alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1088

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the employment

taxes shall not apply to amounts paid by certain State funds as compensation for unpaid wages.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 1, 1995

Mr. DEFAZIO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that the employment taxes shall not apply to amounts

paid by certain State funds as compensation for unpaid

wages.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF STATE FUNDS PROVIDING

4 COMPENSATION FOR UNPAID WAGES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subtitle C of the

6 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to employment

7 taxes) and title II of the Social Security Act, in the case

8 of an individual who receives any payment from a State
2

•HR 1088 IH

1 wage security fund by reason of unpaid wages, with re2 spect to such payment—

3 (1) such individual shall be treated as not being

4 an employee of such fund, and

5 (2) such fund shall be treated as not being an

6 employer of such individual.

7 (b) EXCEPTIONS.—

8 (1) MAXIMUM BENEFITS.—Subsection (a) shall

9 not apply to payments made to an individual in ex10 cess of the maximum amount of payments permitted

11 to be made to an individual from the fund under the

12 rules in effect on January 1, 1995.

13 (2) ONLY COMPENSATION FOR UNPAID WAGES

14 FROM PRIVATE EMPLOYERS.—Subsection (a) shall

15 not apply with respect to unpaid wages attributable

16 to services performed by the individual for a State

17 or any agency or instrumentality thereof.

18 (3) WITHHOLDING OF INCOME TAX RE19 QUIRED.—Subsection (a) shall not apply for pur20 poses of chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code of

21 1986.

22 (c) STATE WAGE SECURITY FUND.—For purposes of

23 this section, the term ‘‘State wage security fund’’ means

24 any State fund the sole purpose of which is to pay com25 pensation to individuals who have performed services for
3

•HR 1088 IH

1 any employer in such State but who did not receive com2 pensation from such employer for such services by reason

3 of the employer ceasing to exist or ceasing to operate the

4 facility at which such individual was employed.

5 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The section shall apply to all

6 periods beginning before, on, or after the date of the en7 actment of this Act; except that subsection (b)(3) shall

8 apply only to amounts paid after the date of the enactment

9 of this Act.

Æ
§ 403.44 Acquisition for official use and sale for account of petitioner in the case of an allowed petition. ( a ) *Acquisition for official use.* The seized property may be purchased by the United States pursuant to agreement and retained for official use. Where the petitioner is the owner, the purchase price is the appraised value of the property less all costs. Where the petitioner is a creditor, the purchase price is the smaller of: ( 1 ) The petitioner's equity, or
( 2 ) the appraised value of the property less the amount of all costs.
( b ) *Sale for account of petitioner.* If the petitioner elects not to comply with the conditions, if any, set for the return of the property, the Commissioner or his delegate is authorized to sell the property. If the petitioner is the owner of the property, there is deducted from the proceeds of the sale all costs incident to the seizure, forfeiture, and sale. The Commissioner or his delegate shall pay to the petitioner, out of the proper appropriation, an amount equal to the balance, if any. Where the petitioner is a creditor, there is deducted from the proceeds of the sale all costs incident to the seizure, forfeiture, and sale, and the Commissioner or his delegate shall pay to the petitioner, out of the proper appropriation, an amount equal to the smaller of: ( 1 ) The balance, if any, or
( 2 ) the equity of the petitioner.
#### Denise Lloyd, Respondent, v Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany et al., Defendants, and Kenneth Boyce, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 739]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Cannizzaro, J.), entered August 19, 2004 in Albany County, which, inter alia, denied defendant Kenneth Boyce’s motion for a protective order.

Flaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover for personal injuries sustained when defendant Kenneth Boyce stabbed her with a knife on premises allegedly owned and maintained by defendants Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany, McCloskey Community Service Corporation and Arbor House. Boyce pleaded guilty to criminal charges arising out of the stabbing and is currently incarcerated. In response to plaintiffs notice to take his oral deposition, Boyce made motions for a protective order prohibiting his oral deposition, an order vacating the notice of motion to compel the examination before trial, an order granting him poor person relief and assignment of counsel, and an order to take the oral deposition of *784plaintiff. Supreme Court granted Boyce’s motion for an order granting poor person relief, but declined to assign counsel, and denied each of Boyce’s other motions in their entirety. Boyce appeals.

Boyce asserts that because of his pending appeal in the criminal matter and the possibility that he may pursue a CPL 440.10 motion if his appeal is unsuccessful, his privilege against self-incrimination would be violated if he is deposed. A litigant retains the privilege against self-incrimination during a civil deposition, but that is not a basis for precluding discovery *(see*CPLR 4501; *Brahm v Hatch,*169 AD2d 263, 265 [1991]; *State of New York v Carey Resources,*97 AD2d 508, 509 [1983]). Boyce may only assert the privilege when he reasonably perceives a risk from answering a particular question posed during the deposition *(see Brahm v Hatch, supra*at 265-266; *State of New York v Carey Resources, supra*at 509). Accordingly, we affirm Supreme Court’s denial of Boyce’s motions for a protective order and an order vacating plaintiffs motion to compel his examination before trial.

Plaintiff, as required by CPLR 3106 (c), moved for leave to depose Boyce. Although plaintiff is not incarcerated, Boyce moved to depose her. We find no reason to disturb Supreme Court’s decision to deny Boyce’s motion for his failure to serve a notice to take plaintiff’s deposition *(see*CPLR 3107) and engage in a good faith effort to schedule it before resorting to motion practice.

Lastly, we find no abuse of discretion in Supreme Court’s determination that, while Boyce does meet the criteria to proceed as a poor person, assignment of unpaid counsel to represent him is not warranted in this case *(see*CPLR 1102; *Smith v Smith,*2 NY2d 120, 122 [1956]; *Wills v City of Troy,*258 AD2d 849, 849 [1999], *lv dismissed*93 NY2d 1000 [1999]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
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 and Principal Financial Officer of First
Keystone Financial, Inc. (the “Registrant”) hereby certifies that the
Registrant’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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/ Hugh J. GarchinskyName:
      Hugh J. GarchinskyTitle:
      President and Chief Executive
Officer





Date:  February
16, 2010





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.
(Cin’ti. