alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000764843
<NAME> SCAN-GRAPHICS
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,903
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                        37
<INVENTORY>                                        877
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,002
<PP&E>                                           4,225
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,131
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,130
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,680
<COMMON>                                       (1,457)
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,130
<SALES>                                          1,728
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,728
<CGS>                                              795
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      795
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,767
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (30)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (804)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (804)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (945)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        




</TABLE>
#### § 600.1 Purpose.

This part implements the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, Pub. L. 95-224, as amended by Pub. L. 97-258 (31 U.S.C. 6301-6308), and establishes uniform policies and procedures for the award and administration of DOE grants and cooperative agreements. This subpart (Subpart A) sets forth the general policies and procedures applicable to the award and administration of grants, cooperative agreements, and technology investment agreements. The specific guidance for technology investment agreements is contained in part 603.

[61 FR 7166, Feb. 26, 1996, as amended at 70 FR 69253, Nov. 15, 2005]
PUBLIC LAW 109–350—OCT. 13, 2006 120 STAT. 1965

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5434:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Sept. 12, considered and passed House.

Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–350

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 40 South

Walnut Street in Chillicothe, Ohio, as the ‘‘Larry Cox Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LARRY COX POST OFFICE.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal

Service located at 40 South Walnut Street in Chillicothe, Ohio,

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Larry Cox Post Office’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference

to the ‘‘Larry Cox Post Office’’.

Approved October 13, 2006.

Oct. 13, 2006

[H.R. 5434]
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.805 Participation by interested persons. ( a ) In all rulemaking proceedings conducted under the provisions of § 2.804(a), the Commission will afford interested persons an opportunity to participate through the submission of statements, information, opinions, and arguments in the manner stated in the notice. The Commission may grant additional reasonable opportunity for the submission of comments.
( b ) The Commission may hold informal hearings at which interested persons may be heard, adopting procedures which in its judgment will best serve the purpose of the hearing.
[27 FR 377, Jan. 13, 1962, as amended at 50 FR 13010, Apr. 2, 1985; 50 FR 15865, Apr. 22, 1985]
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 795 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the exclusion for 

employer-provided educational assistance to employer payments of qualified education loans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2017 

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois (for himself, Mr. PETERS, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. 

POLIS, Mr. MACARTHUR, Ms. PINGREE, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. BEYER, Mr. SWALWELL of 

California, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. BLUM, Mr. NOLAN, Mr. YOUNG of Iowa, 

Mr. BUCSHON, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Mr. TED LIEU of California, Ms. 

KUSTER of New Hampshire, Mr. HIMES, Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania, 

and Ms. BROWNLEY of California) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance to employer payments of qualified education loans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Employer Participation 

5 in Student Loan Assistance Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 795 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYER PAYMENT OF QUALI2 FIED EDUCATION LOANS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 127(c)(1) of the Internal 

4 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

5 the end of subparagraph (A), by redesignating subpara6 graph (B) as subparagraph (C), and by inserting after 

7 subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph: 

8 ‘‘(B) the payment by an employer, whether 

9 paid to the employee or to a lender, of principal 

10 or interest on any qualified education loan (as 

11 defined in section 221(d)(1)) incurred by the 

12 employee, and’’. 

13 (b) DENIAL OF DOUBLE BENEFIT.—Section 

14 221(e)(1) of such Code is amended by inserting before the 

15 period at the end the following: ‘‘, or for any amount 

16 which is excludable from gross income under section 

17 127(c)(1)(B)’’. 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall apply to payments made by employers 

20 after December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRY DEESE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:06cv643-MHT

) 

CHAMPION ENTERPRISES, )

INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED as follows:

(1) The joint motion for extension of time (Doc. No.

50) is granted.

(2) The motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 43

and 45) are reset for submission, without oral

argument, on November 19, 2007, with plaintiff’s

response due by November 12, 2007, and

defendants’ reply due by November 19, 2007.

