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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 246

Relative to the death of the Honorable Hugh Scott, formerly a Senator

from the State of Pennsylvania.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 28 (legislative day, JULY 20), 1994

Mr. MITCHELL (for himself and Mr. DOLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Relative to the death of the Honorable Hugh Scott, formerly

a Senator from the State of Pennsylvania.

1 Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound

2 sorrow and deep regret the announcement of the death

3 of the Honorable Hugh Scott, formerly a Senator from

4 the State of Pennsylvania.

5 Resolved, That the Secretary communicate these reso6 lutions to the House of Representatives and transmit an

7 enrolled copy thereof to the family of the deceased.
2

SRES 246 ATS

1 Resolved, That when the Senate recesses today, it re2 cess as a further mark of respect to the memory of the

3 deceased Senator.

Æ
#### C. L. DAVIS, Respondent, v. BANK OF ALTON et al., Appellants.

Springfield Court of Appeals,

May 8, 1911.

APPELLATE PRACTICE: Printed Abstract. Section 813, Revised Statutes 1899, as well as tlie rules of all the other appellate courts require that a printed abstract of the record be filed and this is necessary even though there may be a complete typewritten transcript on file with the clerk of the appellate court.

Appeal from Oregon Circuit *Court.—Eon. W. N.*Evans, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.

*541
      *E. P. Dorris*and *T. J. Braswell*for appellants.

*J. D. Brooks*for respondent.

GRAY, J.

The appellant has filed no abstract of the record in this court. We are not advised that a motion for new trial or bill of exceptions was filed.

In Grubbs v. Watkins., 142 Mo. App. 11, 125 S. W. 214, we said: “Section 813 of the Revised Statutes of 1899, requires that a printed abstract of the record be filed with the clerk of this court. The rules of this and all of the other appellate courts of this state, require such an abstract to be filed. It may be claimed by appellant that this case is brought here on a complete transcript, and as such transcript is on file with the clerk of this court, it was not necessary to print an abstract of the record, such as is required when the appeal is by the ‘short form.’ In this he is mistaken. [Whiting v. Lead Co., 195 Mo. 510, 92 S. W. 883; Fischer v. Mayor, etc., of Liberty, 112 Mo. App. 686, 87 S. W. 601; Hayes v. Foos, 122 S. W. 1038.]

“If the failure to file an abstract of the record was only a violation of the rules of this court, we might feel inclined to go to the transcript in the office of the clerk, and try to ascertain therefrom the points before us for review. But the Legislature has enacted a statute which as interpreted by the Supreme Court, requires parties appealing to print an abstract of the record, and we are not at liberty to ignore this statute any more than we are any other statutory duty that the Legislature has prescribed for our guidance. If the decisions of the Supreme Court requiring the printed abstracts to. be filed were recent, so that it might be said that the attorneys throughout the state were not familiar therewith, a different question would be presented. But for many years the Spreme Court has so construed this statute. [Clements v. Turner, 162 Mo. 466, 63 S. W. 84.]”

The appeal will be dismissed.

All concur.
#### § 1.534-1 Burden of proof as to unreasonable accumulations generally.

For purposes of applying the presumption provided for in section 533(a) and in determining the extent of the accumulated earnings credit under section 535(c)(1), the burden of proof with respect to an allegation by the Commissioner that all or any part of the earnings and profits of the corporation have been permitted to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of the business may vary under section 534 as between litigation in the Tax Court and that in any other court. In case of a proceeding in a court other than the Tax Court, see paragraph (b) of § 1.533-1.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 08, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 08, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15A2183. WILLIAM DURDEN v. GARY CAMPBELL et al..

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
# C_2018328EN.01003502.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — ABB v Commission

(Case T-445/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Evidence of the infringement - Products concerned - Public distancing - Duration of participation - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 328/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ABB Ltd (Zürich, Switzerland) and ABB AB (Västerås, Sweden) (represented by: I. Vandenborre and S. Dionnet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents, and by A. Bodnar, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ABB Ltd and ABB AB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ABB Ltd and ABB AB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---
#### SCREVEN OIL MILL *v.*HANKINSON.

No. 8911.

April 16, 1932.

*John Q. Hollingsworth,*for plaintiff.

*H. A. Boylcin,*for defendant.

Gilbert, J.

Screven Oil Mill brought an action against Mrs. M. M. Hankinson, seeking to recover 350 acres of land. The defendant conceded the legal ownership of plaintiff and right of possession to 210'acres of the land sued for, but denied that she was in possession of any land as described in the petition. She admitted that she was in possession of 100 acres of land, including her residence, but insisted that this land was not within the description in plaintiff’s petition. By agreement in judicio, the parties limited the suit to the sole question of the right of plaintiff to recover 100 acres on which defendant resided. The jury found for the defendant. The exception is to the refusal of a new trial.

The motion consists of the general grounds and three grounds added by amendment. Some of the brief of evidence is rendered unintelligible, because of the word “indicating” in parenthesis found in many sentences, without furnishing any explanation of what was indicated. Under the pleadings and the evidence the verdict was fully warranted, if not in fact demanded. None of the special grounds of the motion for new trial require a reversal of the judgment. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6665]

A Working Group of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has for some time been considering revisions to the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, which are widely used internationally. The next meeting of the Working Group is scheduled for September 14-18, and it is possible that the Working Group may conclude its work at that session. Accordingly, prior to that session a public meeting will be held, under the auspices of the Advisory Committee on Private International Law, to provide an update on the status of the Working Group discussions.

