alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.52-3 Limitations with respect to certain persons. ( a ) *Mutual savings institutions.* In the case of an organization to which section 593 applies (that is, a mutual savings bank, a cooperative bank or a domestic building and loan association), the amount of the targeted jobs credit (new jobs credit in the case of wages paid before 1979) allowable under section 44B shall be 50 percent of the amount otherwise determined under section 51, or, in the case of an organization under common control, under § 1.52-1 (a) and (b).
( b ) *Regulated investment companies and real estate investment trusts.* In the case of a regulated investment company or a real estate investment trust subject to taxation under subchapter M, chapter 1 of the Code, the amount of the targeted jobs credit (new jobs credit in the case of wages paid before 1979) allowable under section 44B shall be reduced to the company's or trust's ratable share of the credit. The ratable share shall be determined in accordance with rules similar to the rules provided in section 46(e)(2)(B) and the regulations thereunder. For purposes of computing the ratable share, the reduction of the deduction for wage or salary expenses under § 1.280C-1 shall not be taken into account.
( c ) *Cooperatives* — ( 1 ) *Taxable years ending after October 31, 1978.* For taxable years ending after October 31, 1978, in the case of a cooperative organization described in section 1381(a), rules similar to rules provided in section 46(h) and the regulations thereunder shall apply in determining the distribution of the amount of the targeted jobs credit (new jobs credit in the case of wages paid before 1979) allowable to the cooperative organization and its patrons under section 44B.
( 2 ) *Taxable years ending before November 1, 1978.* For taxable years ending before November 1, 1978, in the case of a cooperative organization described in section 1381(a), the amount of new jobs credit allowable under section 44B shall be reduced to the cooperative's ratable share of the credit. The ratable share shall be the ratio which the taxable income of the cooperative for the taxable year bears to its taxable income increased by the amount of the deductions allowed under section 1382 (b) and (c). For purposes of computing the ratable share, the reduction of the deduction for wage or salary expenses under § 1.280C-1 shall not be taken into account.
(Secs. 44B, 381, and 7805 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (92 Stat. 2834, 26 U.S.C. 44B); 91 Stat. 148, 26 U.S.C. 381(c)(26); 68A Stat. 917, 26 U.S.C. 7805)
[T.D. 7921, 48 FR 52906, Nov. 23, 1983]
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00084- CR

Gle n L. Wi lliams, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 26TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 10- 1680 -K 26, H ONO RAB LE B ILLY RAY STUB B LEF IELD, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Glen L

. Wil liams filed a notice of appea l from a jud gm en t of conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle. Howeve r, the trial court cer tified that: (1) this is a plea barg ain case and Wil liams has no rig ht of appea l, and (2) Wil liams waived the rig ht of appea l. Wil liams and his counsel sig ned the c ertifica tion. The a ppeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P . 25.2(a) (2), ( d).

J eff Rose, J ustice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Aug ust 5, 2011 Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<LEGEND>                                      
</LEGEND>                                     
<CIK>                                         0000854941
<NAME>                                        Elegant Illusions, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                     1
<CURRENCY>                                         U.S.DOLLARS
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                             1,162,949
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      449,697
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        3,149,941
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   5,002,502
<PP&E>                                             1,647,263
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     6,744,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              141,743
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           18,234
<OTHER-SE>                                         6,456,628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       6,744,476
<SALES>                                            6,718,492
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   6,718,492
<CGS>                                              2,037,164
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      2,037,164
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   3,960,193
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    721,134
<INCOME-TAX>                                       270,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                451,134
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                       451,134
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        


</TABLE>
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 19

To make majority party appointments to Senate committees under paragraph

3 (a) and (b) of rule XXV for the One Hundred Third Congress.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. MITCHELL submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To make majority party appointments to Senate committees

under paragraph 3 (a) and (b) of rule XXV for the

One Hundred Third Congress.

1 Resolved, That the following shall constitute the ma2 jority party’s membership on the committees for the One

3 Hundred Third Congress, or until their successors are

4 chosen:

5 COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET: Mr. Sasser (chair6 man), Mr. Hollings, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Riegle, Mr. Exon,

7 Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Simon, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dodd, Mr.

8 Sarbanes, Mrs. Boxer, and Ms. Murray.

9 COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION: Mr.

10 Ford (chairman), Mr. Pell, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
2

SRES 19 ATS

1 DeConcini, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Feinstein, and

2 Mr. Mathews.

3 COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS: Mr. Bumpers

4 (chairman), Mr. Nunn, Mr. Levin, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry

5 of Massachusetts, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Wellstone, Mr.

6 Wofford, Mr. Heflin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Kohl, and Ms.

7 Moseley-Braun.

8 COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS: Mr. Rocke9 feller (chairman), Mr. DeConcini, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Gra10 ham, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Campbell.

11 SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING: Mr. Pryor (chair12 man), Mr. Glenn, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Breaux,

13 Mr. Shelby, Mr. Reid, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kohl, Mr.

14 Feingold, and Mr. Krueger.

Æ
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8045 

To limit the closure or consolidation of any United States Postal Service 

processing and distribution center in States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 17, 2024 

Ms. HAGEMAN (for herself and Mr. PAPPAS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To limit the closure or consolidation of any United States 

Postal Service processing and distribution center in 

States, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Postal Operations Stay 

5 Timely And Local Act’’ or the ‘‘POSTAL Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON CLOSING OR CONSOLIDATING 

7 POSTAL SERVICE PROCESSING AND DIS8 TRIBUTION CENTERS IN STATES. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The United States Postal Service 

10 may not close, consolidate, downgrade, or take any other 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8045 IH

1 similar action with respect to any processing and distribu2 tion center in a State if such action would result in no 

3 such center being located in that State or negatively im4 pact mail delivery. 

5 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

6 (1) the term ‘‘processing and distribution cen7 ter’’ means a central mail facility that— 

8 (A) distributes and dispatches part or all 

9 of both incoming mail and outgoing mail for a 

10 designated service area; 

11 (B) provides instructions on the prepara12 tion of collection mail, dispatch schedules, and 

13 sorting plan requirements to mailers; and 

14 (C) is a sectional center facility, a general 

15 mail facility, or a dedicated mail processing fa16 cility without a station or branch; and 

17 (2) the term ‘‘State’’ means the 50 States and 

18 the District of Columbia. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                         JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                           SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                   5,744,804
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              805,370
<ALLOWANCES>                                                54,587
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           340,042
<PP&E>                                                   3,136,232
<DEPRECIATION>                                           1,904,315
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           8,272,159
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      908,515
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                    29,552
<OTHER-SE>                                                 539,348
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             8,272,159
<SALES>                                                  1,398,672
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         1,398,672
<CGS>                                                      153,992
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            8,125,429
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          11,390
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (6,753,364)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (6,753,364)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (6,753,364)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (0.27)


</TABLE>
<page>
EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Morgan Stanley
Principal Plus Fund L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter
Davis, President of Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.









By:  	/s/ Walter Davis

Name:		    Walter Davis
Title:	    President of Demeter Management Corporation,
			    the general partner of the Partnership

Date:		    November 13, 2008
Appendix 9.7 

BART Agreements
616 P.2d 932

#### Martin VALENZUELA, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, William J. Redondo, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Mary P. BRACAMONTE, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 2 CA-CIV 3568.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

June 30, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 6, 1980.

Review Denied Sept. 11, 1980.

Miller, Pitt & Feldman, P. C. by Richard L. McAnally and John L. Tully, Tucson, for plaintiff/appellant.

Murphy & Hazlett by Scott Goering, Tucson, for defendant/appellee.

OPINION

RICHMOND, Judge.

This appeal from a judgment entered on a defense verdict in a personal injury action turns on whether there was any evidence of contributory negligence. We affirm.

Appellant, 13 at the time, was crossing an intersection on his bicycle. He testified that he looked in both directions but did not see appellee’s vehicle approaching from the left. He was followed by his three-year-old cousin on a tricycle. Appellee testified she did not see the boys until she was in the intersection. She swerved left to avoid the three-year-old and struck appellant, who had crossed the center of the road.

