alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WHITE TOOL AND MACHINE COMPANY (81-1162), Petitioner-Appellant, Roger S. White and Elaine J. White; Stephen White and Elaine D. White; Gary R. White and Kathryn M. White, (81-1169), Petitioners-Appellees, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee (81-1162), Respondent-Appellant (81-1169).

Nos. 81-1162, 81-1169.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued April 28, 1982.

Decided May 5, 1982.

James D. O’Connell, Highland Park, Mich., for petitioners.

N. Jerold Cohen, Chief Counsel, Emory L. Langdon, Acting Chief Counsel, Washington, D. C., John F. Murray, Michael L. Paup, Acting Asst. Attys. Gen., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Ann Belanger Durney, R. Russell Mather, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

*529Before LIVELY, KEITH and MERRITT, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The taxpayer, White Tool and Machine Company, has appealed from a decision of the United States Tax Court, and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has filed a cross-appeal directed to one issue decided by the Tax Court. In this case deficiencies were assessed against White Tool and Machine Company for the years 1973 and 1974 on the basis of a reallocation of income and deductions among three corporations owned and controlled by the same group of individuals. *See*26 U.S.C. § 482. The shareholders in White Tool and Machine Company are also the only shareholders in White Charter Services, Inc. and White & Sons Rental, Inc. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 482 the Commissioner determined that the rents paid by White Tool and Machine Company to White & Sons Rental, Inc. and White Charter Services, Inc. for the use of equipment, vehicles and an airplane were excessive. The Commissioner also allocated interest income and deductions attributable to non-interest bearing promissory notes given by White & Sons Rental, Inc. to White Tool and Machine Company and by Stephen White to White & Sons Rental, Inc.

Upon consideration of the briefs and oral arguments of counsel together with the record on appeal this court concludes that the findings of fact made by the Tax Court are not clearly erroneous. Counsel for White Tool and Machine Company argued that if there had been a single corporation and the same payments had been made the net income of the three corporations would have been identical to that of the single corporation. However, separate corporations were established by the shareholders and, based on the factual findings of the Tax Court, the allocations made by the Commissioner were permitted by Section 482. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Tax Court on the appeal of White Tool and Machine Company.

The Commissioner appeals from the Tax Court’s denial of his treatment of the rents allocated to White Tool and Machine Company under Section 482 as constructive dividends under 26 U.S.C. §§ 301 and 316 to three of the shareholders of White Tool and Machine Company. Upon review of the record this court concludes that the Tax Court was not required to treat these reallocated funds as constructive dividends, and accordingly, the decision of the Tax Court is affirmed on cross-appeal.
Editorial Note on Part 137
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 137 appear at 63 FR 14035, Mar. 24, 1998.

§ 137.260 Enriched corn meals. ( a ) Enriched corn meals are the foods, each of which conforms to the definition and standard of identity prescribed for a kind of corn meal by §§ 137.250, 137.255, 137.265, 137.270, 137.275, 137.280, 137.285, and 137.290, except that: ( 1 ) It contains in each pound not less than 2.0 milligrams (mg) and not more than 3.0 mg of thiamin, not less than 1.2 mg and not more than 1.8 mg of riboflavin, not less than 16 mg and not more than 24 mg of niacin or niacinamide, not less than 0.7 mg and not more than 1.0 mg of folic acid, and not less than 13 mg and not more than 26 mg of iron (Fe);
( 2 ) It may contain in each pound not less than 250 U.S.P. units and not more than 1,000 U.S.P. units of vitamin D; and
( 3 ) It may contain in each pound not less than 500 milligrams and not more than 750 milligrams of calcium (Ca); *Provided, however,* That enriched self-rising corn meals shall contain in each pound not more than 1,750 milligrams of calcium (Ca). Iron and calcium may be added only in forms which are harmless and assimilable. The substances referred to in this paragraph (a)(3) and in paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section may be added in a harmless carrier which does not impair the enriched corn meal; such carrier is used only in the quantity necessary to effect an intimate and uniform admixture of such substances with the kind of corn meal used. Dried yeast in quantities not exceeding 1.5 percent by weight of the finished food may be used.
( b ) The name of each kind of enriched corn meal is the word “Enriched” followed by the name of the kind of corn meal used which is prescribed in the definition and standard of identity therefor.
( c ) *Label declaration.* Each of the ingredients used in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130 of this chapter.
[42 FR 14402, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 58 FR 2878, Jan. 6, 1993; 61 FR 8796, Mar. 5, 1996]
38237.

