to the transferor.

#### (b) Exception for pooled income funds

Subsection (a) shall not apply to any transfer to a pooled income fund (within the meaning of section 642(c)(5)).

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 235; Pub. L. 94–455, title XXI, §2131(e)(1), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1924.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 substituted provisions relating to use of trust as an exchange fund for provisions setting forth rule that this part applies only to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1953, and ending after the date of the enactment of this title and exceptions thereto.

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

#### Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Amendment of section by Pub. L. 94–455 effective on Apr. 8, 1976, in taxable years ending on or after such date, see section 2131(f)(6) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as a note under section 584 of this title.
#### Old World Art, Inc., v. Johan W. de R. Quistgaard.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.; Martin, P. J., talcing no part.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-61348-RAR

CAROLYN JIMENEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

BETHESDA HOSPITAL EAST, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal 

with Prejudice [ECF No. 44]. The Court having reviewed the Joint Stipulation, the record, and 

being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice, with each 

party to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs of suit except as otherwise provided in the parties’ 

Confidential Settlement Agreement. The Clerk is instructed to mark this case CLOSED, and any 

pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 18th day of March, 2021.

 

_________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-61348-RAR Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2021 Page 1 of 1
§ 413.3 Assessment of settlement lands. ( a ) Settlement lands, which the United States is not under contract to sell or exchange at the time a district makes its annual levy of assessments shall not be assessed, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section. If the United States thereafter contracts to sell or exchange such lands before the end of the irrigation season following the date of the annual levy, the purchaser will be required to make appropriate payment to the district for the water service which will be available to the purchaser during that irrigation season or the remaining portion thereof.
( b ) From the date the United States contracts to sell or exchange settlement lands until title thereto passes to the purchaser under such contract, or until the rights of the purchaser are terminated or reacquired by the United States settlement lands shall be subject to assessment by a district on the same basis as other lands of like character within the operation of the district.
( c ) Settlement lands, which the United States is not under contract to sell or exchange at the time a district makes its levy may be assessed by a district to the extent of the construction charge obligation installment required to be levied for the following year on such lands on account of the district's construction cost obligation to the United States. No other levies shall be made by a district against settlement lands in this status.
( d ) While settlement lands which the United States has leased for use as irrigated lands and which the United States has not contracted to sell or exchange may not be assessed by a district except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, lessees shall pay the district the same amounts annually that would be required to be paid for water service if the lands were subject to assessment therefor, in addition to any assessment levied under paragraph (c) of this section.
( e ) Assessments made by a district against settlement lands while the United States is under contract to sell or exchange such lands shall be subject to all interest and penalties for delinquency as provided by the laws of Washington, but interest and penalties shall cease to accumulate on the date such contract is terminated or the purchaser's interest therein reacquired by the United States.
( f ) No action shall be taken by or for a district to enforce any lien created as permitted under the regulations in this part by assessment foreclosure or other means that would purport to transfer any right in or title to any land or interests therein while title thereto is vested in the United States. Although the United States does not assume any obligation for the payment of such liens, it will in any conveyance of settlement lands covered thereby convey subject to those liens.