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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 9

To amend S. Res. 458 of the Ninety-eighth Congress.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 7 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. DOLE (for Mr. FORD) (for himself and Mr. STEVENS) submitted the

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To amend S. Res. 458 of the Ninety-eighth Congress.

1 Resolved, That Senate Resolution 458 of the Ninety2 eighth Congress (agreed to October 4, 1984) is amended

3 by adding the following new section:

4 ‘‘Sec. 6(a) For purposes of this section:

5 ‘‘(1) The term ‘committee’ means a standing,

6 select or special committee, or commission of the

7 Senate, or a joint committee of the Congress whose

8 funds are disbursed by the Secretary of Senate.

9 ‘‘(2) The terms ‘Chairman’ and ‘Ranking Mi10 nority Member’ means the Chairman, Vice Chair11 man, Cochairman and Ranking Minority Member of

12 a committee.
2

SRES 9 ATS

1 ‘‘(3) The term ‘eligible staff member’ means an

2 individual who was an employee of a committee, or

3 subcommittee thereof, for at least one hundred and

4 eighty-three days (whether or not service was contin5 uous) prior to the termination of employment as de6 scribed in paragraph (4), and whose pay is disbursed

7 by the Secretary of the Senate.

8 ‘‘(4) The term ‘‘displaced staff member’’ means

9 an eligible staff member whose service as an em10 ployee of the Senate is terminated solely and directly

11 as a result of a change of the individual occupying

12 the position of Chairman or Ranking Minority Mem13 ber of a committee and who is certified as a dis14 placed staff member by the Chairman and Ranking

15 Minority Member of the committee to the Secretary

16 of the Senate. Such certification shall be made no

17 later than 60 days from the date of such change.

18 ‘‘(b) The Secretary of the Senate shall notify the

19 Committee on Rules and Administration of the name of

20 each displaced staff member.

21 ‘‘(c)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Commit22 tee on Rules and Administration each displaced staff

23 member shall, upon application to the Secretary of the

24 Senate and approval by the Committee on Rules and Ad25 ministration, continue to be paid at their respective sala-
3

SRES 9 ATS

1 ries for a period not to exceed 60 days following the staff

2 member’s date of termination or until the staff member

3 becomes otherwise gainfully employed, whichever is ear4 lier.

5 ‘‘(2) A statement in writing by any such employee

6 that he was not gainfully employed during such period or

7 the portion thereof for which payment is claimed shall be

8 accepted as prima facie evidence that he was not so em9 ployed.

10 ‘‘(d) Funds necessary to carry out the provisions of

11 this section shall be available as set forth in section 1(d).’’.

Æ
#### Scranton Frocks, Inc., v. International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local 109, et al.

*Emanuel Laster,*for plaintiff.

May 21, 1952.

Hoban, P. J.,

Plaintiff presents a bill of complaint and asks for preliminary injunction to restrain defendants from picketing the place of business of plaintiff. Under the facts averred in the bill, I am of the opinion that the only situation developed is that of peaceful picketing for organization purposes. There are no averments that picketing has been conducted in any other than an orderly manner and while it is quite apparent that the facts state a situation in which neither the employes nor the employer have had relations with defendant union, nevertheless the union is entitled, under the law, even though it has had no contractual relations with either employes or employer, to picket for the purpose of inducing employes to join the union, even though those who do the picketing are not employes or in any way connected with the employer.

In Wortex Mills, Inc., v. Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. O., 369 Pa. 359, decided by the Supreme *523Court of Pennsylvania in January 1952, it appears that mass picketing and picketing which is somewhat other than peaceful was engaged in, in order to obtain the desired action on the part of the union, in a situation which neither the employes nor the employer had any contractual relations with the union enjoined. The chancellor in that case, however, found that the picketing had been other than peaceful and found as a fact that the object was to force the employer to a breach of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Law, or to cause the employer in that situation to commit an unfair labor practice.

