alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1.1504-0 Outline of provisions.

In order to facilitate the use of §§ 1.1504-1 through 1.1504-4, this section lists the captions contained in §§ 1.1504-1 through 1.1504-4.

## § 1.1504-1 Definitions.

## §§ 1.1504-2—1.1504-3 [Reserved]

## § 1.1504-4 Treatment of warrants, options, convertible obligations, and other similar interests.

(a) Introduction.

(1) General rule.

(2) Exceptions.

(b) Options not treated as stock or as exercised.

(1) General rule.

(2) Options treated as exercised.

(i) In general.

(ii) Aggregation of options.

(iii) Effect of treating option as exercised.

(A) In general.

(B) Cash settlement options, phantom stock, stock appreciation rights, or similar interests.

(iv) Valuation.

(3) Example.

(c) Definitions.

(1) Issuing corporation.

(2) Related or sequential option.

(3) Related persons.

(4) Measurement date.

(i) General rule.

(ii) Issuances, transfers, or adjustments not treated as measurement dates.

(iii) Transactions increasing likelihood of exercise.

(iv) Measurement date for options issued pursuant to a plan.

(v) Measurement date for related or sequential options.

(vi) Example.

(5) In-the-money.

(d) Options.

(1) Instruments treated as options.

(2) Instruments generally not treated as options.

(i) Options on section 1504(a)(4) stock.

(ii) Certain publicly traded options.

(A) General rule.

(B) Exception.

(iii) Stock purchase agreements.

(iv) Escrow, pledge, or other security agreements.

(v) Compensatory options.

(A) General rule.

(B) Exceptions.

(vi) Options granted in connection with a loan.

(vii) Options created pursuant to a title 11 or similar case.

(viii) Convertible preferred stock.

(ix) Other enumerated instruments.

(e) Elimination of federal income tax liability.

(f) Substantial amount of federal income tax liability.

(g) Reasonable certainty of exercise.

(1) Generally.

(i) Purchase price.

(ii) In-the-money option.

(iii) Not in-the-money option.

(iv) Exercise price.

(v) Time of exercise.

(vi) Related or sequential options.

(vii) Stockholder rights.

(viii) Restrictive covenants.

(ix) Intention to alter value.

(x) Contingencies.

(2) Cash settlement options, phantom stock, stock appreciation rights, or similar interests.

(3) Safe harbors.

(i) Options to acquire stock.

(ii) Options to sell stock.

(iii) Options exercisable at fair market value.

(iv) Exceptions.

(v) Failure to satisfy safe harbor.

(h) Examples.

(i) Effective date.

[T.D. 8462, 57 FR 61800, Dec. 29, 1992]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8137 

To provide for an exception to the restrictions described in the Assisted 

Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 with respect to certain States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2024 

Ms. PETTERSEN (for herself and Mr. PETERS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 

addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, the Judiciary, Education and the Workforce, Oversight and Accountability, Natural Resources, and Foreign Affairs, 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 provide for an exception to the restrictions described 

in the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 

with respect to certain States. 

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 ‘‘Patient Access to End 

5 of Life Care Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8137 IH

1 (1) Medical aid-in-dying is a medical practice in 

2 which a mentally capable, terminally ill adult with 

3 less than six months to live requests a prescription 

4 from their qualified clinician for medication to bring 

5 about a peaceful death to ingest at any point if their 

6 suffering becomes unbearable. 

7 (2) Medical aid-in-dying, an authorized medical 

8 practice, is not euthanasia, mercy killing, or assisted 

9 suicide. 

10 (3) Oregon was the first jurisdiction to author11 ize medical aid-in-dying through a 1994 ballot initia12 tive. Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act was officially 

13 implemented in 1997. 

14 (4) Subsequently, Congress passed the Assisted 

15 Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 which, as 

16 Federal lawmakers interpret it, prevents any Federal 

17 money from being used to help terminally ill patients 

18 who want medical aid-in-dying, such as veterans and 

19 other vulnerable populations. 

