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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3108 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3108

               To suspend temporarily the duty on CMBSI.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

 Mr. Reid (for Mr. Rockefeller (for himself and Mr. Byrd)) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                               on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To suspend temporarily the duty on CMBSI.

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

SECTION 1. CMBSI.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.09.03      2-                  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (isocyanatosulfon                                                  31/2009
                         yl)-benzoic acid,
                         methyl ester
                         (CMBSI) (CAS No.
                         64900-65-8)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2930.90.29)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Subpart 204.1 - CONTRACT EXECUTION

Parent topic: Part 204 - ADMINISTRATIVE AND INFORMATION MATTERS

204.101 Contracting officer's signature.

Follow the procedures at PGI 204.101 for signature of contract documents.
§ 789.61 Appeals. ( a ) Any person whose request for adjustment or exception has been denied by the Farm Service Agency Deputy Administrator for Management as specified in § 789.60, may appeal to the Farm Service Agency Administrator who will review and reconsider the denial.
( b ) A person must submit the appeal in writing to the Farm Service Agency Administrator as follows: ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, an appeal must be received by the Farm Service Agency Administrator no later than 45 days after receipt of a written notice of denial from the Farm Service Agency Deputy Administrator for Management. After the 45-day period, an appeal may be accepted at the discretion of the Farm Service Agency Administrator if the person shows good cause.
( 2 ) For requests for adjustment or exception involving rated orders placed for the purpose of emergency preparedness (see § 789.13(e)), an appeal must be received by the Farm Service Agency Administrator no later than 15 days after receipt of a written notice of denial from the Farm Service Agency Deputy Administrator for Management.
( c ) Contract performance under the order may not be stayed pending resolution of the appeal.
( d ) Each appeal must be in writing and contain a complete statement of all the facts and circumstances related to the appealed action and a full and precise statement of the reasons the decision should be modified or reversed.
( e ) In addition to the written materials submitted in support of an appeal, an appellant may request, in writing, an opportunity for an informal hearing. This request may be granted or denied at the discretion of the Farm Service Agency Administrator.
( f ) When a hearing is granted, the Farm Service Agency Administrator may designate an employee of the Farm Service Agency to conduct the hearing and to prepare a report. The hearing officer will determine all procedural questions and impose such time or other limitations deemed reasonable. If the hearing officer decides that a printed transcript is necessary, the transcript expenses must be paid by the appellant.
( g ) When determining an appeal, the Farm Service Agency Administrator may consider all information submitted during the appeal as well as any recommendations, reports, or other relevant information and documents available to USDA, or consult with any other person or group.
( h ) The submission of an appeal under this section will not relieve any person from the obligation of complying with the provision of this part or official action in question while the appeal is being considered unless such relief is granted in writing by the Farm Service Agency Administrator.
( i ) The decision of the Farm Service Agency Administrator will be made within 5 days after receipt of the appeal, or within 1 day for appeals pertaining to emergency preparedness, and will be the final administrative action. The Administrator will issue a written statement of the reasons for the decision to the appellant.
§ 550.100 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* This part adopts the OMB guidance in subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 200, as supplemented by this part, as REE policies and procedures for non-assistance cooperative agreements executed under the authority of Section 1472(b) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C 3318(b)). It thereby makes applicable for REE non-assistance cooperative agreements the OMB guidance, as supplemented by this part.
( b ) *Scope.* The REE Agencies subject to this rule include ARS, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Economics Research Service (ERS), and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). These agreements are neither procurement nor assistance in nature, and therefore, are not subject to the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreements Act of 1977.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Eddie Canterbury, ChiefExecutive Officer, certify that: 

 

1.          Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Logan County BancShares,Inc.;

 

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

 

3.          Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

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

 

(a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

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

 

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

 

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:  November 11, 2004 | /s/ Eddie  Canterbury    |   |
|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                     | Eddie  Canterbury,       |
|                     | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York, Respondent, v. Louis Klamer, Appellant.