Here no such conclusion could be arrived at from the facts averred in the bill. Paragraph 20 of the bill does aver that the purpose of the picketing is to coerce plaintiff herein to enter into a contract with defendant union which would obligate plaintiff to hire only union labor as employes. That paragraph can only be considered as a conclusion which certainly is not warranted by any- statement of fact contained in any other part of the bill. As the matter stands now, the clear purpose of the admittedly peaceful picketing is to induce employes to join defendant union or, for failure to do so, to publicize the fact that the employes in this plant do not belong to the union. It is unfortunate that the employer suffers inconvenience and perhaps loss of business because of the refusal of other tradesmen to cross the picket line so established. But even on the principles accepted and stated in Wortex Mills v. Textile Workers Union, supra, this involves no violation of the law and gives no warrant to enjoin the picketing which in other respects is conducted in a peaceful manner and for a legal purpose.

We, therefore, refuse the motion of plaintiff to issue a rule to show cause why preliminary injunction should not be granted restraining defendant from picketing and for other relief requested in the bill.
Third Amendment to the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.27 
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE 
 AMGEN NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2005) 
 The Amgen Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2005 (the “Plan”) is hereby amended effective as follows: 
  

	1.	Effective January 1, 2007, a new Appendix A is added to the Plan to designate, in addition to Amgen Inc., the subsidiaries and affiliates of Amgen Inc. that are participating
employers: 

 Appendix A 
 The following subsidiaries and affiliates of Amgen Inc. are designated as Employers: 
 Amgen Fremont Inc.

 Amgen Manufacturing, Limited 
 Amgen Mountain View Inc. 
 Amgen SF, LLC 
 Amgen USA Inc. 
 Amgen Worldwide Services, Inc. 
 Immunex Corporation 
 Immunex Manufacturing
Corporation 
 Immunex Rhode Island Corporation 
 Tularik Pharmaceutical Company 
  

	2.	Effective as of November 27, 2006, a new Appendix B is added to the Plan to set forth the eligibility requirements for staff members to participate in the Plan:


 Appendix B 
 Subject to the other terms and conditions of the Plan, the following management-level Employees shall be eligible to participate in the Plan: 
  

	 	1.	Those management-level Employees at Job Level 7 or higher. 

  

	 	2.	Those management-level Employees at Job Level 6 who, prior to the implementation of the Global Career Framework, were participating in the Plan. 

 To record this Third Amendment to the Plan as set forth herein, Amgen Inc. has caused its authorized officer to execute this document this 15th day of December 2006.

  

			
	AMGEN INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ BRIAN MCNAMEE

	Title:	 	Senior Vice President, Human Resources
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      22,123,499
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  918,261
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,220,105
<PP&E>                                       2,731,895
<DEPRECIATION>                                 757,989
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,846,671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,941,002
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    500,000
<COMMON>                                         5,183
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,375,858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,846,671
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,472,285
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,976,495
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             594,901
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (16,599,490)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (16,599,490)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (16,599,490)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

KAD/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELCY CRISTINA GARCES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71453

Agency No. A095-881-142

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Elcy Christina Garces, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of

FILED

JAN 20 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
KAD/Research 2 07-71453

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s decision for substantial

evidence, Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000), we review the

denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777,

782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we review due process claims de novo, Fernandez v.

Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Garces failed to

demonstrate a nexus to a protected ground, because she testified she was targeted

primarily on account of her family’s perceived wealth, and Garces merely

speculates that the guerillas were motivated by her political or imputed political

opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992). Therefore, her

asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 

Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection because Garces

failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured upon

return to Colombia. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2004).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying both Garces’ motion to

reopen and her request to hold her case in abeyance, because the BIA considered

the evidence she submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that

the evidence was insufficient to warrant either reopening or holding in abeyance. 
KAD/Research 3 07-71453

See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (The BIA’s denial of a

motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to

law.”). Accordingly, Garces’ contention that the BIA’s decision violated due

process fails as well. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(requiring error for a due process violation).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM R.P SCHERER
CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          26,219
<SECURITIES>                                     4,792
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,328
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,641
<INVENTORY>                                     65,710
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               243,611
<PP&E>                                         456,289
<DEPRECIATION>                                 123,764
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 758,201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,104
<BONDS>                                        143,525
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           243
<OTHER-SE>                                     382,991
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   758,201
<SALES>                                        149,091
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,091
<CGS>                                           99,885
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  123,819
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,238
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,645
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,505
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,216
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,216
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
        

