alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1.35-1 Partially tax-exempt interest received by individuals.

(a) The credit against tax under section 35 shall be allowed only to individuals and if the requirements of both paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 35(a) are met. Where the alternative tax on capital gains is imposed under section 1201(b), the taxable income for such taxable year is the taxable income as defined in section 63, which includes 50 percent of the excess of net long-term capital gain over net short-term capital loss.

(b) For the treatment of partially tax-exempt interest in the case of amounts not allocable to any beneficiary of an estate or trust, see section 642(a)(1), and for treatment of amounts allocable to a beneficiary, see sections 652 and 662. For treatment of partially tax-exempt interest received by a partnership, see section 702(a)(7). For treatment of such interest received by a common trust fund, see section 584(c)(2).

(c) The application of section 35 may be illustrated by the following example:

# Example.

In his taxable year, 1955, A received $4,500 of partially tax-exempt interest. A's taxable income is $4,000 upon which the tax prior to any credits against tax is $840. His foreign tax credit under section 33 is $610, and his dividends received credit under section 34 is $120. A's credit under section 35 for partially tax-exempt interest is $110, determined as follows:

| *Section 35(a)* |
| --- |
| Partially tax-exempt interest | $4,500 |
| Credit computed under section 35(a); 3 percent of $4,500 | 135 |
| *Section 35(b)(1)* |
| Tax imposed by chapter 1 | 840 |
| Less: | |
| Credit allowed under section 33 | $610 | |
| Credit allowed under section 34 | 120 | |
| | ____ | $730 |
| Limitation on credit under section 35(b)(1) | 110 |
| *Section 35(b)(2)* |
| Taxable income | 4,000 |
| Limitation on credit under section 35(b)(2); 3 percent of $4,000 | 120 |

Since of the three figures ($135, $110, and $120), the lesser is $110, A's credit under section 35 is limited to $110.
427 A.2d 1229

#### Commonwealth v. Parsells, Appellant.

Argued September 11, 1979.

David J. Natale, for appellant;

Vram Nedurian, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before PRICE, WIEAND and VAN der VOORT, JJ.*

*

 Judge Donald E. Wieand is sitting by special designation.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
§ 884.4500 Obstetric fetal destructive instrument. ( a ) *Identification.* An obstetric fetal destructive instrument is a device designed to crush or pull the fetal body to facilitate the delivery of a dead or anomalous (abnormal) fetus. This generic type of device includes the cleidoclast, cranioclast, craniotribe, and destructive hook.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
(logo)Rialto 

         CAPITAL

 

 

**2017 AnnualStatement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the“Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of September 1, 2015 by and amongWells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor, Wells FargoBank, National Association as General Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors,LLC as General Special Servicer, National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB MasterServicer, National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Special Servicer, Park BridgeLender Services LLC as Trust Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association asCertificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, andWilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee relating to the Wells FargoCommercial Mortgage Trust 2015-LC22, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2015-LC22 **(WFCM 2015-LC22)**

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.       Allservicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.       Areview of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer forthe period of January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been afailure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failureand the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ Adam Singer

AdamSinger, Managing Director

 

Date:March 1, 2018
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Wage Chronology: Martin Marietta Aerospace and the Auto Workers, March 1944-November 1975

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Wage Chronology: Martin Marietta Aerospace and the Auto Workers, March 1944-November 1975 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1884*,												Washington, D.C: 								The Bureau, 										1976,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4891,			accessed on September 26, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
# C_2014329EN.01001802.xml

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/18

---

Action brought on 18 June 2014 — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — Pires Freitas Campos (LEO)

(Case T-459/14)

2014/C 329/26

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo and M. Toro Gordillo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maria Leonor Pires Freitas Campos (Setúbal, Portugal)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 in Case R 1554/2013-1, in so far as by dismissing the applicant’s appeal, it confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division upholding opposition B 2009291 and refusing, in its entirety, Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 13  511‘LEO’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 in Case R 1554/2013-1, in so far as by dismissing the applicant’s appeal, it confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division upholding opposition B 2009291 and refusing, in its entirety, Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 13  511‘LEO’;

| — | order the party or parties who oppose this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties who oppose this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with the word element ‘LEO’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 13  511

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Maria Leonor Pires Freitas Campos

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘LEO D’HONOR’ for goods in Class 33

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
Amend 1 to Supplemental Retirement Plan



Exhibit 10(iii)A(2) 
 
AMENDMENT NO. 1 
TO 
ACUITY BRANDS, INC. 
SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EXECUTIVES 
 
THIS AMENDMENT made as of the              day of
            , 2002, by Acuity Brands, Inc. (the “Company”). 
 