#### HANEY v. BROWNLEE.

Townsend, Judge.

Brownlee sued Haney in the City Court of Gwinnett County on a promissory note. The defendant filed an answer and cross-action, all of which was stricken on motion of counsel for the plaintiff by the trial court, to which judgment there is no exception. After striking the defensive pleadings, the trial court entered judgment in the liquidated amount of the note. The defendant filed a motion for new trial on the general grounds which was later amended by the addition of three special grounds. The first of these contends that the pleadings and facts demand a verdict for the defendant as a matter of law; the second contends that the pleadings and facts set forth issues which should have been submitted to a jury, and that the trial court erred in *425dismissing the defendant’s plea and answer and rendering judgment for the plaintiff, and the third contends that since the defensive pleadings and cross-action of the defendant were meritorious the trial court erred in striking them. There being no evidence, there is no brief of evidence and the only exception in the bill of exceptions is to the judgment denying the motion for new trial as amended.

Decided September 23, 1960.

*Merritt & Pruitt, J. Ray Merritt, Dudley 8. Hancock,*for plaintiff in error.

*Allison, Pittard & Webb, Chas. C. Pittard, Jones Webb,*contra.

1. Where an action based upon a liquidated demand is in default, judgment may be entered in favor of the plaintiff without the introduction of evidence. *Code Ann.*§ 110-401; *Nix v. Luke,*96 Ga. App. 123 (1) (99 S. E. 2d 446).

2. Where, although certain defenses were interposed to the action, they were stricken on motion and no exception taken to such judgment, it becomes the law of the case that the defenses were properly stricken. *Baker v. City of Atlanta,*22 Ga. App. 483 (96 S. E. 332).

3. Alleged errors in rulings on pleadings cannot be reviewed by assigning error thereon in a motion for new trial. *O’Brien v. Ellarbee,*14 Ga. App. 333 (1) (80 S. E. 864).

4. The judgment entered up in favor of the plaintiff was authorized under the state of the record at that time, the case being in default, and accordingly there was no error in denying the motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Gardner, P. J., Carlisle and Frankum, JJ., concur.*
Amended Schedule 2.1 to the Deferred Compensation and Benefits Trust Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 
 Amended Schedule 2.1 to the Deferred Compensation and Benefits Trust Agreement 
 Schedule 2.1 to the Deferred
Compensation and Benefits Trust Agreement 
 Benefit Plans and Other Arrangements Subject to Trust 
 (1) Sunoco, Inc. Executive Retirement Plan (“SERP”); 
 (2) Sunoco, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan; 
 (3) Sunoco, Inc. Pension Restoration Plan; 
 (4) Sunoco, Inc. Savings Restoration Plan; 
 (5) Sunoco, Inc. Special Executive Severance Plan; 
 (6) The funding of the Sunoco, Inc. Special Employee Severance Plan necessary
to provide benefits in accordance with the terms of such Plan to only those employees then in grades 11 through 13. 
 (7) The entire funding
for all the Indemnification Agreements with the executives set forth below shall be Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) in the aggregate: 
  

							
	(a)	  	Michael J. Colavita	 	(k)	 	Michael S. Kuritzkes
	(b)	  	John F. Carroll	 	(l)	 	Joel H. Maness
	(c)	  	Terence P. Delaney	 	(m)	 	Michael J. McGoldrick
	(d)	  	Michael H. R. Dingus	 	(n)	 	Ann C. Mulé
	(e)	  	John G. Drosdick	 	(o)	 	Paul A. Mulholland
	(f)	  	Bruce G. Fisher	 	(p)	 	Rolf D. Naku
	(g)	  	Michael J. Hennigan	 	(q)	 	Marie A. Natoli
	(h)	  	Thomas W. Hofmann	 	(r)	 	Robert W. Owens
	(i)	  	Vincent J. Kelley	 	(s)	 	Alan J. Rothman
	(j)	  	Joseph P. Krott	 	(t)	 	Charles K. Valutas
# L_2005282EN.01003001.xml

| 26.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 282/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 282/30

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3063/93 of 5 November 1993 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 with regard to the aid scheme for the production of honey of specific quality

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 274 of 6 November 1993
  )

On page 6, in Article 3(1), second sentence:

for:

‘10 %’,

read:

‘20 %’.

