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

No. 6721.]

#### GEORGE C. VAAGEN et al., Appellants, v. PETER P. JUDT, as County Auditor of Dunn County, North Dakota, a Public Corporation, et al., Respondents, and THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Doing Business as the Bank of North Dakota, Intervener and Respondent.

(296 N. W. 519.)

Opinion filed February 11, 1941.

*Simpson, Macho jf & Kellogg,*for appellants.

*C. F. Kelsch,*Assistant Attorney General, and *H. L, Malloy,*State’s Attorney, for respondents.

*Robert Birdzell,*for intervener and respondent.

Morris, J.

This is a proceeding instituted by thirty-five petitioners to secure relief from alleged excessive tax assessments. A petition was filed pursuant to the provisions of chapter 225, N. D. Session Laws 1939 with the board of county commissioners of Dunn county, North Dakota. From the denial of the petition, the petitioners appealed to the district court where the action of the county board was upheld and the petition again denied.

The court found that the petitioners established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the values of their property were 40 to 50 per cent less than the assessed valuations, but did not prove that their property was assessed higher than the like property in the same taxing *557district, and also failed to prove any substantial discrimination between values placed upon their land for purposes of taxation and values placed upon other properties of taxpayers similarly situated within the same taxing district. The court then reached the conclusion “That chapter 225 of the 1939 Session Laws, in so far as it authorizes the reduction or abatement of valuations and tax charges based thereon as the same have been fixed by the assessors and equalized by the county and state boards of equalization, without proof that such valuations and taxes are substantially discriminatory, is unconstitutional and void in that it violates the uniformity and equality clause contained in § 176 of the state Constitution.”

The trial court was further of the opinion that the law in question does provide a remedy in exceptional cases where property has been assessed for an amount in excess of other like property in the county. The petitioners showed no discrimination against them, but having only shown that their property has been assessed for substantially more than its true value, were denied relief in accordance with the trial court’s construction of the statute.

The identical questions presented in this case were decided by us in Werner v. Riebe, ante, 533, 296 N. W. 422. This case is controlled by that decision, in which we held that the statute afforded relief against assessments made substantially in excess of the true value without it being shown that the overassessments were discriminatory. We also held that the act as thus construed did not violate the equality and uniformity provisions of § 176 of the North Dakota Constitution. Upon the authority of that decision, the judgment in this case is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings conformable to law.

Burr, Oh. J., and Christianson, Nuessle, and Burke, JJ., concur.
#### Hulda Hensel, appellee, v. Metropolitan West Side Elevated Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,678.

Suit for damages for personal injuries sustained in train collision. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Marcus Kavanagh, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed June 20, 1923.

Addison L. Gardner and Carroll H. Jones, for appellant. H. A. Earnhardt and Clinton A. Stafford, for appellee.

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2760 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2760

    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require the 
   preparation of audit reports based upon the financial auditing of 
Medicare Advantage organizations and to make such reports available to 
                              the public.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2005

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require the 
   preparation of audit reports based upon the financial auditing of 
Medicare Advantage organizations and to make such reports available to 
                              the public.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Advantage Audit Reports 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PREPARATION AND AVAILABILITY OF AUDIT REPORTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1857(d)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395w-27(d)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
        following:
                    ``(A) In general.--The Secretary''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(B) Audit reports.--Upon completion of each audit 
                under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall prepare and 
                make available an audit report stating the analysis and 
                conclusions of the Secretary regarding such audit. Each 
                audit report shall include a detailed summary of the 
                financial information upon which the analysis and 
                conclusions of the Secretary are based, including the 
                data referred to in subparagraph (A). Section 552(b)(4) 
                of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply to any 
                audit report prepared under this subparagraph.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to any audit completed after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          13,745
<SECURITIES>                                    77,446
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,588
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,505
<PP&E>                                          56,804
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,136
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,768
<BONDS>                                         14,941
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       454,843
<OTHER-SE>                                   (353,416)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,136
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,993
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,713
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               104,439
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (106,146)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (106,146)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (106,146)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.95)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Norman E. Hurwitz et al., Respondents, v Board of Assessors of the Town of Mendon, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Order unanimously affirmed. Same memorandum as in *Allen v Board of Assessors*(57 AD2d 1036). (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court — Real Property Tax Law, art 7.) Present — Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.
#### Top Hat Car Wash Co., Inc., et al., Respondents, v Charles McDonly et al., Appellants.

[716 NYS2d 83]

—In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs have a prescriptive easement over a certain portion of the defendants’ real property, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated November 1, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted those branches of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which were for summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought (1) a declaration that the plaintiffs have a prescriptive easement over a certain portion of the defendants’ real property for the benefit of the plaintiffs’ parcel of real property, (2) a permanent injunction, *inter alia,*enjoining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ use of the easement, and (3) a directive that the defendants remove all obstructions to the easement.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof declaring that the plaintiffs have a prescriptive easement appurtenant and substituting therefor a provision declaring that the plaintiffs have a prescriptive easement in gross; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs have a prescriptive easement in gross over the subject portion of the defendant’s real property.

