alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Holmes Electric Protective Company, Appellant, *v.*City of New York et al., Respondents.

Dore, J.

(dissenting). Utility tax laws tax *only*utilities and sales of utility services. Efforts to impose such taxes on receipts from sales of nonutility services have been struck down by the courts *(Matter of Holmes Elec. Protective Co.*v. *McGoldrick,*262 App. Div. 514, affd. 288 N. Y. 635; *Matter of United Parcel Service of New York*v. *Joseph,*272 App. Div. 194, affd. 297 N. Y. 1004). On the record of the 1941 appeal and on this appeal, plaintiff is not a utility; *565it does not sell utility services; it sells a nonutility service, viz., protection against unlawful entry and burglary.

The 1938 amendment of the City Utility Tax Law does not lessen the controlling effect of the 1941 decision of this court and the Court of Appeals *(Matter of Holmes Elec. Protective Co.*v. *McGoldrick, supra)*or subject plaintiff’s receipts from its protective nonutility service to the utility tax law. The words *“*telegraph service ” in the prior 1935 statute that was controlling in 1941, necessarily meant and was understood to mean the use of electric wires to transmit signals as clearly as if those words were in the statute. The additional words added nothing to what was in the prior statute by necessary implication and cannot make the law applicable to nonutility services.

Numerous other persons, concededly not taxed and not held to be taxable under the new law, equally use electric wires to transmit signals; the so-called *“*literal ” construction of Special Term if equally enforced against such persons would lead to a *reductio ad*absurdum; as it is not so enforced, it is discriminatory against this plaintiff.

Taxing statutes are to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer *(Matter of Holmes Elec. Protective Co.*v. *McGoldrick, supra; Matter of Brooklyn Union Gas Co.*v. *McGoldrick,*270 App. Div. 186, 195, affd. 298 N. Y. 536; *People ex rel. Mutual Trust Co.*v. *Miller,*177 N. Y. 51; *Matter of Good Humor Corp.*v. *McGoldrick,*289 N. Y. 452; *Gould*v. *Gould,*245 U. S. 151, 153; *Matter of Vanderbilt,*281 N. Y. 297, 313).

Accordingly I dissent and vote to reverse the judgment appealed from and grant judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the relief prayed for.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Callahan and Shientag, JJ., concur in decision; Dore, J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the relief prayed for, in opinion.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington TX 76011-4005

No. IV-03-008 March 20, 2003

CONTACT: Victor Dricks E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov

Phone: 817-860-8128 

NRC TO MEET WITH UNION ELECTRIC CO. TO DISCUSS

 PERFORMANCE OF CALLAWAY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of the Union Electric

Company on Tuesday, April 1, to discuss the results of the agency’s annual assessment of safety

performance at the Callaway Nuclear Plant. The facility is located near Fulton, Missouri.

 The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 7:00 

p.m. at the Capitol Plaza Hotel & Convention Center, 415 West McCarty Street, Jefferson City, Mo.

Before the session is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the

public on the safety performance of the plant, as well as the role of the NRC in ensuring safe plant

operation.

 The performance period to be discussed is January 1 to December 31, 2002. In addition, NRC

staff will provide an overview of how the agency’s Reactor Oversight Process works.

 A letter sent from the NRC Region IV Office to representatives of the Union Electric Co.

addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting

discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/call_2002q4.pdf

“Overall, Callaway Plant operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety and met

all cornerstone objectives with moderate degradation in safety performance,” the letter states. 

However, during the first quarter of 2002, the licensee failed to promptly identify and correct a

problem - the presence of foreign material in a large water storage tank. This rendered inoperable the

plant’s auxiliary feedwater system, which provides water to the plant’s steam generators under some

conditions. 

Additionally, Callaway has had difficulties with problem identification and resolution. The

NRC plans to conduct an additional inspection of these areas in June, to determine whether

improvements have been made.