Appellant contends it was error to instruct the jury on contributory negligence and to deny his motions for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for new trial. The trial court in a minute entry denying the latter motion stated:

> The Court believes the jury found for the Defendant in this case because of contributory negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. The Court believes that that negli*473gence constituted an attempt to cross the street in question without maintaining a proper look-out; and even though the Plaintiff was able to get into a protected lane of traffic, the Plaintiff knew that he was being followed by a younger child on a three (3) wheel bicycle. The accident happened when the Defendant who was negligent in failing to yield the right-of-way, struck the Plaintiff while avoiding the younger child, who was in her lane of traffic. Based upon these facts, the Court believes the jury verdict must stand.

A bicyclist like a driver having the right-of-way at an intersection has a duty to exercise the degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would use under the circumstances to discover dangerous situations and avoid injury. *Egurrola v. Szychowski,*95 Ariz. 194, 388 P.2d 242 (1964); A.R.S. § 28-812. What is reasonable under the circumstances is a matter for the jury to decide. The jury could have found appellant negligent in entering the intersection even though he had time to cross to the far lane of traffic, because he knew his cousin was following him and should have foreseen that appellee might swerve to avoid the tricycle. *Cf.*Restatement, Second, Torts § 495 (negligent failure to control conduct of third person as bar to recovery) and comment b thereto.

Affirmed.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and HOWARD, J., concur.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1432

NABOR GONZALEZ GONZALEZ
,
Petitioner
,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
, Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : February 21, 2023 Decided: June 9, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Br i an Boynton, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Tim Ramnitz, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1432 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Nabor Gonzalez Gonzalez
, a native and citizen of Mexico
, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dis missing his appeal from the immigration
judge ’ s denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)

. In denying cancellation of removal, the immigration judge found that Gonzalez failed to

show that his removal would cause a n exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for his

U nited States citizen daughter. We review this determination as a mixed question of fact

and law. Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland , 6 F.4th 552, 560 (4th Cir. 2021)

.
We have reviewed the administrative recor d in conjunction with the arguments
advanced by Gonzalez and conclude there is no error in the agency ’ s dispositive hardship

determination. We also conclude that Gonzalez’s daughter was not deprived of any
constitutional rights due to the denial of Gonzal ez’s application for cancellation of removal.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review

. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1432 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
To:     Joe Hagerman

From:      Lois Starkey

Date:    February 23, 2015

Subject:    MHI Winter Meeting

On behalf of the Manufactured Housing Institute, thank you for attending the MHI Winter Meeting,

February 9, 2015.  It was a timely opportunity for MHI’s leadership and members to hear from you

regarding the recommendations of the Department of Energy’s ASRAC Working Group on Manufactured

Housing, including a summary of the term sheet developed by the Working Group and the non‐binding

recommendations.

It was also helpful to hear the status of the Department’s plans to propose rulemaking to implement the

2007 Congressional mandate to establish energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing, and to

hear of DOE’s support of a recommendation by the consensus group to establish another ASRAC

Working Group to address compliance and enforcement of the energy efficiency standards.

Again, thank you for taking the time to attend our meeting.  Your participation and presentation were

well received and much appreciated.
US HIGHWAY 385

SILVER CITY

MERRITT ESTE

EAST GIMLET

HORSE CREEK

CROSSOVER ROAD

SD HIGHWAY 44

BOGUS JIM

NEMO RD

JENNEY GULCH

CHINA GULCH

VICTORIA LAKE

CROSSOVER ROAD

EAST GIMLET

BOGUS JIM

Legend

Pactola Boundary

Pactola Reservoir

Private Ownership

Main Roads

Treatments

Commercial Thin

Overstory Removal

Cable/Helicopter Logging

Helicopter Logging

Hardwood Treatment

Meadow Treatment

Non-Commercial Thin

Roadside Treatments

Fuel Breaks

Map 2 - Pactola Project Area

Selected Action C Modified Treatments

0 0.5 1 2

®

Miles Map by R. Rick
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 10

- 00 29 0

- CR

RACHAEL ANNE SHOEMAK ER APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM THE 43 rd DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s A Motion To Dismiss Appeal

. @ The motion

complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this

motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and M EIER , J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex . R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: September 9 , 2010

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 145 (Thursday, July 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 37988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18340]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

Time and Date:  11 a.m., Friday, August 7, 2009.

Place:  1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status:  Closed.

Matters to be Considered:  Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person for More Information:  Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-
5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-18340 Filed 7-28-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P