alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 58.6065-1 Verification of returns. ( a ) *In general.* If either a stock repurchase excise tax return (as defined in § 58.6011-1(b)), statement, or other document made with respect to any tax imposed by chapter 37 of the Internal Revenue Code, or the related form and instructions, requires that such return, statement, or other document contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, then it must be so verified by the person or persons required to sign such return, statement, or other document. In addition, any other statement or document submitted under any provision of chapter 37, subtitle F, or regulations under this part with respect to any tax imposed by chapter 37 may be required to contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury.
( b ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to stock repurchase excise tax returns, statements, or other documents that are required to be made with respect to the tax imposed by chapter 37 and required to be filed after June 28, 2024, and during taxable years ending after June 28, 2024.
#### Christopher Edwards, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 733]

*711Cardona, EJ.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Sise, J.), entered March 14, 2003, which denied claimant’s motion for summary judgment.

Claimant, an inmate, filed this claim seeking damages for the alleged loss of materials that he ordered from an art supply company while incarcerated at Eastern Correctional Facility in Ulster County. The Court of Claims denied claimant’s motion for summary judgment and claimant now appeals.

For claimant to prevail on his motion, he was required to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by “tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” *(Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *see JMD Holding Corp. v Congress Fin. Corp.,*4 NY3d 373, 384 [2005]). In support of his motion, claimant submitted no evidence beyond his own unsubstantiated allegations to establish that the supplies he ordered were actually delivered into the possession of the facility, which is an essential element of his claim *(see People v Wilson,*93 NY2d 222, 227-228 [1999]; *Osborn v Cline,*263 NY 434, 437 [1934]; *see also*7 NYCRR 1700.7). As claimant’s proof was insufficient to satisfy his initial burden *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]), his motion for summary judgment was properly denied *(see Cuevas v Quandt’s Foodservice Distribs.,*6 AD3d 973, 974-975 [2004]).

Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

JAY RODIA GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana 

MICHELLE BUMGARNER

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

PAUL SPARKS, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 49A02-1207-CR-593

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Robert Altice, Judge

Cause No. 49G02-1202-FC-8723

April 23, 2013

OPINION ON REHEARING - FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Chief Judge
2

The State has petitioned for rehearing of this court’s decision in Sparks v. State, 983 

N.E.2d 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), in which we held that the trial court did not handle Sparks’s 

probation revocation hearing in a way that comports with his due process rights, and we 

reversed and remanded for a new probation revocation hearing. We grant the petition for 

rehearing for the sole purpose of clarifying what is required on remand, but affirm our 

opinion in all respects.1

The State’s petition reiterates its original argument that an evidentiary hearing was not 

required because Sparks admitted to the probation violation after consulting with his 

attorney. However, as was well-explained in the opinion, Sparks’s admission was suspect in 

light of the comment made by the trial court. Thus, the particular circumstances surrounding 

Sparks’s admission rendered the lack of an evidentiary hearing in this case fundamental 

error. Our decision did not change established Indiana law that a probationer may admit to a 

probation violation and waive the right to a probation violation hearing. See Ind. Code § 35-

38-2-3(e). 

On remand, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing in which the State 

proves by a preponderance of evidence that Sparks violated his probation. The State cannot 

rely on Sparks’s original admission, which this court held was suspect. If Sparks chooses to, 

once again, admit to the probation violation, there would no longer be a need for an 

evidentiary hearing, as long as both the trial court and the State abide by due process 

requirements.

 

1

Sparks has not filed a brief in response to the petition for rehearing.
3

MAY, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

        The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of First Keystone Financial,
Inc. (the "Registrant") hereby certify that the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.

                                    /s/ Donald S. Guthrie
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Name: Donald S. Guthrie
                                    Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


Date:  February 14, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to First Keystone Financial, Inc. and will
be retained by First Keystone Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       -1-
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 70 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 70

Expressing the sense of the Congress that members of the Screen Actors 
 Guild should contribute funds to a private, self-sustaining endowment 
                             for the arts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 1995

