alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
www.gpo.gov

### §286*o*. Administration as part of the Exchange Stabilization Fund

#### (a) Special Drawing Rights

Special Drawing Rights allocated to the United States pursuant to article XVIII of the Articles of Agreement of the Fund, and Special Drawing Rights otherwise acquired by the United States, shall be credited to the account of, and administered as part of, the Exchange Stabilization Fund established by section 5302 of title 31.

#### (b) Deposit in and withdrawal from Fund

The proceeds resulting from the use of Special Drawing Rights by the United States, and payments of interest to the United States pursuant to article XX, article XXIV, and article XXV of the Articles of Agreement of the Fund, shall be deposited in the Exchange Stabilization Fund. Currency payments by the United States in return for Special Drawing Rights, and payments of charges or assessments pursuant to article XX, article XXIV, and article XXV of the Articles of Agreement of the Fund, shall be made from the resources of the Exchange Stabilization Fund.

(Pub. L. 90–349, §3, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 188; Pub. L. 94–564, §5(1), (2), Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2661.)

#### Codification

In subsec. (a), “section 5302 of title 31” substituted for “section 10 of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, as amended (31 U.S.C. 822a)” on authority of Pub. L. 97–258, §4(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1067, the first section of which enacted Title 31, Money and Finance.

Section was not enacted as part of act July 31, 1945, ch. 339, 59 Stat. 512, known as the Bretton Woods Agreement Act, which comprises this subchapter.

#### Amendments

1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–564, §5(1), substituted “article XVIII” for “article XXIV”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 94–564, §5(2), substituted “article XX, article XXIV, and XXV” for “article XXVI, article XXX, and article XXXI” wherever appearing.

#### Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Amendment effective Apr. 1, 1978, see section 9 of Pub. L. 94–564, set out as a note under section 286a of this title.

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in title 31 section 5302.
PUBLIC LAW 113–92—MAR. 25, 2014 128 STAT. 1039 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3771 (S. 1821): 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

Mar. 24, considered and passed House. 

Mar. 25, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–92 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the 

relief of victims of the Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Philippines Charitable Giving 

Assistance Act’’. 

SEC. 2. ACCELERATION OF INCOME TAX BENEFITS FOR CHARITABLE 

CASH CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RELIEF OF VICTIMS OF 

TYPHOON HAIYAN IN THE PHILIPPINES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of section 170 of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986, a taxpayer may treat any contribution 

described in subsection (b) made after the date of the enactment 

of this Act, and before April 15, 2014, as if such contribution 

was made on December 31, 2013, and not in 2014. 

(b) CONTRIBUTION DESCRIBED.—A contribution is described in 

this subsection if such contribution is a cash contribution made 

for the relief of victims in areas affected by Typhoon Haiyan, 

for which a charitable contribution deduction is allowable under 

section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

(c) RECORDKEEPING.—In the case of a contribution described 

in subsection (b), a telephone bill showing the name of the donee 

organization, the date of the contribution, and the amount of the 

contribution shall be treated as meeting the recordkeeping requirements of section 170(f)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

Approved March 25, 2014. 

Time period. 

Philippines 

Charitable 

Giving 

Assistance Act. 

Mar. 25, 2014 

[H.R. 3771] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
§ 1.1312-6 Correlative deductions and credits for certain related corporations. ( a ) Paragraph (6) of section 1312 applies if the determination allows or disallows a deduction (including a credit) to a corporation, and if a correlative deduction or credit has been erroneously allowed, omitted, or disallowed in respect of a related taxpayer described in section 1313(c)(7).
( b ) The application of paragraph (a) of this section may be illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. X Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Y Corporation. In 1955, X Corporation paid $5,000 to Y Corporation and claimed an interest deduction for this amount in its return for 1955. Y Corporation included this amount in its gross income for 1955. In 1958, the Commissioner asserted a deficiency against X Corporation for 1955, contending that the deduction for interest paid should be disallowed on the ground that the payment was in reality the payment of a dividend to Y Corporation. X Corporation contested the deficiency, and ultimately in June 1959, a final decision of the Tax Court sustained the Commissioner. Since the amount of the payment is a dividend, Y Corporation should have been allowed for 1955 the corporate dividends-received deduction under section 243 with respect to such payment. However, the Tax Court's decision sustaining the deficiency against X Corporation occurred after the expiration of the period for filing claim for refund by Y Corporation for 1955. An adjustment is authorized with respect to Y Corporation for 1955.
Example 2. Assume the same facts as in example (1) except that, instead of the Commissioner asserting a deficiency against X Corporation for 1955, Y Corporation filed a claim for refund in 1958, alleging that the payment received in 1955 from X Corporation was in reality a dividend to which the corporate dividends-received deduction (section 243) applies. The Commissioner denied the claim, and ultimately in June 1959, the district court, in a final decision, sustained Y Corporation. Since the amount of the payment is a dividend, X Corporation should not have been allowed an interest deduction for the amount paid to Y Corporation. However, the district court's decision sustaining the claim for refund occurred after the expiration of the period of limitations for assessing a deficiency against X Corporation for the year 1955. An adjustment is authorized with respect to X Corporation's tax for 1955.
[T.D. 6617, 27 FR 10823, Nov. 7, 1962]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason Gibbs, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 473]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered March 23, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The evidence warranted the conclusion that defendant was a participant in a drug transaction *(see e.g. People v Reynoso,*283 AD2d 195 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 923 [2001]), and that he knew the contents of a shopping bag that he received during the sale *(see People v Reisman,*29 NY2d 278, 285-286 [1971], *cert denied*405 US 1041 [1972]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-18-00453-CV