The defendants’ argument that use of the subject parcel is *311not exclusive to the plaintiffs is insufficient to rebut the presumption of adversity *(see, Pirman v Confer,*273 NY 357; *see also, Reed v Piedimonte,*138 AD2d 937). Moreover, the defendants’ claim that an adjoining landowner who never objected to the plaintiffs’ use of the land is a necessary party to the action is without merit *(see, Cannon v Sikora,*142 AD2d 662).

However, since the easement sought in this case is for the benefit of the plaintiffs’ business, as opposed to their real property, a prescriptive easement in gross should be declared *(see, Bova v Vinciguerra,*184 AD2d 934). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
### §5792a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 108–21, title III, §363, Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 666, was editorially reclassified and is set out in a note under section 3101 of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works.
DESCRIPTION OF THE CHAIRMAN’S SECOND MODIFICATION 

TO THE CHAIRMAN’S MARK OF A BILL TO 

PREVENT IDENTITY THEFT AND TAX REFUND FRAUD 

Scheduled for Markup 

Before the 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

on April 20, 2016 

Prepared by the Staff 

of the 

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION 

April 18, 2016 

JCX-28-16 
i 

CONTENTS 

Page

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

A. Deletion from the Chairman’s Mark ................................................................................... 2

1. Provide that the Department of the Treasury and the IRS have authority to 

 regulate all paid tax return preparers ............................................................................ 2 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

The Senate Committee on Finance has scheduled a markup of a proposal to prevent 

identity theft and tax refund fraud.1 This document,2 prepared by the staff of the Joint 

Committee on Taxation, provides a description of a proposal removed from the Chairman’s 

Mark. 

 

 

1

 Unless otherwise stated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 

2

 This document may be cited as follows: Joint Committee on Taxation, Description of the Chairman’s 

Second Modification to the Chairman’s Mark of a Bill to Prevent Identity Theft and Tax Refund Fraud (JCX-28-16), 

April 18, 2016. This document can also be found on the Joint Committee on Taxation website at www.jct.gov. 
2 

A. Deletion from the Chairman’s Mark 

1. Provide that the Department of the Treasury and the IRS have authority to regulate all 

paid tax return preparers 

The Chairman’s modification removes the proposal to provide the Department of the 

Treasury and the IRS the authority to regulate all paid tax return preparers.
### §5508. Program of applied research by Secretary of Energy for improvement and development of heating systems for commercial application; transmission of results to Secretary and Administrator

(a) The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a program of applied research relevant to (1) the improvement of solar heating components and systems and (2) the development and commercial application of combined solar heating and cooling components and systems as contemplated by the programs under this subchapter.

(b) The Secretary of Energy shall apprise the Secretary and the Administrator on a continuing basis of the results of the programs being conducted in accordance with subsection (a), and the Secretary and the Administrator shall insure that such results, where appropriate, are incorporated into the development and demonstration programs established by this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 93–409, §10, Sept. 3, 1974, 88 Stat. 1074; Pub. L. 93–438, title I, §104(f), title III, §301(h), Oct. 11, 1974, 88 Stat. 1238, 1250; Pub. L. 95–91, title III, §301(a), title VII, §§703, 707, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 577, 606, 607.)

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

#### Transfer of Functions

"Secretary of Energy" substituted in text for "Director", meaning Director of National Science Foundation, pursuant to sections 104(f) and 301(h) of Pub. L. 93–438, which are classified to sections 5814(f) and 5871(h) of this title and which transferred functions of National Science Foundation relating to or utilized in connection with solar heating and cooling development to Administrator of Energy Research and Development Administration, and pursuant to sections 301(a), 703, and 707 of Pub. L. 95–91, which are classified to sections 7151(a), 7293, and 7297 of this title and which terminated Energy Research and Development Administration and transferred its functions and functions of Administrator thereof (with certain exceptions) to Secretary of Energy.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BARRY J. PORTMAN

Federal Public Defender

SHAWN HALBERT

Assistant Federal Public Defender

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7700

Counsel for Defendant STEVEN ADAMS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVEN ADAMS

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR Nos. 09-0783 MMC and 01-0251 MMC

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CONTINUING STATUS DATE FROM JUNE

2, 2010 TO JUNE 16, 2010 AND

EXCLUDING TIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3161

The parties are scheduled to appear before this Court on June 2, 2010 as a status date after

the preparation of a competency report, which was due on May 19, 2010. The parties understand

that the report will be completed on approximately May 28, 2010. Undersigned defense counsel

will be out of the office for professional reasons June 2 - 4, 2010. In order to give defense

counsel sufficient time to review the competency report and meet with Mr. Adams at Santa Rita

Jail prior to the next court appearance, the defense respectfully requests that the matter be

continued to June 16, 2010. The government has no objection to this request. 

The parties also agree that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A), the time between June 2,

2010 and June 16, 2010 should be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, as it is encompassed

within the period of time prior to the Court’s entry of an order regarding Mr. Adams’ 

/ / /

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER

CR Nos. 09-0783 MMC and 01-0251 MMC 1

Case 3:09-cr-00783-MMC Document 34 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

competency. 

