alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                           DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                                    790
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          11,442
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                            14,284
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       27,633
<PP&E>                                                 22,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                          4,036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         48,751
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   6,826
<BONDS>                                                19,546
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  173
<OTHER-SE>                                             19,209
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           48,751
<SALES>                                                16,428
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       16,428
<CGS>                                                  12,024
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           2,261
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           70
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        464
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         1,609
<INCOME-TAX>                                              608
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     1,001
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                              990
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.06
        

</TABLE>
§ 1.642(d)-1 Net operating loss deduction. The net operating loss deduction allowed by section 172 is available to estates and trusts generally, with the following exceptions and limitations: ( a ) In computing gross income and deductions for the purposes of section 172, a trust shall exclude that portion of the income and deductions attributable to the grantor or another person under sections 671 through 678 (relating to grantors and others treated as substantial owners).
( b ) An estate or trust shall not, for the purposes of section 172, avail itself of the deductions allowed by section 642(c) (relating to charitable contributions deductions) and sections 651 and 661 (relating to deductions for distributions).
0 5 25 75 95 100 0 5 25 75 95 100 0 5 25 75 95 100

0 5 25 75 95 100 BR0312REV0 Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:12:50 AM0 5 25 75 95 100 0 5 25 75 95 100 0 5 25 75 95 100

0 5 25 75 95 100 BR0312REV0 Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:12:55 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Managed Pension Assets Partnership 1989-1, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of
operations  contained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended March 31, 1997 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         192,983
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  181,142
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               374,125
<PP&E>                                         3,086,394
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,881,794)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,578,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,496
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,572,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,578,725
<SALES>                                        146,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               147,797
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  48,026<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                80,282
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            80,282
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   80,282
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### H. L. ABERCROMBIE *v.*Mike RICHARDS

5-5307

455 S. W. 2d 887

Opinion delivered June 29, 1970

*Ewell McCright,*for appellant.

*Hardin ér Rickard,*for appellee.

Frank Holt, Justice.

This is an appeal from an adverse ruling on appellant’s petition to vacate three default judgments.

On January 29, 1969, appellee filed three separate suits for monies owed to him by appellant for various reasons. Appellant answered with a general denial to each claim and asserted one counterclaim. The cases were consolidated and set for trial on April 9, 1969. On that date appellant’s attorney moved for a continuance primarily due to the inability of the appellant to be present because of illness. An unverified written statement from appellant’s housekeeper was offered to the court asserting that appellant was sick and unable to appear. Appellant’s son appeared before the court and orally made a statement to the same effect. After making inquiry as to the nature ot the defenses to the actions, the court announced that it would enter default judgments against the appellant on the three cases, but that if competent medical evidence were produced establish*1323ing that appellant was unable to appear and defend because of illness, the judgments would be vacated.

On April 24, 1969, appellant’s attorney filed a written motion to vacate the judgments, stating in part: “That to date no physician has been found to attend said defendant, examine and prescribe for his benefit. That the said defendant is still ill.” The court dismissed this motion on April 29, 1969, finding that: “1. No excusable negligence has been alleged in said motion. 2. No verified affidavit from competent medical authorities are alleged or set out therein.” The March Term of the Circuit Court adjourned; and, upon the opening of the September Term, appellant entered a petition to vacate the judgments. The petition alleged that new evidence had been acquired concerning appellant’s illness and inability to appear on the date set for trial; that this new evidence would prove a casualty and misfortune which prevented him from appearing; that the court has never heard this new evidence; that the court’s dismissal of appellant’s motion to vacate the judgments perpetrated a fraud upon appellant in that he was not informed of the date of the hearing which resulted in said order; and that appellant has a meritorious defense to this cause. From the court’s dismissal of this petition, based upon the pleadings, comes this appeal.

We have often said that, irrespective of other allegations, one cannot successfully set aside a default judgment after term time unless a meritorious defense to the action be alleged and shown. *Alexander*v. *Jones,*233 Ark. 708, 346 S. W. 2d 692 (1961); *Sweet*v. *Nix,*197 Ark. 284, 122 S. W. 2d 538 (1938); Ark. Stat. Ann. § 29-509 (Repl. 1962). In the case at bar, appellant alleged a “meritorious defense.” However, this was a naked allegation and a conclusion of law which did not elaborate or show in what respect a valid defense existed on the actual merits of the case. Consequently, it was not error to dismiss the petition.