W I T N E S S E T H: 
 
WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Acuity Brands, Inc.
Supplemental Retirement Plan for Executives (the “Plan”); and 
 
WHEREAS, in connection with the establishment of the Acuity Brands, Inc. 2002 Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (“New SERP”), the Company desires to permit certain Plan Participants who may become eligible to
participate in the New SERP to waive their accrued benefits under the Plan and to cease to participate in the Plan; and 
 
WHEREAS, the Company now desires to amend the Plan to permit such election and to provide that no additional Executives will become
eligible to participate on or after January 1, 2003; 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 
1. 
 
Section 2.1 is hereby amended by adding a new subsection (c) as follows: 
 
“(c ) Cessation of New Participants and Waiver of Accrued Pension 
 
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Plan to the
contrary, no new Participants shall be admitted to the Plan after December 31, 2002, and, with the exception of James Balloun, who shall continue to participate in the Plan in accordance with its terms, a Participant shall not be credited with any
Compensation, Credited Service or Eligible Service after December 31, 2002. With the exception of James Balloun, a Participant who is an actively employed Executive on December 31, 2002, may elect on such form and in such manner as provided by the
Company, to waive his right to his Accrued Pension under the Plan and to cease to be a Participant in the Plan.” 
 
2. 
 
The within and foregoing amendments to the Plan shall be effective as of December 31, 2002. Except as hereby modified, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 
 

Page 1 of 5 








 
IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 1 to be executed as of the date first written above. 
 

	 ACUITY BRANDS, INC.

	
	 By:
	 	  


	 Title:
	 	  




 
 

Page 2 of 5
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Richard J. Baum, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of ebix.com, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this  report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | August 13, 2003 | By:    | /s/ Richard J. Baum     |   |
|--------|-----------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |            |   | Richard J. Baum         |
|   |            |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7943 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide law enforcement authority 

to the Inspector General of the United States International Development 

Finance Corporation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 11, 2024 

Mr. CASTRO of Texas (for himself and Mr. FITZPATRICK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide law enforcement authority to the Inspector General of the United 

States International Development Finance Corporation. 

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 ‘‘Enhancing Develop5 ment Finance Corporation Oversight Act of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7943 IH

1 SEC. 2. LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OF THE INSPEC2 TOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

3 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE 

4 CORPORATION. 

5 Section 406(f)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is 

6 amended by inserting ‘‘International Development Fi7 nance Corporation,’’ before ‘‘Environmental’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
39041.

#### COLEMAN v. WALDEN.

Felton, Chief Judge.

The prior judgment of this court in the above case having been reversed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in *Walden v. Coleman,*217 Ga. 599 (124 SE2d *436265), the original judgment of this court (104 Ga. App. 661, 122 SE2d 757), is vacated and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with the judgment and opinion of the Supreme Court.

Decided March 2, 1962.

*Smith, Field, Ringel, Martin & Carr, Palmer H. Ansley,*for plaintiff in error.

*N. Forrest Montet, Roscoe Pickett,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.*
§ 1.167(d)-1 Agreement as to useful life and rates of depreciation. After August 16, 1954, a taxpayer may, for taxable years ending after December 31, 1953, enter into an agreement with respect to the estimated useful life, method and rate of depreciation and treatment of salvage of any property which is subject to the allowance for depreciation. An application for such agreement may be made to the district director for the internal revenue district in which the taxpayer's return is required to be filed. Such application shall be filed in quadruplicate and shall contain in such detail as may be practical the following information: ( a ) The character and location of the property.
( b ) The original cost or other basis and date of acquisition.
( c ) Proper adjustments to the basis including depreciation accumulated to the first taxable year to be covered by the agreement.
( d ) Estimated useful life and estimated salvage value.
( e ) Method and rate of depreciation.
( f ) Any other facts and circumstances pertinent to making a reasonable estimate of the useful life of the property and its salvage value.
The agreement must be in writing and must be signed by the taxpayer and by the district director. The agreement must be signed in quadruplicate, and two of the signed copies will be returned to the taxpayer. The agreement shall set forth its effective date, the estimated remaining useful life, the estimated salvage value, and rate and method of depreciation of the property and the facts and circumstances taken into consideration in adoption of the agreement, and shall relate only to depreciation allowances for such property on and after the effective date of the agreement. Such an agreement shall be binding on both parties until such time as facts and circumstances which were not taken into account in making the agreement are shown to exist. The party wishing to modify or change the agreement shall have the responsibility of establishing the existence of such facts and circumstances. Any change in the useful life or rate specified in such agreement shall be effective only prospectively, that is, it shall be effective beginning with the taxable year in which notice of the intention to change, including facts and circumstances warranting the adjustment of useful life and rate, is sent by the party proposing the change to the other party and is sent by registered mail, if such notice is mailed before September 3, 1958, or is sent by certified mail or registered mail, if such notice is mailed after September 2, 1958. A copy of the agreement (and any modification thereof) shall be filed with the taxpayer's return for the first taxable year which is affected by the agreement (or any modification thereof). A signed copy should be retained with the permanent records of the taxpayer. For rules relating to changes in method of depreciation, see § 1.167(e)-1 and section 446 and the regulations thereunder.
EXHIBIT 99.2
 EverQ GmbH, Thalheim
 German GAAP Income Statement
for the period from December 20, 2006 to December 31, 2006
 December 20 toDecember 31,20061. Revenues
    