DONE, this the 2nd day of November, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 51 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 32
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 32 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 32.18 Manufacture, distribution and transfer of exempt quantities of byproduct material: Requirements for license. An application for a specific license to manufacture, process, produce, package, repackage, or transfer quantities of byproduct material for commercial distribution to persons exempt pursuant to § 30.18 of this chapter or the equivalent regulations of an Agreement State will be approved if: ( a ) The applicant satisfies the general requirements specified in § 30.33 of this chapter: *Provided, however,* That the requirements of § 30.33(a) (2) and (3) of this chapter do not apply to an application for a license to transfer byproduct material manufactured, processed, produced, packaged, or repackaged pursuant to a license issued by an Agreement State;
( b ) The byproduct material is not contained in any food, beverage, cosmetic, drug, or other commodity designed for ingestion or inhalation by, or application to, a human being;
( c ) The byproduct material is in the form of processed chemical elements, compounds, or mixtures, tissue samples, bioassay samples, counting standards, plated or encapsulated sources, or similar substances, identified as radioactive and to be used for its radioactive properties, but is not incorporated into any manufactured or assembled commodity, product, or device intended for commercial distribution; and
( d ) The applicant submits copies of prototype labels and brochures and the Commission approves such labels and brochures.
[35 FR 6428, Apr. 22, 1970, as amended at 43 FR 6922, Feb. 17, 1978]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7542-7543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3179]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Jersey, 
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of 
Columbia)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments,

[[Page 7543]]

ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, March 17, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Powers at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-
423-7977.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Wednesday, March 17, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone 
conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, 
notification of intent to participate must be made with Donna Powers. 
For more information please contact Mrs. Powers at 1-888-912-1227 or 
954-423-7977, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 
340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: February 4, 2010.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2010-3179 Filed 2-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
PGI 245.402-70 Policy.

Title vests in the Government for all property acquired or fabricated by the contractor in accordance

with paragraph (e)(3) of the clause at FAR 52.245-1, Government Property. Oversight and visibility

of contractor-acquired property (CAP) is accomplished through reviews and audits of contractor

business systems, including—

(1) Accounting systems (see DFARS 242.75);

(2) Property management systems (see DFARS 245.105); and

(3) Material management and accounting systems (see DFARS 242.72).

Parent topic: PGI 245.402 Title to contractor-acquired property.
#### In the Matter of George W. Miller, Appellant, v Geraldine Daniels et al., Respondents, and Frank X. Gargiulo et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 22, 1980, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals is granted and this court pursuant to CPLR 5713 states that questions of law have arisen which ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Fein, Ross and Bloom, JJ.
Case 3:06-cv-00777-MHT-TFM Document 5 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 1
PGI 213.104 Promoting competition.

For information on the various approaches that may be used to competitively fulfill DoD

requirements, see the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment

Guidelines for Creating and Maintaining a Competitive Environment for Supplies and Services in the

Department of Defense.

Parent topic: PGI 213.1 -PROCEDURES
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John L. Zippo, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 812]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr, J.), rendered April 4, 2005, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of *21fe*to 5 years. He appeals, asserting that the Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Act *(see*L 2004, ch 738), which was signed into law after he was arrested but before he was sentenced, should apply retroactively to his case pursuant to the amelioration doctrine enunciated in *People v Behlog*(74 NY2d 237 [1989]).

We disagree and affirm. The Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Act was intended to apply only in instances where the criminal conduct was committed on or subsequent to the effective date thereof *(see People v Ward,*27 AD3d 776, 778 [2006]; *People v Clinton,*22 AD3d 887, 888 [2005]; *see also People v Nelson, 21*AD.3d 861, 862 [2005], *lv granted*6 NY3d 757 [2005]). In view of this disposition, defendant’s contention that he should have been advised that he was eligible to be sentenced to a determinate sentence pursuant to the Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Act is meritless.

*1180Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 7542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3173]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public 
comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the 
Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, March 23, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Gilbert at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(515) 564-6638.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be held Tuesday, March 23, 2010, at 3 p.m. Eastern Time via 
telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or 
submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference 
lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Susan 
Gilbert. For more information please contact Ms. Gilbert at 1-888-912-
1227 or (515) 564-6638 or write: TAP Office, 210 Walnut Street, Stop 
5115, Des Moines, IA 50309 or contact us at the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: February 4, 2010.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2010-3173 Filed 2-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# Subpart 2116.1 - Selecting Contract Types

**Parent topic:**PART 2116 - TYPES OF CONTRACTS

## 2116.105 Solicitation provision.

FAR 16.105 has no practical application because the statutory provisions of 5 U.S.C. chapter 87 obviate the issuance of solicitations.
1645.303-70 Contract clause.

The clause set forth in section 1652.245–70 shall be inserted in all FEHB Program contracts.

Parent topic: Subpart 1645.3—Providing Equipment
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2210

DIAMOND FALLS ESTATES, LLC; SHIRLEY M. BUAFO; CHARLES K. 