In the Interest of R.C.H., a Child

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA02163

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 10, 2018

AFFIRMED, MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

Appellant H.H. appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his child, 

R.C.H. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a 

professional evaluation of the record and concluding there are no arguable grounds for reversal of 

the termination order. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967). See re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (recognizing that Anders procedures 

apply in parental termination cases). Additionally, counsel represents that he provided appellant 

with a copy of the brief and the motion, advised appellant of his right to review the record and file 

his own brief, and informed appellant how to obtain a copy of the record. We issued an order 

setting deadlines for appellant to request the record and file a pro se brief. The clerk of this court 

mailed copies of the order to appellant’s last known address on two occasions, but the orders were 
04-18-00453-CV

- 2 -

returned with the designation “not deliverable as addressed.” Appellant did not request the record 

or file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude no plausible grounds exist for 

reversal of the termination order. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s termination order.

However, because counsel does not assert any ground for withdrawal other than his conclusion 

that the appeal is frivolous, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See id. at 27–28 (holding that 

counsel’s obligations in parental termination cases extend through the exhaustion or waiver of all 

appeals, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court). 

Karen Angelini, Justice
§ 31.6109-1 Supplying of identifying numbers. ( a ) *In general.* The returns, statements, and other documents required to be filed under this subchapter shall reflect such identifying numbers as are required by each return, statement, or document and its related instructions. See § 301.6109-1 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration).
( b ) *Effective date.* The provisions of this section are effective for information which must be furnished after April 15, 1974. See 26 CFR § 31.6109-1 (revised as of April 1, 1973) for provisions with respect to information which must be furnished before April 16, 1974.
[39 FR 9946, Mar. 15, 1974]
Exhibit10.1PrestigeBrandsSummaryofDirectorCompensationProgram


Exhibit 10.1
PRESTIGE BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC. 
Summary of Director Compensation Program 


Equity Compensation 
 
	
			
	Initial Equity Grant:
	 
	On the day of the first annual meeting of stockholders following a non-employee director’s election or appointment to the board, he or she will receive a one-time grant of shares of common stock with a value equal to $20,000. The number of shares granted will be determined by dividing $20,000 by the closing price of Company common stock on such date. The shares of common stock are fully-vested on the date of grant.

	 
	 

	Annual Equity Grant:
	 
	On the day of the annual meeting of stockholders, each non-employee director will receive an award of restricted stock units with a value equal to $60,000.  The number of restricted stock units granted will be determined by dividing $60,000 by the closing price of Company common stock on the day of the annual meeting of stockholders. The restricted stock units will vest one year following the date of grant, subject to the director’s continued membership on the board as of such date, and will be settled in shares of Company common stock on the earliest to occur of (i) the non-employee director’s death, (ii) the non-employee director’s disability, or (iii) the 6-month anniversary of the date on which the non-employee director’s board membership ceases for reasons other than death or disability.






Cash Compensation 
	
		
	Annual Cash Retainer:
	$60,000, payable in equal quarterly installments

	Meeting Fee Per Board Meeting Attended In-Person:
	$2,000

	Meeting Fee Per Committee Meeting Attended In-Person:
	$1,000

	Meeting Fee Per Board or Committee Meeting Attended Telephonically:
	$750

	Additional Annual Retainers – Committee Chairpersons:
	 

	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	$6,500

	Audit Committee
	$10,000

	Compensation Committee
	$6,500

	Additional Annual Retainer — Lead Director:
	$45,000
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 69

JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the reappointment of Homer Alfred Neal as

a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on

5 the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in
2

•HJ 69 EH

1 the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by

2 reason of the expiration of the term of Homer Alfred Neal

3 of Michigan on December 6, 1995, is filled by the re4 appointment of the incumbent for a term of six years, ef5 fective December 7, 1995.