---
§ 1271.370 Labeling. The following requirements apply in addition to §§ 1271.55, 1271.60, 1271.65, and 1271.90: ( a ) You must label each HCT/P made available for distribution clearly and accurately.
( b ) The following information must appear on the HCT/P label: ( 1 ) Distinct identification code affixed to the HCT/P container, and assigned in accordance with § 1271.290(c);
( 2 ) Description of the type of HCT/P;
( 3 ) Expiration date, if any; and
( 4 ) Warnings required under § 1271.60(d)(2), § 1271.65(b)(2), or § 1271.90(c), if applicable and physically possible. If it is not physically possible to include these warnings on the label, the warnings must, instead, accompany the HCT/P.
( c ) The following information must either appear on the HCT/P label or accompany the HCT/P: ( 1 ) Name and address of the establishment that determines that the HCT/P meets release criteria and makes the HCT/P available for distribution;
( 2 ) Storage temperature;
( 3 ) Other warnings, where appropriate; and
( 4 ) Instructions for use when related to the prevention of the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases.
[69 FR 68686, Nov. 24, 2004, as amended at 70 FR 29952, May 25, 2005; 81 FR 40518, June 22, 2016]
Relocation and Sign-On Bonus Agreement



 Exhibit 10.4 
 RELOCATION/SIGN-ON BONUS REPAYMENT AGREEMENT 
 I, Jordan Siegel, agree that I will reimburse Nabi Biopharmaceuticals
for relocation expenses and/or a sign-on bonus paid on my behalf, if I voluntarily terminate my employment with Nabi Biopharmaceuticals or I am terminated for cause within twelve (12) months after my start date. The following pro-rated
repayment schedule will apply: 
  

							
	1st Month	 	92%	 	7th Month	 	44%
	2nd Month	 	84%	 	8th Month	 	36%
	3rd Month	 	76%	 	9th Month	 	28%
	4th Month	 	68%	 	10th Month	 	20%
	5th Month	 	60%	 	11th Month	 	12%
	6th Month	 	52%	 	12th Month	 	   4%

  