20 (5) Since then, 11 jurisdictions have adopted 

21 medical aid-in-dying laws: California, Colorado, Dis22 trict of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Montana (via a 

23 State Supreme Court ruling), New Jersey, New 

24 Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington (1 in 5 

25 residents of the United States). 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8137 IH

1 SEC. 3. EXCEPTION TO RESTRICTIONS DESCRIBED IN THE 

2 ASSISTED SUICIDE FUNDING RESTRICTION 

3 ACT OF 1997. 

4 Beginning January 1, 2025, in the case of a State 

5 that permits medical aid-in-dying programs (in accordance 

6 with the laws of such State), the restrictions described in 

7 the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 

8 (Public Law 105–12) shall not apply to any information, 

9 referrals, guidance, or medical care provided consistent 

10 with such programs. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
§ 1.1244(e)-1 Records to be kept. ( a ) *By the corporation* — ( 1 ) *Mandatory records.* A plan to issue pre-November 1978 stock must appear upon the records of the corporation. Any designation of post-November 1978 stock under § 1.1244(c)-2(b)(2) also must appear upon the records of the corporation.
( 2 ) *Discretionary records.* In order to substantiate an ordinary loss deduction claimed by its shareholders, the corporation should maintain records showing the following: ( i ) The persons to whom stock was issued, the date of issuance to these persons, and a description of the amount and type of consideration received from each;
( ii ) If the consideration received is property, the basis in the hands of the shareholder and the fair market value of the property when received by the corporation;
( iii ) The amount of money and the basis in the hands of the corporation of other property received for its stock, as a contribution to capital, and as paid-in surplus;
( iv ) Financial statements of the corporation, such as its income tax returns, that identify the source of the gross receipt of the corporation for the period consisting of the five most recent taxable years of the corporation, or, if the corporation has not been in existence for 5 taxable years, for the period of the corporation's existence;
( v ) Information relating to any tax-free stock dividend made with respect to section 1244 stock and any reorganization in which stock is transferred by the corporation in exchange for section 1244 stock; and
( vi ) With respect to pre-November 1978 stock; ( A ) Which certificates represent stock issued under the plan;
( B ) The amount of money and the basis in the hands of the corporation of other property received after June 30, 1958, and before the adoption of the plan, for its stock, as a contribution to capital, and as paid-in surplus; and
( C ) The equity capital of the corporation on the date of adoption of the plan.
( b ) *By the taxpayer.* A person who claims an ordinary loss with respect to stock under section 1244 must have records sufficient to establish that the taxpayer is entitled to the loss and satisfies the requirements of section 1244. See also section 6001, requiring records to be maintained.
In addition, a person who owns section 1244 stock in a corporation shall maintain records sufficient to distinguish such stock from any other stock he may own in the corporation. [T.D. 6495, 25 FR 9681, Oct. 8, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7779, 46 FR 29473, June 2, 1981; 46 FR 31881, June 18, 1981; T.D. 8594, 60 FR 20898, Apr. 28, 1995]
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic 

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of 

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go 

to press. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 18-BG-1006

IN RE JOSEPH J. PAPPACODA

2018 DDN 172

A Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 439225

BEFORE: Beckwith, Associate Judge, and Nebeker and Ferren, Senior Judges. 

O R D E R

(FILED – December 20, 2018)

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of Florida 

revoking respondent’s license to practice law in that jurisdiction by consent; this 

court’s October 1, 2018, order suspending respondent and directing him to show 

cause why the functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not 

be imposed; respondent’s response thereto; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel 

regarding reciprocal discipline; and respondent’s D.C. Bar R. XI, §14 (g) affidavit 

filed on October 30, 2018, it is

ORDERED that Joseph J. Pappacoda is hereby disbarred from the practice of 

law in the District of Columbia, nunc pro tunc to October 30, 2018. See In re Sibley, 

990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable 

presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the 

respondent does not participate); D.C. Bar R. XI, §16 (c) (providing the timing for 

when a disbarred attorney may seek reinstatement). 