Passed the House of Representatives November 7,

1995.

Attest:

Clerk.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 69

JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the reappointment of Homer Alfred

of the Smithsonian Institution.Neal as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Golden, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Ortiz, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 74]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), rendered October 2, 2003, convicting defendant Golden, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed. Judgment, same court and Justice, rendered August 4, 2003, convicting defendant Ortiz, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant Ortiz’s motion for severance. Initially, we note that Ortiz should have made a timely written motion, setting forth in detail what was allegedly inconsistent about the defenses of himself and defendant Golden *(see*CPL 255.10 [1] [g]; 255.20 [1], [3]; *People v Roman,*303 AD2d 176 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 565 [2003]). In any event, the defenses of the two defendants were not so irreconcilable as to require severance *(People v Mahboubian, 74*NY2d 174, 183-184 [1989]). To accept Golden’s contention that he acted as the agent of the buyer, the jury was not required to also reject Ortiz’s contention that he was not the person who transferred drugs to Golden. Furthermore, Golden did not cross-examine Ortiz, and never acted as a “second prosecutor” *(People v Cardwell,*78 NY2d 996, 998 [1991]) in any respect.

Defendant Golden’s remarks in connection with his success*267ful request that the court deliver an agency charge did not preserve his present challenges to the language employed by the court in instructing the jury on that defense *(see People v Newland,*300 AD2d 199 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 631 [2003]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the agency charge, read as a whole, conveyed the appropriate legal principles *(see People v Job,*87 NY2d 956 [1996]; *People v Lam Lek Chong,*45 NY2d 64, 74-75 [1978], *cert denied*439 US 935 [1978]).

Defendant Golden was not prejudiced by the court’s modest departure from the statutorily prescribed order of trial (CPL 260.30), when the court, with the consent of Golden’s counsel, instructed the jury on the agency defense immediately prior to summations, and then repeated the same instructions in its main charge after summations. The circumstances did not present any danger of premature deliberations *(compare People v Townsend,*67 NY2d 815 [1986]).

Defendant Golden’s challenges to the People’s summation are unpreserved and unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 230

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the sine die adjournment of the secgress. ond session of the One Hundred Fourth Con-
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 230

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Monday, September 30, 1996, or of Tuesday,

4 October 1, 1996, on a motion offered pursuant to this con5 current resolution by the Majority Leader, or his designee,

6 it stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second
2

•HCON 230 EH

1 day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to

2 section 2 of this concurrent resolution, and that when the

3 Senate adjourns on Monday, September 30, 1996, or

4 Tuesday, October 1, 1996, on a motion offered pursuant

5 to this concurrent resolution by the Majority Leader, or

6 his designee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until noon

7 on the second day after Members are notified to reassem8 ble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution.

9 Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

10 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

11 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead12 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

13 and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their

14 opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives September 28,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Poolingand Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2015, by and among GS MORTGAGESECURITIES CORPORATION II, as Depositor, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OFPNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC as Operating Advisor,WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator andWILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-GS1 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.07 of thisAgreement, I, Daniel Marthinsen, Managing Director of Special Servicing dohereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Special Servicer during the period from January1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2018.

 

/s/Daniel Marthinsen

DanielMarthinsen 

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
§ 44.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct. ( a ) *In general.* A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax on wagers under sections 4401 or 4411 shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(b) in the manner stated in § 1.6694-3 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78457, Dec. 22, 2008]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INTERNAL
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1999
<CASH>                                         528,213
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,587,476
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,283,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,630,832
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,840,949
<PP&E>                                       4,023,784
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,967,386
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,537,141
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,291,332
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,000
<COMMON>                                       157,789
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,331,120
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,537,141
<SALES>                                     18,048,799
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,048,799
<CGS>                                       11,276,267
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,276,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             237,975
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,069,563)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,069,563)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,069,563)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   ($.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   ($.32)
        

</TABLE>
www.gpo.gov

### §286dd. Fund bailouts of banks; rescheduling of debt

The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director of the Fund—

(1) to oppose and vote against any Fund drawing by a member country where, in his judgment, the Fund resources would be drawn principally for the purpose of repaying loans which have been imprudently made by banking institutions to the member country; and

(2) to work to insure that the Fund encourages borrowing countries and banking institutions to negotiate, where appropriate, a rescheduling of debt which is consistent with safe and sound banking practices and the country's ability to pay.

(July 31, 1945, ch. 339, §46, as added Pub. L. 98–181, title VIII, §807, Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1273.)