SO STIPULATED:

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO 

United States Attorney

DATED: May 20, 2010 /s/ 

BRIAN LEWIS

Assistant United States Attorney 

DATED: May 20, 2010 /s/ 

SHAWN HALBERT

Assistant Federal Public Defender

ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby continues the next hearing before this court

from June 2, 2010 to June 16, 2010. It is further ordered that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(1)(A), the time between June 2, 2010 and June 16, 2010 should be excluded under the

Speedy Trial Act, as it is encompassed within the period of time prior to the Court’s entry of an

order regarding Mr. Adams’ competency. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED:______________ _______________________________________

 THE HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER

CR Nos. 09-0783 MMC and 01-0251 MMC 2

May 21, 2010

Case 3:09-cr-00783-MMC Document 34 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 1000.9 How is negotiated rulemaking conducted when promulgating NAHASDA regulations? The negotiated rulemaking procedures and requirements set out in section 106(b) of NAHASDA shall be conducted as follows: ( a ) *Committee membership.* In forming a negotiated rulemaking committee, HUD shall appoint as committee members representatives of the Federal Government and representatives of diverse tribes and program recipients.
( b ) *Initiation of rulemaking.* HUD shall initiate a negotiated rulemaking not later than 90 days after the enactment of any act to reauthorize or significantly amend NAHASDA.
( c ) *Work groups.* Negotiated rulemaking committees may form workgroups made up of committee members and other interested parties to meet during committee sessions and between sessions to develop specific rulemaking proposals for committee consideration.
( d ) *Further review.* Negotiated rulemaking committees shall provide recommended rules to HUD. Once rules are proposed by HUD, they shall be published for comment in the Federal Register. Any comments will be further reviewed by the committee and HUD before HUD determines if the rule or rules will be adopted.
[77 FR 71521, Dec. 3, 2012]
§ 1000.412 Can an issuer obtain a guarantee for more than one note or other obligation at a time? Yes. To obtain multiple guarantees, the issuer shall demonstrate that: ( a ) The issuer will not exceed a total for all notes or other obligations in an amount equal to five times its grant amount, excluding any amount no longer owed on existing notes or other obligations; and
( b ) Issuance of additional notes or other obligations is within the financial capacity of the issuer.
### §7423. Stack heights

#### (a) Heights in excess of good engineering practice; other dispersion techniques

The degree of emission limitation required for control of any air pollutant under an applicable implementation plan under this subchapter shall not be affected in any manner by—

(1) so much of the stack height of any source as exceeds good engineering practice (as determined under regulations promulgated by the Administrator), or

(2) any other dispersion technique.

The preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to stack heights in existence before December 31, 1970, or dispersion techniques implemented before such date. In establishing an emission limitation for coal-fired steam electric generating units which are subject to the provisions of section 7418 of this title and which commenced operation before July 1, 1957, the effect of the entire stack height of stacks for which a construction contract was awarded before February 8, 1974, may be taken into account.

#### (b) Dispersion technique

For the purpose of this section, the term "dispersion technique" includes any intermittent or supplemental control of air pollutants varying with atmospheric conditions.

#### (c) Regulations; good engineering practice

Not later than six months after August 7, 1977, the Administrator, shall after notice and opportunity for public hearing, promulgate regulations to carry out this section. For purposes of this section, good engineering practice means, with respect to stack heights, the height necessary to insure that emissions from the stack do not result in excessive concentrations of any air pollutant in the immediate vicinity of the source as a result of atmospheric downwash, eddies and wakes which may be created by the source itself, nearby structures or nearby terrain obstacles (as determined by the Administrator). For purposes of this section such height shall not exceed two and a half times the height of such source unless the owner or operator of the source demonstrates, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that a greater height is necessary as provided under the preceding sentence. In no event may the Administrator prohibit any increase in any stack height or restrict in any manner the stack height of any source.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title I, §123, as added Pub. L. 95–95, title I, §121, Aug. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 721.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Aug. 7, 1977, except as otherwise expressly provided, see section 406(d) of Pub. L. 95–95, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 7401 of this title.
#### Kitty Suderov et al., v. Ætna Insurance Company.

Motion for reargument denied but motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Settle order on notice. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
### §6101. Statement of purpose

It is the purpose of this chapter to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance.

(Pub. L. 94–135, title III, §302, Nov. 28, 1975, 89 Stat. 728; Pub. L. 95–478, title IV, §401(a), Oct. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 1555; Pub. L. 99–272, title XIV, §14001(b)(4), Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 329.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–272 struck out ", including programs or activities receiving funds under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 (31 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.)" after "Federal financial assistance".

1978—Pub. L. 95–478 struck out "unreasonable" before "discrimination".

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

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–272 effective Oct. 18, 1986, see section 14001(e) of Pub. L. 99–272, title XIV, Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 329.

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–478 effective at the close of Sept. 30, 1978, see section 504 of Pub. L. 95–478, set out as a note under section 3001 of this title.

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 94–135, title III, §301, Nov. 28, 1975, 89 Stat. 728, provided that: "The provisions of this title [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'Age Discrimination Act of 1975'."