alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6337-1 Redemption of property. ( a ) *Before sale.* Any person whose property has been levied upon shall have the right to pay the amount due, together with costs and expenses of the proceeding, if any, to the district director at any time prior to the sale of the property. Upon such payment the district director shall restore such property to the owner and all further proceedings in connection with the levy on such property shall cease from the time of such payment.
( b ) *Redemption of real estate after sale* — ( 1 ) *Period.* The owner of any real estate sold as provided in section 6335, his heirs, executors, or administrators, or any person having any interest therein, or a lien thereon, or any person in their behalf, shall be permitted to redeem the property sold, or any particular tract of such property, at any time within 120 days after the sale thereof.
( 2 ) *Price.* Such property or tract of property may be redeemed upon payment to the purchaser, or in case he cannot be found in the county in which the property to be redeemed is situated, then to the district director for the internal revenue district in which the property is situated, for the use of the purchaser, his heirs, or assigns, the amount paid by such purchaser and interest thereon at the rate of 20 percent per annum. In case real and personal property (or several tracts of real property) are purchased in the aggregate, the redemption price of the real property (or of each of the several tracts) shall be determined on the basis of the ratio, as of the time of sale, of the value of the real property (or tract) to the value of the total property purchased. For this purpose the minimum price or the highest bid price, whichever is higher, offered for the property separately or in groups shall be treated as the value.
( c ) *Record.* When any real property is redeemed, the district director shall cause entry of the fact to be made upon the record of sale kept in accordance with section 6340, and such entry shall be evidence of such redemption. The party who redeems the property shall notify the district director of the internal revenue district in which the property is situated of the date of such redemption and of the transfer of the certificate of sale, the amount of the redemption price, and the name of the party to whom such redemption price was paid.
[32 FR 15241, Nov. 3, 1967, as amended by T.D. 7180, 37 FR 7319, Apr. 13, 1972]
#### Continental Insurance Company, Respondent, v Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, et al., Appellants.

[805 NYS2d 18]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered on or about April 22, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4) or CPLR 327, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*288Defendants did not demonstrate, in support of their motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, that the interests of substantial justice would be served by moving the action to the proposed alternative forum of Pennsylvania *(see*CPLR 327; *Grizzle v Hertz Corp.,*305 AD2d 311, 312 [2003]). Indeed, our review of the record *(see Phat Tan Nguyen v Banque Indosuez,*19 AD3d 292, 294 [2005]) indicates that there is a substantial nexus between this action and New York, five of the insurance policies at issue having been issued, negotiated, brokered and paid for here and the circumstances giving rise to the underlying actions having in large part occurred here *(see Seneca Ins. Co. v Lincolnshire Mgt.,*269 AD2d 274, 275 [2000]; *Employers Ins. of Wausau v American Home Prods. Corp.,*207 AD2d 1, 2 [1994]). Defendants made no showing that retention of the action would unduly burden New York courts *(see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi,*62 NY2d 474, 479 [1984], *cert denied*469 US 1108 [1985]). While any choice of law issues presented by this litigation are not yet ripe for adjudication, New York courts would be perfectly capable of and would not be unduly burdened by applying Pennsylvania law, should the need arise *(see Yoshida Print. Co. v Aiba,*213 AD2d 275 [1995]).

In view of this action’s strong connection to this jurisdiction, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in declining to grant that branch of defendants’ motion seeking dismissal of the action on the ground that another similar action between the parties, temporally proximate to this one, is pending in Pennsylvania *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [4]; *and see San Ysidro Corp. v Robinow,*1 AD3d 185, 187 [2003]; *White Light Prods. v On The Scene Prods.,*231 AD2d 90, 93 [1997]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.
IA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 176

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish

the Federal income tax.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 24, 1996

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. HASTERT, Mr. FIELDS of

Texas, Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. CHRYSLER, Ms. DUNN of Washington, Mr.

CRANE, Mr. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. HANCOCK, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr.

BUNNING of Kentucky, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. SKEEN, Mr.

HANSEN, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. LAUGHLIN, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr.

HAYWORTH, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mrs. SEASTRAND, Mr.

ENSIGN, Mr. FRISA, Mr. BONILLA, Mr. STOCKMAN, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr.

BURR, Mr. GOSS, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. DORNAN, Mr. BONO, Mr. DREIER, Mrs. CUBIN,

Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. KNOLLENBERG,

Mr. HOSTETTLER, and Mr. NORWOOD) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to abolish the Federal income tax.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents
2

•HJ 176 IH

1 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by

2 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with3 in seven years after the date of its submission for ratifica4 tion:

5 ‘‘ARTICLE—

6 ‘‘SECTION 1. Three years after the ratification of this

7 article of amendment, the sixteenth article of amendment

8 to the Constitution of the United States is repealed, and

9 the Congress shall have no power to lay and collect taxes

10 on incomes, except in time of war declared by the Con11 gress.’’