  Mr. Calvert (for himself, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mrs. Chenoweth, Mr. 
  Radanovich, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Bachus, and Mr. Weller) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
        the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress that members of the Screen Actors 
 Guild should contribute funds to a private, self-sustaining endowment 
                             for the arts.
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
Whereas the American people provide the motion picture industry with billions of 
        dollars in annual sales receipts;
Whereas on March 27, 1995, the president of the Motion Picture Academy made a 
        worldwide plea for Congress not to cut funding for the National 
        Endowment for the Arts; and
Whereas the National Endowment for the Arts may potentially be privatized 
        through legislative action: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the Screen Actors Guild 
should request that its members with annual individual incomes over $1 
million place 10 percent of such income in an endowment for the arts to 
be administered by a privatized National Endowment for the Arts when $1 
billion has accumulated in the fund.
                                 <all>
```
Amendment No. 1 to Exponent, Inc. 1998 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.24 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 
 EXPONENT, INC. 
 1998 NONSTATUTORY STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 RECITALS:

 A. The Board of Directors of Exponent, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), previously adopted the 1998
Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan (the “1998 Plan”). 
 B. In light of revised proxy statement disclosure requirements of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, on January 29, 2007 the Board of Directors approved the following amendment to the definition of “Fair Market Value” in the 1998 Plan. 
 AMENDMENT: 
 1.
DEFINITION OF “FAIR MARKET VALUE” 
 Effective as of
January 29, 2007, Section 2(m) of the 1998 Plan is hereby amended and restated as follows: 
 “(m) “Fair
Market Value” means, as of any date, the value of Common Stock determined as follows: 
 (i) If the Common Stock is
listed on any established stock exchange or a national market system, including without limitation the Nasdaq Global Market or The Nasdaq Global Select Market, its Fair Market Value shall be the closing sales price for the Common Stock as quoted on
such exchange or system on the date of determination, or if the Shares are not trading on such date, then the closing price for the Common Stock on the last preceding trading day on which sales of the Shares are reported as having occurred, as
reported in The Wall Street Journal or such other source as the Administrator deems reliable; 
 (ii) If the Common Stock is
regularly quoted by a recognized securities dealer but selling prices are not reported, the Fair Market Value of a Share of Common Stock shall be the mean between the high bid and low asked prices for the Common Stock on the date of determination,
or if no prices are quoted for such date, then the mean between the high bid and low asked prices on the last preceding trading day on which any bid and asked prices were quoted, as reported in The Wall Street Journal or such other source as the
Administrator deems reliable; or 
 (iii) In the absence of an established market for the Common Stock, the Fair Market Value
shall be determined in good faith by the Administrator.” 
 2. MISCELLANEOUS 
 Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the terms of the 1998 Plan remain in full force and effect.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

         The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of First Keystone Financial,
Inc. (the "Registrant") hereby certify that the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.

                                     /s/ Donald S. Guthrie
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Name: Donald S. Guthrie
                                     Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Date: February 13, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act has been provided to First Keystone Financial, Inc. and will
be retained by First Keystone Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 31.3406(j)-1 Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) matching program. ( a ) *The matching program.* Under section 3406(i), the Commissioner has the authority to establish Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) matching programs. The Commissioner may prescribe in a revenue procedure (*see* § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter) or other appropriate guidance the scope and the terms and conditions of participating in any TIN matching program. In general, under a matching program, prior to filing information returns with respect to reportable payments as defined in section 3406(b)(1), a payor of those reportable payments who is entitled to participate in the matching program may contact the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with respect to the TIN furnished by a payee who has received or is likely to receive a reportable payment. The IRS will inform the payor whether or not a name/TIN combination furnished by the payee matches a name/TIN combination maintained in the data base utilized for the particular matching program. For purposes of this section, the term payor includes an agent designated by the payor to participate in TIN matching on the payor's behalf.
( b ) *Notice of incorrect TIN.* No matching details received by a payor through a matching program will constitute a notice regarding an incorrect name/TIN combination under § 31.3406(d)-5(c) for purposes of imposing backup withholding under section 3406(a)(1)(B).
( c ) *Application of section 3406(f).* The provisions of section 3406(f), relating to confidentiality of information, apply to any matching details received by a payor through the matching program. A payor may not take into account any such matching details in determining whether to open or close an account with a payee.
( d ) *Reasonable cause.* The IRS will not use either a payor's decision not to participate in an available TIN matching program or the results received by a payor from participation in a TIN matching program implemented under the authority of this section as a basis to assert that the payor lacks reasonable cause under section 6724(a) for the failure to file an information return under section 6721 or to furnish a correct payee statement under section 6722. If the establishment of reasonable cause may be relevant to a substantial number of the participants in a TIN matching program implemented under the authority of this section, the extent to which, if any, a payor may establish reasonable cause by participating in the TIN matching program will be set forth in the guidance establishing the program.