</TABLE>
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 245

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should exercise the

line-item veto without awaiting the enactment of additional authorization for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination of its constitutionality.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 26 (legislative day, JULY 20), 1994

Mr. SPECTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should

exercise the line-item veto without awaiting the enactment of additional authorization for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination of its constitutionality.

Whereas Federal spending and the Federal budget deficit

have reached unreasonable and insupportable levels;

Whereas a line-item veto would enable the President to eliminate wasteful pork-barrel spending from the Federal

budget and curb the deficit before considering cuts in important programs;

Whereas evidence may suggest that the Framers of the Constitution intended that the President have the authority

to exercise the line-item veto;
2

SRES 245 IS

Whereas scholars who have studied the matter are not unanimous on the question of whether the President currently

has the authority to exercise the line-item veto;

Whereas there has never been a definitive judicial ruling that

the President does not have the authority to exercise the

line-item veto; and

Whereas some scholars who have studied the question agree

that a definitive judicial determination on the issue of

whether the President currently has the authority to exercise the line-item veto may be warranted: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the

2 President should exercise the line-item veto without await3 ing the enactment of additional authorization for the

4 purpose of obtaining a judicial determination of its con5 stitutionality.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LAHAINA ACQUISITIONS, INC. FOR
MARCH 31, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 (UNAUDITED)  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          50,604
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,385
<PP&E>                                       2,929,389
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (55,179)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,366,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          838,008
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     203,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,366,255
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,555
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               355,102
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             126,240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (399,787)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (399,787)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.17)


</TABLE>
§ 1.641(b)-2 Filing of returns and payment of the tax. ( a ) The fiduciary is required to make and file the return and pay the tax on the taxable income of an estate or of a trust. Liability for the payment of the tax on the taxable income of an estate attaches to the person of the executor or administrator up to and after his discharge if, prior to distribution and discharge, he had notice of his tax obligations or failed to exercise due diligence in ascertaining whether or not such obligations existed. For the extent of such liability, see section 3467 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by section 518 of the Revenue Act of 1934 (31 U. S. C. 192). Liability for the tax also follows the assets of the estate distributed to heirs, devisees, legatees, and distributees, who may be required to discharge the amount of the tax due and unpaid to the extent of the distributive shares received by them. See section 6901. The same considerations apply to trusts.
( b ) The estate of an infant, incompetent, or other person under a disability, or, in general, of an individual or corporation in receivership or a corporation in bankruptcy is not a taxable entity separate from the person for whom the fiduciary is acting, in that respect differing from the estate of a deceased person or of a trust. See section 6012(b) (2) and (3) for provisions relating to the obligation of the fiduciary with respect to returns of such persons.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11814, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 6580, 26 FR 11486, Dec. 5, 1961]
No. 43592.

February 6, 1939

#### *M. E. Blatt Company.*

Refund of income tax; improvements made by lessee. Opinion 87 C. Cls. 413.

On mandate of the Supreme Court reversing the decision of the Court of Claims (305 U. S. 267), the Court entered judgment for the plaintiff- in the sum of $211.61 with interest thereon from September 5,1934, as provided by law.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000854883
<NAME>                        Edd Helms Group, Inc.
<CURRENCY>                    Dollar

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         310,657
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,080,164
<ALLOWANCES>                                   51,966
<INVENTORY>                                    554,916
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,207,183
<PP&E>                                         1,822,263
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,163,304
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,122,456
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,173,478
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       126,740
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,560,164
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,122,456
<SALES>                                        2,621,249
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,621,249
<CGS>                                          1,814,358
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,814,358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               622,217
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,789
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                182,370
<INCOME-TAX>                                   160
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            182,210
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   182,210
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .01



</TABLE>