*Time and Place:*                     The public meeting will take place in Room 240, South Building, 2430 E Street, NW., Washington, DC on September 9, 2009. Visitors should appear at the gate at the southwest corner of 23rd and C Streets by 12:45 p.m. EDT. The meeting will begin at 1 p.m. and is expected to last no later than 4 p.m. If you are unable to attend the public meeting and would like to participate from a remote location, teleconferencing will be available.                

*Public Participation:*                     It is requested that persons wishing to attend contact Trisha Smeltzer prior to September 2, 2009, at                     *smeltzertk@state.gov*                     or 202-776-8423 and provide their name, and date of birth for pre-clearance purposes, as well as e-mail address and affiliation. Members of the public who are not pre-cleared might encounter delays with security procedures. A member of the public requesting reasonable accommodation should make his or her request upon registering for the meeting. Such requests received after September 7th will be considered, but might not be possible to fulfill. Please contact Ms. Smeltzer for additional meeting information, including teleconferencing dial-in details.                

Dated: July 24, 2009.

Keith Loken,

Assistant Legal Adviser, Office of Private International Law, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E9-18232 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7410-08-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 AND THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE AND
NINE-MONTH PERIODS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         375,017
<SECURITIES>                                 4,901,470
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,170,844
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (591,830)
<INVENTORY>                                    291,578
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,264,557
<PP&E>                                      37,388,723
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,749,231)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,401,983
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,091,482
<BONDS>                                      1,073,065
<COMMON>                                        85,514
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,151,922
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,401,983
<SALES>                                      9,368,464
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,079,161
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,042,471
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               154,775
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,189,330)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,189,330)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,189,330)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.61)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       ARMANINO FOODS OF DISTINCTION, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB of Armanino Foods of Distinction, Inc. for the period ending
March 31, 2005:

     (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Armanino Foods of Distinction, Inc.





/s/ William J. Armanino
William J. Armanino
Chief Executive Officer
May 16, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Armanino Foods of Distinction,
Inc. and will be retained by Armanino Foods of Distinction, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2015, by and among J.P.Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as SpecialServicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator,Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, and Pentalpha SurveillanceLLC, as Senior Trust Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2015-C32 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesdo hereby certify that:

 

1.       A reviewof the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance perthe Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
§ 1.401-7 Forfeitures under a qualified pension plan. ( a ) *General rules.* In the case of a trust forming a part of a qualified pension plan, the plan must expressly provide that forfeitures arising from severance of employment, death, or for any other reason, must not be applied to increase the benefits any employee would otherwise receive under the plan at any time prior to the termination of the plan or the complete discontinuance of employer contributions thereunder. The amounts so forfeited must be used as soon as possible to reduce the employer's contributions under the plan. However, a qualified pension plan may anticipate the effect of forfeitures in determining the costs under the plan. Furthermore, a qualified plan will not be disqualified merely because a determination of the amount of forfeitures under the plan is made only once during each taxable year of the employer.
( b ) *Examples.* The rules of paragraph (a) of this section may be illustrated by the following examples: Example 1. The B Company Pension Trust forms a part of a pension plan which is funded by individual level annual premium annuity contracts. The plan requires ten years of service prior to obtaining a vested right to benefits under the plan. One of the company's employees resigns his position after two years of service. The insurance company paid to the trustees the cash surrender value of the contract—$750. The B Company must reduce its next contribution to the pension trust by this amount.
Example 2. The C Corporation's trusteed pension plan has been in existence for 20 years. It is funded by individual contracts issued by an insurance company, and the premiums thereunder are paid annually. Under such plan, the annual premium accrued for the year 1966 is due and is paid on January 2, 1966, and on July 1 of the same year the plan is terminated due to the liquidation of the employer. Some forfeitures were incurred and collected by the trustee with respect to those participants whose employment terminated between January 2 and July 1. The plan provides that the amount of such forfeitures is to be applied to provide additional annuity benefits for the remaining employees covered by the plan. The pension plan of the C Corporation satisfies the provisions of section 401(a)(8). Although forfeitures are used to increase benefits in this case, this use of forfeitures is permissible since no further contributions will be made under the plan.
( c ) *Effective date.* This section applies to taxable years of a qualified plan commencing after September 30, 1963. However, a plan which is qualified on September 30, 1963, will not be disqualified merely because it does not expressly include the provisions prescribed by this section.
[T.D. 6675, 28 FR 10121, Sept. 17, 1963]
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1050 Adaptometer (biophotometer). ( a ) *Identification.* An adaptometer (biophotometer) is an AC-powered device that provides a stimulating light source which has various controlled intensities intended to measure the time required for retinal adaptation (regeneration of the visual purple) and the minimum light threshold.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 886.9.
[55 FR 48441, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 63012, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38809, July 25, 2001]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 187 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 187

   To authorize the production of records by the Select Committee on 
                             Intelligence.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              March 8 (legislative day, February 22), 1994

    Mr. Mitchell (for himself and Mr. Dole) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To authorize the production of records by the Select Committee on 
                             Intelligence.

Whereas the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
        Pennsylvania has requested, through the United States Attorney, that the 
        Select Committee on Intelligence make available to the Court for in 
        camera inspection a transcript of testimony received by the Committee in 
        closed session to determine the relevance of the transcript to the case 
        of United States v. Robert Clyde Ivy, Cr. No. 91-602-04, pending in that 
        court;
Whereas by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be 
        taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; 
        and
Whereas when it appears that documents, papers, and records under the control or 
        in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of 
        justice, the Senate will take such action as will promote the ends of 
        justice consistently with the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Select 
Committee on Intelligence, acting jointly, are authorized to provide to 
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania, in accordance with appropriate security procedures, the 
closed session transcript which the court has requested.

                                 <all>
```