( e ) *Definition of account. Account* means any account, instrument, or other relationship with a payor and with respect to which a payor has made or is likely to make a reportable payment as defined in section 3406(b)(1).
( f ) *Effective date.* The last sentence in paragraph (a) of this section is applicable on January 31, 2003. All other provisions of this section are applicable on and after June 18, 1997.
[T.D. 8721, 62 FR 33009, June 18, 1997, as amended by T.D. 9041, 68 FR 4923, Jan. 31, 2003; T.D. 9136, 69 FR 41942, July 13, 2004]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Wilson, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 613]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered December 17, 2001, convicting him of attempted murder in the first degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt, since he did not specify this ground in his motion to dismiss at trial *506(see CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 195

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1996

Received

JOINT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the end of slavery in the United States, and

the true day of independence for African-Americans.

Whereas ‘‘Juneteenth’’ celebrations have been held informally

for over 130 years to commemorate the strong survival

instincts of African-Americans who were first brought to

this country stacked in the bottoms of slave ships during
2

HJ 195 RDS

a month-long journey across the Atlantic Ocean known as

the ‘‘Middle Passage’’;

Whereas the Civil War was fueled by the economic and social

divide caused by slavery;

Whereas on January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln

signed the Emancipation Proclamation, the enforcement

thereof occurred only in those Confederate States under

the control of the Union Army;

Whereas on January 31, 1863, Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery

throughout the United States and its territories;

Whereas on April 9, 1865, when General Robert E. Lee surrendered on behalf of the Confederate States at Appomattox, the Civil War was nonetheless prolonged in the

Southwest;

Whereas news of the Emancipation Proclamation reached

each State at different times;

Whereas the Emancipation Proclamation was not enforced in

the Southwest until June 19, 1865, when Union General

Gordon Granger landed at Galveston, Texas, to present

and read General Order No. 3;

Whereas former slaves in the Southwest began celebrating

the end of slavery and recognized ‘‘Juneteenth Independence Day’’; and

Whereas ‘‘Juneteenth’’ allows us to look back on the past

with an increased appreciation for the strength of the

men, women, and children who for generations endured

unspeakable cruelties in bondage: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3

HJ 195 RDS

1 That the end of slavery in the United States should be

2 celebrated and recognized.

Passed the House of Representatives September 26,

1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 64

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

the requirement of citizenship at birth by virtue of birth in the United

States to persons with citizen or legal resident mothers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 26, 1995

Mr. GALLEGLY 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 restrict the requirement of citizenship at birth

by virtue of birth in the United States to persons with

citizen or legal resident mothers.

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

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by

7 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with-
2

•HJ 64 IH

1 in seven years after the date of its submission for ratifica2 tion:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. All persons born in the United States,

5 and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, of mothers who are

6 citizens or legal residents of the United States and all per7 sons naturalized in the United States are citizens of the

8 United States and of the State wherein they reside. The

9 first sentence of section 1 of the fourteenth article of

10 amendment to the Constitution of the United States is

11 hereby repealed.

12 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to en13 force this article by appropriate legislation.

14 ‘‘SECTION 3. This article shall apply to persons born

15 after the date of its ratification.’’.

Æ
Schedule of Salaries of Named Executive Officers



 EXHIBIT 10.32 
 BASE SALARIES OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT 
 The Compensation Committee of Placer Sierra Bancshares
(“PLSB”) has set the following base salaries (on an annual basis) for our named executive officers: 
  

			
	 Frank J. Mercardante
 Chief Executive Officer
	 	$540,000
		
	 David E. Hooston
 Chief Financial Officer
	 	$300,000
		
	 Randall E. Reynoso
 President, Chief Operating Officer
	 	$300,000
		
	 Angelee J. Harris
 EVP, General Counsel
	 	$250,000
		
	 Marshall J. Laitsch
 President, Southern California Division
	 	$250,000

 Each of the named executive officers will be eligible to receive a discretionary bonus for 2007 pursuant to the
Registrant’s 2007 Executive Annual Incentive Plan. In addition, each of the named executive officers receives an automobile allowance. PLSB also pays the country club dues for Mr. Laitsch and the city club dues for Mr. Reynoso.

 Like all employees of PLSB, each of the named executive officers is also eligible to receive an allocation pursuant to PLSB’s 401(k) and Profit
Sharing Plan and health care costs. The named executives also receive life insurance, premiums of which are paid by PLSB. 
 Each of the named executive
officers is also eligible to participate in the PLSB 2002 Stock Option Plan.
H. Con. Res. 72 Agreed to May 25, 1995

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of

Thursday, May 25, 1995, it stand adjourned until noon on Tuesday,

June 6, 1995, or until noon on the second day after Members

are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent

resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate

recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, May

25, 1995, Friday, May 26, 1995, or Saturday, May 27, 1995, pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader or his designee,

in accordance with this resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned

until 10 a.m. on Monday, June 5, 1995, or until noon on the

second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant

to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.

SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the majority leader

of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the minority

leader of the House and the minority leader of the Senate, shall

notify the Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to

reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall

warrant it.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
§ 54.4980H-6 Administration and procedure. ( a ) *In general.* [Reserved]
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable for periods after December 31, 2014.
[T.D. 9655, 79 FR 8577, Feb. 12, 2014]