			
	 /s/ Jordan Siegel
	  	 4/29/06

	Employee Signature	  	Date
		
	 /s/ Thomas H. McLain
	  	 April 29, 2006

	HR Representative Signature	  	Date
**Introductory Remarks: Model Evaluation Methods** **Tyler Fox 9** **th Conference on Air Quality Models** **October 10, 2008 Third Essential Element** **Promote continual development of appropriate model evaluation methods** **to identify areas of improvement in our modeling system (emissions, MET,** **science), prioritize the research agenda across the modeling community, and** **ultimately improve model performance in critical policy and science areas.** **--8 th** **Modeling Conference, Sept 2005 Community** **Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ)** **MODEL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Dynamic Evaluation** **Can the model capture changes related to meteorological events or variations?** **Can the model capture changes related to emission reductions?** **CMAQ-predicted concentration and deposition** **Model Inputs:**meteorology and emissions**Chemical transformation:**gas, aerosol,and aqueous phases**Transport:**advection and diffusion**Removal:**dry and wet deposition**Diagnostic Evaluation Are model errors or biases caused by** **model inputs or by modeled processes? Can we identify the specific modeled** **process(es) responsible?**Are we gettingthe right answers?**Probabilistic Evaluation What is our confidence in the** **model-predicted values? How do observed concentrations** **compare within an uncertainty range of model predictions?** **Operational Evaluation How do the model predicted concentrations** **compare to observed concentration data? What are the overall temporal or spatial** **prediction errors or biases?**Are we getting rightanswers for right (orwrong) reasons?Can we captureobserved changes inair quality?What is ourconfidence in themodel predictions?Can we identifyneededimprovementsfor modeledprocesses orinputs?**SOURCE: Alice Gilliland, EPA/ORD**
```

[108th Congress Public Law 243]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ243.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 677]]

Public Law 108-243
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
304 West Michigan Street in Stuttgart, Arkansas, as the ``Lloyd L. Burke 
         Post Office''. <<NOTE: June 25, 2004 -  [H.R. 3059]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 304 West 
Michigan Street in Stuttgart, Arkansas, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Lloyd L. Burke Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lloyd L. Burke Post Office''.

    Approved June 25, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3059:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):
            Mar. 24, considered and passed House.
            June 9, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
2007-1996.

#### State v. Baird.

Columbiana App. No. 06-CO-4, 2007-Ohio-3400. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer and Cupp, JJ., dissent.

Motion for stay or to hold proceedings in abeyance denied.
First Health Group Corp. and Subsidiaries                         EXHIBIT 11
 COMPUTATION OF BASIC EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
 (In millions except per share amounts) (Unaudited)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                  Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                        2004         2003
                                                       ------       ------
 Net income .....................................     $  28.8      $  36.8
                                                       ======       ======
 Weighted average number of common shares
   outstanding:
   Shares outstanding from beginning of period...        91.1         98.7
   Other issuances of common stock ..............         0.2          0.4
   Purchases of treasury stock ..................          --         (2.2)
                                                       ------       ------
 Weighted average common and common share
   equivalents...................................        91.3         96.9
                                                       ======       ======
 Net income per common share.....................     $   .32      $   .38
                                                       ======       ======

<PAGE>


 First Health Group Corp. and Subsidiaries                         EXHIBIT 11
 COMPUTATION OF DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
 (In millions except per share amounts) (Unaudited)

                                                  Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                        2004         2003
                                                       ------       ------
 Net income .....................................     $  28.8      $  36.8
                                                       ======       ======
 Weighted average number of common shares
   outstanding:
   Shares outstanding from beginning of period           91.1         98.7
   Other issuances of common stock ..............         0.2          0.4
   Purchases of treasury stock ..................          --         (2.2)
   Common Stock Equivalents:
   Additional equivalent shares issuable from
     assumed exercise of common stock options....         1.6          2.6
                                                       ------       ------
 Weighted average common and common share
   equivalents...................................        92.9         99.5
                                                       ======       ======
 Net income  per common share....................     $   .31      $   .37
                                                       ======       ======
**Exhibit 10.6**

**SAKS INCORPORATED**

**Supplement to Performance AwardAgreement**

**Name of Award Holder: «Name»**

**Effective Date of Award: «Issue_Date»**

**Type of Performance Award:(check all that apply)        **Performance Units  ̈                            Performance Shares  ̈                                                                                                                                Performance Cash  ̈****

**Amount of Award:**

**If Performance Units, number of Performance Units: «Number_of_Units»**

**If Performance Shares, number of Performance Shares: «Number_of_Shares»**

**If Performance Cash, amount of Performance Cash: «$ Amount of Cash»**

Dear Award Holder: 

This letter constitutes an“Award Supplement” referred to in that certain Performance Award Agreement dated [date of Agreement] (the “***Performance Award Agreement***”) between Saks Incorporated (the “***Company***”) and you. Youare hereby notified that the Company has awarded to you the Performance Award, indicated above (the “***Performance Awards***”). The Performance Award is awarded to you pursuant to and subject to the terms and conditions of(1) the Saks Incorporated 2009 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “***Plan***”), (2) the Performance Award Agreement, and (3) this Award Supplement. 

The Performance Award will be earned based on the Company’s performance against [each of] the goals indicated below during fiscal year[            ] (the ***“Performance Period”***) and in accordance with the terms of the Plan, unless the Performance Award vests earlier in accordance with paragraph 3 ofthe Agreement. 

[                                                                        ] 

If you earn any Performance Award, it will vest in accordance with the Plan if you have been continuously employed by the Company or one of its subsidiariesfrom the effective date of the award specified above through [            ]. You will forfeit all earned portion of the Performance Award if it does not vest accordance with the precedingsentence.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Patient Safety
Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Brian E. Stewart, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Marc L. Rose,
as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





/s/ Brian E. StewartName:
      Brian E. StewartTitle:
      Chief Executive OfficerDate:
      August 16, 2010/s/ Marc L. RoseName:
      Marc L. RoseTitle:
      Chief Financial OfficerDate:
      August 16, 2010





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
is not being “filed” as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure
document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to liability under that
section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically
incorporated by reference in any such filing.





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 1120.505 Location of administrative requirements in the standard award format.

As shown in the table in § 1120.4(b), the standard award format includes administrative requirements as Subdivision B of the general terms and conditions.