*1324Affirmed.
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 266

To express the sense of the Senate concerning the future commitment of

United States military forces overseas.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 21 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

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

Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate concerning the future

commitment of United States military forces overseas.

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

2 the commitment of United States forces in future conflict

3 situations, the United States—

4 (a) should not commit forces to combat unless

5 the particular commitment or occasion is deemed

6 vital to our national interest;

7 (b) should, after determining the introduction

8 of combat troops is an absolute necessity, commit

9 troops wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of

10 winning;
2

SRES 266 IS

1 (c) should have clearly defined political and

2 military objectives and should know precisely how

3 United States forces will accomplish these clearly de4 fined objectives;

5 (d) should continually reassess and readjust if

6 necessary the relationship between United States ob7 jectives and the United States forces that have been

8 committed, including the size, composition, and dis9 position of those troops;

10 (e) should commit no forces without the reason11 able assurance that the American people and their

12 elected representatives in Congress support the ac13 tion; and

14 (f) should only commit United States forces to

15 combat as a last resort.

Æ
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 66

Expressing the opposition of the Senate to the imposition of an import

fee on crude oil and refined petroleum products.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 4 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. INOUYE) submitted the following resolution;

which was referred to the Comnittee on Finance

RESOLUTION

Expressing the opposition of the Senate to the imposition

of an import fee on crude oil and refined petroleum products.

Whereas an import fee on crude oil or refined petroleum

products would have an inflationary effect on the United

States economy and would have widespread adverse impacts throughout the United States;

Whereas for each dollar the import fee is increased, the cost

of petroleum for United States consumers increases approximately $6,200,000,000;

Whereas an oil import fee could potentially stall our country’s

economic recovery and harm the ability of United States

companies to compete in foreign markets;

Whereas such a fee, even though applied only to imports,

would increase the price of all oil consumed in the United
2

•SRES 66 IS

States, because the price of domestically produced crude

oil and domestically refined products would increase to

the same level as imported oil;

Whereas such a fee would have widespread indirect inflationary costs by raising the cost of all consumer goods;

Whereas the additional costs resulting from an oil import fee

would be disproportionately greater in areas of the country that rely on imported oil and petroleum products; and

Whereas the adverse inflationary effects of such a fee would

far outweigh the marginal increase in Federal revenues:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that nei2 ther the President nor the Congress should impose any

3 import fee on the importation of crude oil or refined petro4 leum products.

Æ
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on June 22, 2009, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, AIM GmbH, Freiburg, Germany; and Tundra Semiconductor Corporation, Fremont, CA have been added as parties to this venture. In addition, in the last filing of PXI Systems, the name “DAQTron, Inc.” was inadvertently misspelled “DAWTron, Inc.” Accordingly, DAQTron, Inc., Roswell, GA has withdrawn as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 22, 2009. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on April 10, 2009 (74 FR 24034).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. E9-18323 Filed 7-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
c 

Honi .Staphen P. 

aounty Aittornsy 

DaWitt Comity 

Ouaro, Texas 

De&r Sir: 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN ,4L 514~ sd g33 

February 16, 1939 

Your letter of 

in whioh you dea 

opinion as ~to wh 

iWing to puroha 

tween $1,500.00 

sor oonpstltivs 

haa been reoaived 

furnish you an 

ionem' Court, dsing poabably behsve to advertise 

the lowest and best bid.,.," 

peotfully attaoh hereto a copy of 

Hon. 

an opinJoe Sharp, Assistant Attorney General, 

addressad to Hon. Alwln 2. Paps, County Attorney, I'iaguih, 

Texas, under date of Soptamber 14, 1937, whioh answera, 

BO doubt, the identioal queetion aa oontsined in your 

letter. It appears, thsrefore, that this Department has 

oonalatently hold that road maohinsry oomas under the terms 
Hon. Stephen P. liebert, Fsbruery 16, 1939, Page 2 

and within the meaning of said statute and that the 

phrase *ruppllee of every kind" would lnalude euoh road 

mtohlnsry 4s mentioned. 