In addition, the letter notes: “As you are aware, since the terrorist attacks on September 11,

2001, the NRC has issued several Orders and threat advisories to enhance security capabilities and

improve guard force readiness. We have conducted inspections to review your implementation of
these requirements and have monitored your actions in response to changing threat advisories. For

calendar year 2003, we plan to continue these inspections and conduct portions of the security baseline

inspection program, as well as perform additional inspections to evaluate your compliance with new

requirements that may be ordered.”

Current performance information for Callaway is available on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CALL/call_chart.html

###
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 05-104 July 21, 2005

NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE TO MEET

 AUGUST 2-4 IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste will hold a

public meeting August 2-4, in Rockville, Md., during which the first two days will be a working group

session on nuclear waste determinations. It will include an overview by a Department of Energy (DOE)

official on waste management at four of its tank sites (Idaho, Savannah River, Hanford and West

Valley). Also included will be briefings by experts on state-of-the-art technology for waste retrieval

and stabilization. 

On the third day, among other items, the committee will be briefed by NRC staff members on

their views on the sufficiency of DOE’s level of design detail for the Yucca Mountain project.

The Tuesday and Wednesday sessions will run from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; the session on

Thursday will run from 10:15 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.. The sessions will be held in Room T-2B3 of the

agency’s Two White Flint North Building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. For more information on the

meeting, contact Sharon Steele, at 301-415-6805. A complete agenda is available on the NRC’s Web

site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw/agenda/2005/ .

###
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. 03-100 August 4, 2003

 NRC INCREASES SECONDARY PREMIUM

 FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT INSURANCE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to increase the

secondary premium for liability insurance in case of a nuclear accident at a commercial nuclear

power plant from $83.9 million to $95.8 million per reactor. 

Under the Price Anderson Act, utilities that operate nuclear power plants pay a premium

each year to private insurers for public liability coverage for each reactor unit to ensure that

adequate funds would be available to satisfy liability claims of members of the public for

personal injury and offsite property damage in the event of a catastrophic nuclear accident. 

This primary insurance is supplemented by a second policy. In the event a nuclear

accident causes damages in excess of the primary insurance, each licensed nuclear reactor would

be assessed a prorated share of the excess as needed. The amended NRC regulation would

increase the maximum for that prorated, deferred amount to $95.8 million.

The Act requires the NRC to adjust this maximum deferred premium amount at least

once every five years to reflect the aggregate percentage change in the nation’s Consumer Price

Index. The last change was effective August 20, 1998.

The new retrospective premium of $95.8 million will be effective August 20 for operating

nuclear power reactors with a capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more. The amended

regulations also reflect a recent increase in primary nuclear liability insurance to $300 million.

 Because this action is essentially ministerial in nature, the Commission has determined

that it is not necessary to issue a proposed rule to seek public comments on the changes. 

For more information on the regulation, contact Ira Dinitz at 301-415-1289.

###
### §1296. Determination of priority of projects

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the determination of the priority to be given each category of projects for construction of publicly owned treatment works within each State shall be made solely by that State, except that if the Administrator, after a public hearing, determines that a specific project will not result in compliance with the enforceable requirements of this chapter, such project shall be removed from the State's priority list and such State shall submit a revised priority list. These categories shall include, but not be limited to (A) secondary treatment, (B) more stringent treatment, (C) infiltration-in-flow correction, (D) major sewer system rehabilitation, (E) new collector sewers and appurtenances, (F) new interceptors and appurtenances, and (G) correction of combined sewer overflows. Not less than 25 per centum of funds allocated to a State in any fiscal year under this subchapter for construction of publicly owned treatment works in such State shall be obligated for those types of projects referred to in clauses (D), (E), (F), and (G) of this section, if such projects are on such State's priority list for that year and are otherwise eligible for funding in that fiscal year. It is the policy of Congress that projects for wastewater treatment and management undertaken with Federal financial assistance under this chapter by any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency shall be projects which, in the estimation of the State, are designed to achieve optimum water quality management, consistent with the public health and water quality goals and requirements of this chapter.