    
    3,676,877.802. Inventory change in unfinished and finished goods
    
    
    -288,881.973. Capitalized own work
    
    
    1,928.404. Other operating income
    
    
    170,874.755. Expenditure for materialsa) Expenditure for raw materials, consumables and supplies
    
    
    1,332,487.34b) Expenditure for purchased services
    
    
    184,749.621,517,236.966. Payroll expensesa) Salaries and wages
    
    
    351,341.85b) Social security
    
    
    67,805.77419,147.627. Depreciation and amortization of intangible fixed assets
and property, plant and equipment
    
    
    231,764.358. Other operating expenses
    
    
    172,391.049. Other interest and similiar income
    
    
    85,962.6410. Interest and similiar expenses
    
    
    115,884.44(thereof due
to shareholder  81,156.47)11. Net income
    
    
    1,190,337.21
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7754

BOBBY EUGENE RODDY, a/k/a Running Cougar,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; OFFICE OF THE

GOVERNOR; MARY JO THOMPSON; JIM RUBENSTEIN; M.

H. BAUSO; D. L. STAFFORD; WILLIAM FOX; TONY

LEMASTERS; DON SPRINGSTON; DAN KIMBLE;

WILLIAM D. HALE; BARBARA RENNER; KENT HOBBS,

Reverend; ROBERT ADAMS; DENNIS MUELLER; DUANE

MUNDAY; SUSAN WADE; JOE CARROLL; MICHAEL

HENTHORN; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE; JAELL FULTON;

CORRECTIVE MEDICAL SERVICES; DIANE SHINGLER;

KAROL PAYNE; VICKIE CAIN; TAMMY HARLAN;

PATRICK MIRANDY; SHEILA RAMSEY; JACK

STALLINGS; MISTY ADAMS; CAPTAIN ANDERSON; KATY

PRATT,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

District Judge. (5:05-cv-00170-FPS)

Submitted: March 30, 2007 Decided: April 16, 2007

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per

curiam opinion.
- 2 -

Bobby Eugene Roddy, Appellant Pro Se. Charles R. Bailey, Billie Jo

Streyle, Jason A. Winnell, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West

Virginia; Virginia Grottendieck Lanham, South Charleston, West

Virginia; John A. Hoyer, STATE POLICE LEGAL COUNSEL, South

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*The district court described this claim as the “free exercise

of religion claim” (R. 54 at 10) and dismissed the claim sua sponte

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Eugene Roddy appeals the district court’s order

accepting in part the recommendations of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. Roddy

raises three issues on appeal: (1) that his legal mail was

improperly opened; (2) that the West Virginia Department of

Corrections Policy Directive 503.00 is unconstitutional; and

(3) that his free exercise of religion claim was improperly

dismissed. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error for the first two issues. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Roddy v. West Virginia, No.

5:05-cv-00170-FPS (N.D. W. Va. Sept. 21, 2006). For Roddy’s third

issue,* however, we vacate and remand in light of the Supreme

Court’s recent opinion in Jones v. Bock, ___U.S.___, 127 S. Ct. 910

(2007). 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART,

VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Malcolm MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 82-1004.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 5, 1984.

E. Richard Walker, Asst. Federal Defender, Sacramento, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Brian C. Leighton, Asst. U.S. Atty., Fresno, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WALLACE, KENNEDY, and NELSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion, *United States v. Moore,*9th Cir., 700 F.2d 535 (1983), is amended as *559follows: Replace the sentence on page 536 “Moore, testified Cardwell, helped steal the getaway car” with “Moore did not testify. The evidence was that he helped steal the getaway car.”