PER CURIAM
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8151 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand eligible 

practitioners to furnish telehealth services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2024 

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of California, and 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska) 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 expand 

eligible practitioners to furnish telehealth services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXPANDING PRACTITIONERS ELIGIBLE TO 

4 FURNISH TELEHEALTH SERVICES. 

5 Section 1834(m)(4)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 1395m(m)(4)(E)) is amended by striking ‘‘and,’’ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8151 IH

1 and all that follows through ‘‘shall include’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘and includes’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7254

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JEFFREY EVANS LARK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-92-53, CA-97-647-3-P)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 29, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Evans Lark, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Evans Lark seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998) and order denying his motion to reconsider. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find that

the § 2255 motion was filed beyond the one year limitation for such

actions. See id; Brown v. Angelone, 150 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
HeinOnline 50 Fed. Reg. 18370 1985HeinOnline 50 Fed. Reg. 18371 1985HeinOnline 50 Fed. Reg. 18372 1985HeinOnline 50 Fed. Reg. 18373 1985HeinOnline 50 Fed. Reg. 18374 1985HeinOnline 50 Fed. Reg. 18375 1985
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8105 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8105

To extend the reporting requirements under the Elie Wiesel Genocide and 
                   Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 2024

Mrs. Wagner (for herself and Ms. Jacobs) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the reporting requirements under the Elie Wiesel Genocide and 
                   Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018.

    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 ``Elie Wiesel Genocide And Atrocities 
Prevention Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE ELIE WIESEL 
              GENOCIDE AND ATROCITIES PREVENTION ACT OF 2018.