Order entered June 23, 1966, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the first cause of action as time barred, unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide, the event. Special Term, in denying the aforesaid motion held that “ There is an issue respecting the date when the policy became effective and the period of plaintiff’s total disability.” While the policy provides that it *“*shall not be in force unless and until the full first Policy Premium has been paid”, the application for such policy, which is incorporated by reference into the policy provides that upon the payment of such premium “the policy will take effect as of the Policy Date”. Consequently, we are obliged to hold that there is no triable issue as to when the policy became effective, and we hold as a matter of law that the policy became effective as of the issue date of January 13, 1964. However, the first cause of action cannot be dismissed as time barred since, while the policy provides that it shall be incontestable after it has been in force for a period of two years, it also excludes from the computation of such period any period during which the insured is totally disabled. There is a triable issue in that respect, inasmuch as the extent of the period during which the defendant was disabled has not been sufficiently established. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.
Case 3:20-cv-05943-TKW-MJF   Document 1   Filed 11/17/20   Page 1 of 11

Case 3:20-cv-05943-TKW-MJF   Document 1   Filed 11/17/20   Page 2 of 11

Case 3:20-cv-05943-TKW-MJF   Document 1   Filed 11/17/20   Page 3 of 11

Case 3:20-cv-05943-TKW-MJF   Document 1   Filed 11/17/20   Page 4 of 11

Case 3:20-cv-05943-TKW-MJF   Document 1   Filed 11/17/20   Page 5 of 11

Case 3:20-cv-05943-TKW-MJF   Document 1   Filed 11/17/20   Page 6 of 11

Case 3:20-cv-05943-TKW-MJF   Document 1   Filed 11/17/20   Page 7 of 11

Case 3:20-cv-05943-TKW-MJF   Document 1   Filed 11/17/20   Page 8 of 11

Case 3:20-cv-05943-TKW-MJF   Document 1   Filed 11/17/20   Page 9 of 11

Case 3:20-cv-05943-TKW-MJF   Document 1   Filed 11/17/20   Page 10 of 11

Case 3:20-cv-05943-TKW-MJF   Document 1   Filed 11/17/20   Page 11 of 11
#### C. LUDWIG BAUMANN & CO., BROOKLYN, v. BAUMANN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 26, 1914.)

Action by C. Ludwig Baumann & Co., Brooklyn, against Amelia Baumann and others.

No opinion. Motion for stay granted. See Socialistic Co-op. Pub. Ass'n v. Kuhn, 164 N. Y. 473, 58 N. E. 649.
§ 766.303 Processing loan servicing requests from borrowers in bankruptcy. ( a ) *Considering borrower requests for servicing.* Any request for servicing is the borrower's acknowledgment that the Agency will not interfere with any rights or protections under the Bankruptcy Code and its automatic stay provisions.
( b ) *Borrowers with confirmed bankruptcy plans.* If a plan is confirmed before servicing and any appeal is completed under 7 CFR part 11, the Agency will complete the servicing or appeals process and may consent to a post-confirmation modification of the plan if it is consistent with the Bankruptcy Code and subpart C of this part, as appropriate.
( c ) *Chapter 7 borrowers.* A borrower filing for bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code may not receive primary loan servicing unless the borrower reaffirms the entire FLP debt. A borrower who filed chapter 7 does not have to reaffirm the debt in order to be considered for homestead protection.
Case 2:06-cv-00616-MHT-SRW Document 13-2 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00616-MHT-SRW Document 13-2 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 2 of 2
§ 66.202 Standards for consideration. In evaluating a request or petition, the Administrator must apply the applicable standards described in this section. ( a ) The requested factor or condition is within the scope of the definition of “bioengineering” in 7 U.S.C. 1639(1).
( b ) The Administrator must evaluate the difficulty and cost of implementation and compliance related to the requested factor or condition.
( c ) The Administrator may consider other relevant information, including whether the requested factor or condition is compatible with the food labeling requirements of other agencies or countries, as part of the evaluation.
Case 2:06-cv-00621-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00621-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00621-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 3 of 3
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 13, 2022

No. 04-21-00461-CR

D’Andria BALDERRAMA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR6542

Honorable Melisa C. Skinner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Appellant’s brief was first due on March 9, 2022. After this court’s granted Appellant’s 

first, second, third, and fourth motions for extensions of time to file the brief, Appellant’s brief 

was due on July 8, 2022. On that date, Appellant moved for an additional ten days to file the 

brief. 

Appellant’s motion is granted. We order Appellant to file the brief on July 18, 2022.

No further extensions of time to file Appellant’s brief will be granted. If Appellant 

fails to file the brief as ordered, we will abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court 

to conduct a hearing and make appropriate findings and recommendations. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(b)(2), (3).

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of July, 2022.

_________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
#### Servomation Corp., Appellant, v State Tax Commission, Respondent.

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered May 21, 1979 in Albany County, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment granted, with costs *(Matter of Burger King*v *State Tax Comm.,*70 AD2d 447). Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur. [99 Misc 2d 570.]
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.28
	
			
	




	

CDW Limited
10 Fleet Place
London, England EC4M 7RB


	











February 12, 2018




Re: Tax Equalization 


Collin Kebo
Via Email


Dear Collin:


In connection with your job-split assignment with CDW Limited in London, U.K. from February 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “Assignment”), this letter agreement confirms that CDW’s tax equalization policy (the “Policy”) applies to employment income related to this Assignment.  