12 ‘‘SECTION 2. Not later than 180 days after the ratifi13 cation of the article of amendment proposed by this joint

14 resolution, the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to

15 the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Rep16 resentatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate

17 recommendations for any legislation that may be nec18 essary to implement that article.’’.

Æ
(November 21, 2005)

#### Muhammed Afzal, Appellant, v Board of Fire Commissioners of Bellmore Fire District, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[806 NYS2d 637]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the. plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated September 7, 2004, as denied, as premature, that branch of his cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) insofar as asserted against the defendant Board of Fire Commissioners of the Bellmore Fire District.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As significant discovery, including the deposition of the plaintiff, had not been completed, the Supreme Court properly denied, as premature, that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) insofar as asserted against the defendant Board of Fire Commissioners of *508the Bellmore Fire District *(see Groves v Land’s End Hous. Co.,*80 NY2d 978 [1992]; *Rengifo v City of New York,*7 AD3d 773 [2004]; CPLR 3212 [f]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 73 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 73

 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
 respect to the number of terms of office of Members of the Senate and 
                     the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 1995

   Mr. McCollum introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
 respect to the number of terms of office of Members of the Senate and 
                     the House of Representatives.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1. No person who has been elected for a full term to the 
Senate two times shall be eligible for election or appointment to the 
Senate. No person who has been elected for a full term to the House of 
Representatives six times shall be eligible for election to the House 
of Representatives.
    ``Section 2. No person who has served as a Senator for more than 
three years of a term to which some other person was elected shall 
subsequently be eligible for election to the Senate more than once. No 
person who has served as a Representative for more than one year shall 
subsequently be eligible for election to the House of Representatives 
more than five times.
    ``Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have 
been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States 
by the Congress.
    ``Section 4. No election or service occurring before this article 
becomes operative shall be taken into account when determining 
eligibility for election under this article.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                        1000
                                   
<S>                                           <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                  Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                                239
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        4603
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                          8206
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    13951
<PP&E>                                               1884
<DEPRECIATION>                                     766600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      18052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                9108
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                2962
<PREFERRED>                                          1250
<COMMON>                                              233
<OTHER-SE>                                           9313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        18052
<SALES>                                              4730
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     4730
<CGS>                                                4022
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1253
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (822)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         (280)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (542)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (542)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 7, 2019 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00992-CV KODI MCCUIN, Appellant
V. VINYARD AT THE RANCH, Appellee On Appeal from the Justice Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JE-1903335 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, M olberg, and Partida-Kipness Opinion by Justice Bridges Appellant attempts to appeal a judgment from a justice court. By letter dated August 26, 2019, the Court questioned its jur isdiction over this appeal an d instructed appellant to file, by September 5, 2019, a letter brief addressing the Court’s concer n. We cautioned appellant that failure to comply may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not complied. Appeals from justice courts generally lie either in the county or the district court. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN . § 51.001(a). Consequently, a justice court judgment cannot b e appealed directly to the court of appeals. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.220(a); Tejas Elevator Co. v. Concord Elevator, Inc., 982 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.) (mem.op.)

.–2– Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals from just ice courts, we dismiss this appeal and appellant’s pending motion for stay. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

190992F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
KODI MCCUIN, Appellant
No. 05-19-00992-CV V. VINYARD AT THE RANCH, Appellee On Appeal from the Justice Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JE-1903335. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Molberg and Partida-Kipness participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee VINYARD AT THE RANCH recover its costs of this a ppeal from appellant KODI MCCUIN.
Judgment entered October 7, 2019
www.gpo.gov

### §286e–1e. Equivalent increase in quota of United States

The United States Governor of the Fund is authorized to consent to an increase in the quota of the United States in the Fund equivalent to 1,705 million Special Drawing Rights.

(July 31, 1945, ch. 339, §25, as added Pub. L. 94–564, §1, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2660.)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30804

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TRAVIS L. WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:07-CR-70-2

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Travis L. Williams

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Williams has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

counsel’s assessmentthat the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 16, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-30804 Document: 00512209543 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2013
----

REPORT

on the annual accounts of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2005 together with the Foundation's replies

(2006/C 312/14)

CONTENTS

Tables 1 to 4

The Foundation's replies

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT OF ASSURANCE

Reliability of the accountsThe Foundation's accounts for the financial year ended 31 December 2005 are, in all material respects, reliable.Legality and regularity of the underlying transactionsThe transactions underlying the Foundation's annual accounts, taken as a whole, are legal and regular.The observations which follow do not call the Court's statement into question.