    Section 5(a) of the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention 
Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-441; 132 Stat. 5587) is amended, in the 
matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``six years'' and inserting 
``12 years''.
                                 <all>
```
615 P.2d 14

#### Shirley HONSEY, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Conrad H. HONSEY, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CIV 3582.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

July 30, 1980.

*337Shirley Honsey, pro. per.

Thomas W. Anderson, Tucson, for respondent/appellant.

OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

Appellant-husband raises two questions for consideration on appeal. The first concerns the propriety of hearing both the custody issue and the child support issue together in a divorce action. The second is whether the trial court can hear the issue of child custody prior to resolving all other issues including the amount of child support.

The wife has failed to file an answering brief. Where the appellant raises debatable issues, failure to file an answering brief constitutes a confession of reversible error. *Geiler v. Arizona Bank,*24 Ariz.App. 266, 537 P.2d 994 (1975). We need not rely on a confession of error, however, because the answer to the questions is clear. A.R.S. Sec. 25-328 provides:

> “A. In all cases when custody or visitation is a contested issue, the court shall first hear all other issues including maintenance and child support. The contested issue of custody or visitation shall not be heard at any hearing involving other issues *even upon agreement of attorneys.*

> B. After all other issues have been decided and the amount of maintenance and child support established by the court, then the issues of custody or visitation may be heard.” (Emphasis added)

The record shows that the trial court violated this statute. The issue of child custody was heard prior to the resolution of all the other issues including the amount of child support established by the court. While neither counsel objected to the procedure, the provisions of A.R.S. Sec. 25-328 are clearly jurisdictional.

All the provisions of the decree of dissolution are vacated and set aside except the one dissolving the marriage.1 That part of the decree dissolving the marriage is affirmed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and RICHMOND, J., concur.

1

. Appellant does not challenge the finding that the marriage is irretrievably broken. See A.R.S. Sec. 25 -325.
#### § 1.381(d)-1 Operations loss carryovers of life insurance companies.

For the application of part V, subchapter C, chapter 1 of the Code to operations loss carryovers of life insurance companies, see section 812(f) and § 1.812-7 and section 381(c)(22) and § 1.381(c)(22)-1.

[T.D. 6625, 27 FR 12543, Dec. 19, 1962]
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Herminio Robles, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Elizabeth N. Warin, J.), rendered September 29, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of criminal trespass in the third degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Elizabeth N. Warin, J.), rendered September 29, 2016, affirmed.</p><p>The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. Giving the allegations "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (<i>People v Casey</i>, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find "as a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading" (<a href="../2009/2009_04739.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Davis</i>, 13 NY3d 17</a>, 31 [2009]), that it was legally sufficient to charge defendant with criminal trespass in the third degree (<i>see</i> Penal Law ยง 140.10[a]). Allegations that defendant entered the specified subway station beyond the turnstile, "without permission or authority to do so and without paying the required fare, by pulling the wheel of a turnstile backwards and slipping through," were sufficient to establish that he entered unlawfully, without remitting the requisite payment (<a href="../2016/2016_51693.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Phillips</i>, 53 Misc 3d 151</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51693[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016], <i>lv denied </i>28 NY3d 1149 [2017]).</p><p>The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (<a href="../2007/2007_09814.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342</a>, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis upon which to disturb the trial court's determinations concerning credibility. The credited police testimony established that defendant entered a New York City subway platform unlawfully by pulling the wheel of a turnstile back and slipping through it without paying the required fare and without permission (<a href="../2018/2018_04831.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Alvarez</i>, 162 AD3d 596</a> [2018]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: November 26, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 34.3



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



| |  |  |  |                                                                                                                               
| |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | Audit . Tax . Advisory
Grant Thornton LLP 1201 Walnut St, Suite 2200
Kansas City, Missouri 64106 T 816.412.2400
F 816.412.2404

Board of Directors

Situs
Holdings, LLC

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria (Managements Assertion), that Situs Holdings, LLC (the Company) complied with servicing criteria set forth in Items 1117, 1119, 1122(d)(3)(i)(A-B) and 1122(d)(4)(vii) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commissions Regulation AB for the Operating or Trust Advisor Services Platform (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016. The platform consists of asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management in
Appendix B of Managements report. Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the Companys
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing
such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities
related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction or
security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Companys servicing activities
during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that Situs Holdings, LLC complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2016, for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Kansas City, Missouri

February 28, 2017
#### § 1.1367-3 Effective/Applicability date.

Section 1.1367-2(a), (c)(2), (d)(2), and (e) *Example 6, Example 7,* and *Example 8* apply to any shareholder advances to the S corporation made on or after October 20, 2008 and repayments on those advances by the S corporation. The rules that apply with respect to shareholder advances to the S corporation made before October 20, 2008, are contained in § 1.1367-3 in effect prior to October 20, 2008. (See 26 CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2007.) Shareholders have the option to apply these rules to shareholder advances to the S corporation made before October 20, 2008, and repayments on those advances by the S corporation. Section 1.1367-1(h), *Example 5*(iii) applies on and after July 23, 2014. The rules that apply before July 23, 2014 are contained in § 1.1367-3 in effect prior to July 23, 2014 (see 26 CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2014).

[T.D. 9428, 73 FR 62203, Oct. 20, 2008, as amended by T.D. 9682, 79 FR 42678, July 23, 2014]
§ 1.1254-6 Effective/applicability date. ( a ) Sections 1.1254-1 through 1.1254-3 and 1.1254-5 are effective with respect to any disposition of natural resource recapture property occurring after March 13, 1995. The rule in § 1.1254-1(b)(2)(iv)(A)( 2 ), relating to a nonoperating mineral interest carved out of an operating mineral interest with respect to which an expenditure has been deducted, is effective with respect to any disposition occurring after March 13, 1995, of property (within the meaning of section 614) that is placed in service by the taxpayer after December 31, 1986. Section 1.1254-4 applies to dispositions of natural resource recapture property by an S corporation (and a corporation that was formerly an S corporation) and dispositions of S corporation stock occurring on or after October 10, 1996. Sections 1.1254-2(d)(1)(ii) and 1.1254-3(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), (d)(1)(i), and (d)(1)(ii) are effective for dispositions of property occurring on or after October 10, 1996.
( b ) The provisions of §§ 1.1254-2(a)(1), 1.1254-3(b)(2), 1.1254-4(e)(4), and 1.1254-5(c)(2)(iv) that relate to section 1022 are effective on and after January 19, 2017.
[T.D. 9811, 82 FR 6242, Jan. 19, 2017]