It is, therefore, the opinion of this Department that in the purohaee of a road traator as outlined 

In your letter that fmme ahould be adrertiaed for oompetltivs blda, as provided in the above statute. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORt?EY GENERAL @F TEXAS 

BY 

in-3 

ant 

APPROVED: ' 

ATTORXiT GXNERAL OP TEXAS
§ 1.707-9 Effective dates and transitional rules. ( a ) *Sections 1.707-3 through 1.707-6* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (a), §§ 1.707-3 through 1.707-6 apply to any transaction with respect to which all transfers occur on or after October 5, 2016. For any transaction with respect to which all transfers that are part of a sale of an item of property occur after April 24, 1991, and any of such transfers occurs before October 5, 2016, §§ 1.707-3 through 1.707-6 as contained in 26 CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2016, apply.
( 2 ) *Transfers occurring on or before April 24, 1991.* Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, in the case of any transaction with respect to which one or more of the transfers occurs on or before April 24, 1991, the determination of whether the transaction is a disguised sale of property (including a partnership interest) under section 707(a)(2) is to be made on the basis of the statute and the guidance provided regarding that provision in the legislative history of section 73 of the Tax Reform Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-369, 98 Stat. 494). See H.R. Rep. No. 861, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 859-62 (1984); S. Prt. No. 169 (Vol. I), 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 223-32 (1984); H.R. Rep. No. 432 (Pt. 2), 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 1216-21 (1984).
( 3 ) *Effective date of section 73 of the Tax Reform Act of 1984.* Sections 1.707-3 through 1.707-6 do not apply to any transfer of money or other consideration to which section 73(a) of the Tax Reform Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-369, 98 Stat. 494) does not apply pursuant to section 73(b) of that Act.
( 4 ) *Applicability date of § 1.707-5(a)(2) and (f)(2) , (3) , (7) , and (8) .* ( i ) Section 1.707-5(a)(2) and (f)(2), (3), (7), and (8) apply to any transaction with respect to which all transfers occur on or after October 4, 2019. However, a partnership and its partners may apply § 1.707-5(a)(2) and (f)(2), (3), (7), and (8) to any transaction with respect to which all transfers occur on or after January 3, 2017.
( ii ) For any transaction with respect to which any transfers occur before January 3, 2017, § 1.707-5(a)(2) and (f), as contained in 26 CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2016, apply.
( iii ) For any transaction with respect to which all transfers occur on or after January 3, 2017, and any of such transfers occurs before October 4, 2019, see § 1.707-9T(a)(5) as contained in 26 CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2019.
( b ) *Section 1.707-8 disclosure of certain information.* The disclosure provisions described in § 1.707-8 apply to transactions with respect to which all transfers that are part of a sale of property occur after September 30, 1992.
[T.D. 8439, 57 FR 44989, Sept. 30, 1992, as amended by T.D. 9788, 81 FR 69288, Oct. 5, 2016; T.D. 9787, 81 FR 69300, Oct. 5, 2016; 83 FR 50259, Oct. 5, 2018; T.D. 9876, 84 FR 54029, Oct. 9, 2019]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7899 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7899

 To direct the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services, to promulgate the final regulations relating 
               to special registration for telemedicine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 9, 2024

  Mr. Ezell introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   the Judiciary, 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 direct the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services, to promulgate the final regulations relating 
               to special registration for telemedicine.

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

SECTION 1. REGULATIONS RELATING TO SPECIAL REGISTRATION FOR 
              TELEMEDICINE.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services, shall promulgate the final regulations required under 
section 311(h)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
831(h)(2)).
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1.812-9 Cross-reference.

For special rules regarding the treatment of modified guaranteed contracts (as defined in section 817A and § 1.817A-1(a)(1)), *see* § 1.817A-1.

[T.D. 9058, 68 FR 24350, May 7, 2003]