(June 30, 1948, ch. 758, title II, §216, as added Pub. L. 95–217, §40, Dec. 27, 1977, 91 Stat. 1582; amended Pub. L. 97–117, §18, Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1630.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1981—Pub. L. 97–117 inserted provision that it is the policy of Congress that projects for wastewater treatment and management undertaken with Federal financial assistance under this chapter by any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency be projects which, in the estimation of the State, are designed to achieve optimum water quality management, consistent with the public health and water quality goals and requirements of this chapter.
### §187b. Oil or gas leases; written relinquishment of rights; release of obligations

Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in section 187 of this title, a lessee may at any time make and file in the appropriate land office a written relinquishment of all rights under any oil or gas lease issued under the authority of this chapter or of any legal subdivision of the area included within any such lease. Such relinquishment shall be effective as of the date of its filing, subject to the continued obligation of the lessee and his surety to make payment of all accrued rentals and royalties and to place all wells on the lands to be relinquished in condition for suspension or abandonment in accordance with the applicable lease terms and regulations; thereupon the lessee shall be released of all obligations thereafter accruing under said lease with respect to the lands relinquished, but no such relinquishment shall release such lessee, or his bond, from any liability for breach of any obligation of the lease, other than an obligation to drill, accrued at the date of the relinquishment.

(Feb. 25, 1920, ch. 85, §30B, formerly §30b, as added Aug. 8, 1946, ch. 916, §8, 60 Stat. 956; renumbered §30B, Pub. L. 100–203, title V, §5103, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–258.)

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

#### Savings Provision

See note set out under section 181 of this title.
```

[House Report 107-209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    107-209

======================================================================

 
WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO THE 
  SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES 
  COMMITTEE

                                _______
                                

September 21 (legislative day of September 20), 2001.--Referred to the 
                House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Reynolds, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 242]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 242, by a non-record vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                Summary of Provisions of the Resolution

    The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver 
to any special rule reported on the legislative day of Friday, 
September 21, 2001, providing for consideration or disposition 
of a bill to preserve the continued viability of the United 
States air transportation system.

                                  

```
#### LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 of Phillips County, Arkansas, *et al. v.*Mike HUCKABEE, Governor of the State of Arkansas, *et al.*

01-836

145 S.W.3d 382

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered February 5, 2004

*Lewellen & Associates,*by: *Roy C. Lewellen,*for appellant class.

*Wilson Law Firm, P.A.,*by: *E. Dion Wilson,*for appellant school district.

*6*Mike Beebe,*Att’y Gen., by: *Timothy Gauger,*Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellees.

*Matthews, Campbell, Rhoads, McClure, Thompson & Fryauf, P.A.,*by: *David R. Matthews,*for intervenors Rogers and Bentonville Public School Districts.

*Friday, Eldredge & Clark,*by: *Christopher Heller,*for intervenor Little Rock School District.

*Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers & Sneddon,*by: *Clayton R. Blackstock*and *Mark Burnette,*for amicus curiae Arkansas Education Association.

*Kaplan, Brewer, Maxey & Haralson, P.A.,*by: *Regina Haralson,*for amicus curiae Arkansas Public Policy Panel.

Per Curiam.

We grant the motion to expedite this court’s review. We deny, however, the motion to remand for limited purposes, as a remand is unnecessary. This court has said that matters collateral or supplemental to a trial court’s judgment, such as attorney’s fees, are left within the trial court’s jurisdiction even though an appeal to this court has been docketed. *See, e.g., Sunbelt Exploration Co. v. Stephens Prod. Co.,*320 Ark. 298, 896 S.W.2d 867 (1995); *Alexander v. First Nat’l Bank of Ft. Smith,*278 Ark. 406, 646 S.W.2d 684 (1983). Accordingly, the trial court may consider and resolve matters pertaining to attorney’s fees ordered by this court in the instant case regardless of the fact that this court has reestablished jurisdiction over the matter.

Imbek, J., not participating.