OBSERVATIONS

This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 28 September 2006.

For the Court of Auditors

Hubert WEBER

Président

----

(1)OJ L 139, 30.5.1975, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(3)  These accounts were drawn up on 30 June 2006 and received by the Court on 4 July 2006.

----

Table 1

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin)

EUROPEAN FOUNDATION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF LIVING AND WORKING CONDITIONS

Source: Data supplied by the Foundation — These tables summarise the data provided by the Foundation in its annual accounts.

Table 2

Implementation of the budget for the financial year 2005

Table 3

Revenue and expenditure account for the financial year 2005 (2)

Table 4

Balance sheet at 31 December 2005 and 31 December 2004 (3)

----

(1)  Including European Economic Area subsidies.

(2)  Data for the financial year 2004 are not shown as they are not comparable with the year 2005 because of the change in the accounting principles applied.

(3)  Data for the financial year 2004 have been restated to allow comparison with those for 2005.

----

THE FOUNDATION'S REPLIES

----
#### Sylvia Hunter, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants, and Atlantic Demolition Corp., Respondent.

[806 NYS2d 4]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered October 1, 2004, which denied the motion of the Biltmore defendants and the cross motion of the City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously modified, on the law, the City’s cross motion granted, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against defendant City of New York.

According to the complaint, plaintiff was injured when she *224tripped and fell on a city sidewalk abutting property owned by defendant Biltmore 47 Associates LLC. Biltmore 47 retained defendant Atlantic Demolition to tear down certain structures on its property to make way for new construction performed by defendant Biltmore Construction Co. It is undisputed that a plywood construction fence erected at the site by defendant Atlantic encroached on the adjacent sidewalk, limiting the pedestrian passageway to a portion of the sidewalk abutting a subway grating.

The denial of summary judgment dismissing the action as against the Biltmore defendants was correct, since there are triable factual issues as to whether the sidewalk encroachment constituted a special use by them, and as to whether the encroachment proximately caused plaintiffs harm by directing her toward the alleged defect *(see Ryan v Gordon L. Hayes, Inc.,*17 NY2d 765 [1966], *affg*22 AD2d 985 [1964]; *Curtis v City of New York,*179 AD2d 432 [1992], *lv denied*80 NY2d 753 [1992]; *cf. Batances v 700 W. 176th St. Realty Corp.,*250 AD2d 504 [1998]).

No triable issue of fact was raised, however, in response to the City’s prima facie showing that it had not received notice of the defect. Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the Big Apple map shows no defect at the site of the alleged accident *(see Waldron v City of New York,*175 AD2d 123 [1991]; *cf. Almadotter v City of New York,*15 AD3d 426 [2005]; *Vasquez v City of New York,*298 AD2d 187 [2002]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6712-1 Failure to disclose treaty-based return positions. ( a ) *Penalty imposed.* A taxpayer who fails in a material way to disclose one or more positions taken for a taxable year, as required by section 6114 and the regulations thereunder, is subject to a separate penalty for each failure to disclose a position taken with respect to each separate payment or separate income item in the amount of— ( 1 ) For a corporation taxable as such under the Code $10,000; or
( 2 ) For all other taxpayers, $1,000. The penalty imposed by this section may be imposed more than once for a single taxable year if a taxpayer has failed to disclose one or more positions taken with respect to more than one separate payment or separate income item and may be imposed in addition to any other penalty imposed by law. For this purpose, separate payments or income items of the same type (e.g., interest payments) received from the same ultimate payor (e.g., the obligor on the note) will be treated as separate payments or income items (and not aggregated). However, for purposes of determining the number of separate penalties to be imposed under this section, the District Director shall have the discretion to aggregate separate payments or income items, in whole or in part, in accordance with the rules for aggregation of such items for purposes of reporting, as described in § 301.6114-1(d).
( b ) *Penalty waived.* Pursuant to the authority contained in section 6712(b) of the Code, the penalty imposed by paragraph (a) of this section may be waived, in whole or in part, if it is established to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner (International), the District Director or the Director of the Internal Revenue Service Center that the taxpayer's failure to disclose the required information was not due to willful neglect. An affirmative showing of lack of willful neglect must be made in the form of a written statement that sets forth all the facts alleged to show lack of willful neglect and contains a declaration by such person that the statement is made under the penalties of perjury.
( c ) *Manner of payment.* The penalty set forth in paragraph (a) of this section shall be paid in the same manner as tax upon the issuance of a notice and demand thereof.
( d ) *Effective date.* This section is effective for taxable years of the taxpayer for which the due date for filing returns (without extension) occurs after December 31, 1988.
[T.D. 8292, 55 FR 9441, Mar. 14, 1990]