BUAFO,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

NANTAHALA BANK & TRUST COMPANY,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

STEVE E. GRAVETT; EXCELL PARTNERS, LLC; JANE/JOHN DOES; LUXUR, 

INC.; REALTY ACQUISITIONS, LLC,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (2:14-cv-00007-MR-DLH)

Argued: March 21, 2017 Decided: April 7, 2017 

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

ARGUED: John Anthony Moore, MOORE LAW GROUP, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for 

Appellants. Esther Elizabeth Manheimer, VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM, Asheville, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael S. Rosier, ROSIER LAW FIRM, Lanham, 

Maryland, for Appellants. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

This case arises under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and involves a loan that 

the Appellants, Diamond Falls Estates, LLC, Shirley M. Buafo, and Charles K. Buafo,

obtained from Nantahala Bank & Trust Company (“Nantahala”) to develop a North 

Carolina property. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Nantahala on 

the Appellants’ claims and on Nantahala’s counterclaims.

Appellants present the following issues for our review: 

I. Whether the district court erred by granting Nantahala’s motion for 

summary judgment on the breach of contract claim;

II. Whether the district court erred by granting Nantahala’s motion for 

summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty and constructive 

fraud claims;

III. Whether the district court erred by granting Nantahala’s motion for 

summary judgment on the negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation 

claims; and

IV. Whether the district court erred by granting Nantahala’s motion for 

summary judgment on the unfair and deceptive trade practices claim.

Having had the benefit of full briefing and oral argument, and having fully 

considered the parties’ contentions, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court 

in its thorough memorandum opinion. Diamond Falls Estates, LLC v. Nantahala Bank & 

Trust Co., No. 2:14-cv-00007-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2015).

AFFIRMED
#### Edward R. Evans et al., v Robert Abrams.

for reargument denied with $20 costs. Petitioner is advised that this court will no longer deem telegrams as motions for reargument. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Lupiano and Bloom, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA BURKETT, Administratrix of the )

Estate of JEREMY BURKETT, deceased )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v ) 1: 06-CV-00775-DRB

)

TIMOTHY EUGENE McCRAY and )

S.E. LUMBER COMPANY )

)

Defendants. )

)

TIMOTHY EUGENE McCray )

)

Third-Party Plaintiff. )

)

V. )

)

SOUTHERN GENERAL INSURANCE )

COMPANY. )

)

Third-Party Defendant. )

MOTION TO STRIKE

COMES NOW the Third-Party Defendant, Southern General Insurance

Company and moves to strike Consent Motion and Agreement for Dismissal of

Uninsured Motorist Insurance Carrier without Prejudice filed in this Court on

November 30, 2006 and identified as Document 31. As grounds therefore, Southern

General Insurance Company states that the Third-Party Plaintiff and the Third-Party

Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 43 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 1 of 3
Defendant are simultaneous filing herewith a Motion to Dismissal with Prejudice in

the stead of and to replace the previously filed Consent Motion and Agreement for

Dismissal of Uninsured Motorist Insurance Carrier without Prejudice. 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/Cindy L. Self 

Cindy L. Self (SEL035)

Attorney for Southern General Ins. Co.

OF COUNSEL:

LAMAR, MILLER, NORRIS, HAGGARD & CHRISTIE, P.C.

501 Riverchase Parkway East

Suite 100

Birmingham, Alabama 35244

(205) 326-0000

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 8, 2006 I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing

to the following: 

David Woodham Rousseau, Esq. 

211 W Adams Street

Dothan, AL 36303-4401

rousseaulaw@graceba.net

David Jerome Harrison 

PO Box 994 

Geneva, AL 36340 

davidjharrison@centurytel.net

Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 43 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 2 of 3
Christoffer Peter Bolvig, III 

Hall Conerly & Bolvig PC 

1400 Financial Center

505 North 20th Street 

Birmingham, AL 35203-2626

peter.bolvig@hallconerly.com

Bill Mudd, Esq. 

505 20 Street North th

Birmingham, AL 35203

billmudd@mhsolaw.com

Randolph H. Phillips, Esq. 

609 Pine Avenue

P.O. Box 2303

Albany, GA 31702

rhplaw@bellsouth.net

Tommy Ray Scarbrough, Esq. 

119 S Foster Street

Suite 101

Dothan, AL 36301

trsllc@graceba.net

s/ Cindy L. Self

Of counsel

Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 43 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 3 of 3
H. Res. 269

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 12, 2005.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 1544) to provide faster and smarter funding

for first responders, and for other purposes. The first reading

of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Homeland Security. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under

the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an

original bill for the purpose of amendment under the fiveminute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security now

printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature

of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
2

•HRES 269 EH

against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII,

no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of

substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report

of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.

Each such amendment may be offered only in the order

printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not

be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the

Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such

amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have

been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in

the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of

the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the

nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
3

•HRES 269 EH

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.