Special Justice Carol Dalby joins.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST GROWTH INVESTORS, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          10,703
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     45,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,679
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,679
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,075
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,362
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,679
<SALES>                                         87,938
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,938
<CGS>                                           70,268
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,268
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   913
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  70
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,687
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,905
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,782
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                          750
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,032
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.12


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

2003
INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN

OF REALTY
INCOME CORPORATION


 


This First
Amendment (“Amendment”) to The 2003 Incentive Award Plan of Realty Income
Corporation (the “Plan”) is made as of May 6, 2003 by Realty Income Corporation,
a Maryland corporation (the “Company”).


 


W I T N E S S E TH


 


WHEREAS, the Board of
Directors approved the Plan on March 12, 2003 and the Stockholders have
approved the Plan on May 6, 2003; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has
determined that it is appropriate and in the best interests of the Company to
amend the Plan as set forth herein;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
recitals, the Plan is hereby amended as set forth herein:


 


1.                                       Capitalized
terms used herein which are not otherwise defined herein but are defined in the
Plan shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Plan.


 


2.                                       Section
5.1 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and restated in its entirety
to read as follows:


 


“5.1.        Option Price.  The price per share of the shares subject to
each Option granted to Employees and Consultants shall be set by the Committee;
provided, however, that such price shall be no less than the Fair
Market Value of a share of Common Stock on the date the Options is granted.  In the case of Incentive Stock Options
granted to an individual then owning (within the meaning of Section 424(d) of
the Code) more than 10% of the total combined voting power of all classes of
stock of the Company or any Subsidiary or parent corporation thereof (within
the meaning of Section 422 of the Code), such price shall not be less than 110%
of the Fair Market Value of a share of Common Stock on the date the Option is
granted (or the date the Option is modified, extended or renewed for purposes
of Section 424(h) of the Code).
* 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. 98-60743 USDC Nos. 3:97-CV-60 & 4:93-CR-021-D

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
PERRY WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

- - - - - - - - - - December 13, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Perry Williams, federal prisoner # 09800-042, moves this court for a certificate of
appealability (COA) following the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to set aside

his sentence. This court issues a COA only if the prisoner makes a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Williams fails to make this necessary showing with

his claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the district court
misapplied the sentencing guidelines by imposing a three-level increase in his offense level based upon
his managerial role in the offense. Accordingly, Williams’ request for a COA is DENIED.

Williams’ contention that he is entitled to relief on authority of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) has

no merit. Therefore, the district court’s denial of relief on this claim is AFFIRMED.COA DENIED; DENIAL OF § 3582 RELIEF AFFIRMED.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-05-0092 - Proposed Rule:  National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources (RIN 3150-AH48)

Accession Number: ML051100211

Date Released: Tuesday, August 8, 2006

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML051100227 - SECY-05-0092 - Proposed Rule:  National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources (RIN 3150-AH48) (11 page(s), 5/18/2005)
    - ML051100240 - SECY-05-0092Atch 2 - Federal Register Notice re:  Proposed Rule:  National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources (RIN 3150-AH48) (58 page(s), 5/18/2005)
    - ML051100358 - SECY-05-0092Atch 3 - Draft Regulatory Analysis re:  Proposed Rule:  National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources (RIN 3150-AH48) (20 page(s), 4/28/2005)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
§ 4.51 Reporting requirements for individuals arriving by vessel. ( a ) *Arrival of vessel reported.* Individuals on vessels, which have reported their arrival to Customs in accordance with19 U.S.C. 1433 and § 4.2 of this part, shall remain on board until authorized by Customs to depart. Upon departing the vessel, such individuals shall immediately report to a designated Customs location together with all of their accompanying articles.
( b ) *Arrival of vessel not reported.* Individuals on vessels, which have not reported their arrival to Customs in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1433 and § 4.2 of this part, shall immediately notify Customs and report their arrival together with appropriate information regarding the vessel, and shall present themselves and their accompanying articles at a designated Customs location.
( c ) *Departure from designated Customs location.* Individuals required to report to designated Customs locations under this section shall not depart from such locations until authorized to do so by any appropriate Customs officer.
[T.D. 93-96, 58 FR 67316, Dec. 21, 1993]