The aim of the Policy is to maintain, insofar as possible, the same or similar tax obligation for you with respect to income related to the Assignment as would have been incurred had you remained in your home country.  Please note that the Policy does not apply to rental income that you may have received by virtue of renting your home property; you will be held responsible for any home and/or host taxes on this income.


Under the Policy, a calculation of the estimated taxes you would have paid had you not accepted the Assignment, commonly referred to as “hypothetical tax,” will be calculated and withheld from the pay you receive in relation to your Assignment.  Actual “social” taxes (e.g., U.S. Social Security and Medicare) will continue to be withheld.


A tax preparation service will be provided to you for both your U.S. and U.K. tax returns relating to the Assignment by CDW’s designated tax services provider, including on account of trailing cross-border tax considerations.  It is a requirement to use CDW’s designated tax services provider for tax preparation services.


The original hypothetical tax calculation is an estimate.  Therefore, a reconciliation calculation will be completed each year, along with your U.S. tax return, to determine the final hypothetical tax liability that you would be responsible for had you not gone on the Assignment.  This calculation is referred to as your tax equalization calculation and will be prepared for you by CDW’s designated tax services provider.


You are required to offer such assistance and co-operation as may be reasonably requested in connection with dealing with the tax aspects of the Assignment.  


This letter agreement supersedes in its entirety your assignment letter agreement with CDW Limited (formerly Kelway Limited) dated as of January 8, 2016.  Please sign in the space indicated below to indicate your understanding of the terms of the Policy outlined in this letter agreement.


Sincerely,











	
		
	   CDW Limited 


   By:   /s/ Daniel A. Laws     


   Name: Daniel A. Laws


   Title: Managing Director


   Date: February 12, 2018
	Accepted and Agreed:


By:   /s/ Collin B. Kebo     


Name: Collin B. Kebo


Title: Sr. Vice President & Chief Financial Officer,  CDW Corporation


Date: February 12, 2018
#### § 900.309 Confidential information.

The ballots cast, the identity of any person who voted, or the manner in which any person voted and all information furnished to, compiled by, or in the possession of the referendum agent, shall be regarded as confidential.
#### Joseph A. Doyle, Respondent, v. Walter H. Jennings et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously reversed, defendants’ motions granted and judgments entered in favor of defendants dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, -without costs. Memorandum: As the result of injuries sustained'in an automobile accident which occurred on the employer’s parking lot, plaintiff commenced suit against two coemployees. Appellants correctly contend that plaintiff’s injuries were sustained while the parties were acting in the course of their employment- and have properly pleaded and proved their defense under subdivision 6 of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law which provides that the right to compensation thereunder *“*shall be the exclusive remedy to an employee * * * when such employee is injured * * * by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ ”. In presenting their respective motions, the parties relied on the testimony given by each of them at examinations before trial as well as on the pleadings. While the undisputed proof is -that the accident occurred upon the employer’s premises as plaintiff was about to leave therefrom, he would have us resort, nevertheless, to the theory that there had been a deviation from his employment by his act in leaving for a few moments to advise his daughter that he would ride home with -the defendant Jennings. There was, however, no such deviation as to remove him from the provisions of the act. The accident occurred 10 minutes after the parties ceased work. In *Roberts*v. *Gagnon*(1 A D 2d 297) plaintiff was struck by an automobile operated by a coemployee upon the employer’s premises, as both were -about to leave, some 40 minutes after finishing work; and the court held a similar affirmative defense was a bar to *609the negligence action basing its conclusion on the well-established principle that while on the employer’s premises, the act of an employee going to and coming from work is considered an incident of the employment. (1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 15.11). Here the plaintiff was in the act of leaving his employment at the end of his work day. The course of employment is not limited to activities in the running of machines or one’s regular labor nor is it confined to the exact hours of work. Upon the facts presented, the situs of the accident and resulting injuries occurred within the precincts of employment (e.g., *Matter of Singer*v. *Rich Mar. Sales, 25*A D 2d 801) and plaintiff is, therefore, limited to the workmen’s compensation benefits and cannot maintain this action against his fellow employees. *(Malinka*v. *Mugavero, 27*A D 2d 691.) (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term, denying motions to dismiss complaint, dismissing affirmative defenses.) Present—Del Veeehio, J. P., Marsh, G-abrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/11/2003 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/11/2003 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/11/2003 Page 3 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-00627-WKW-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00627-WKW-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 2 of 2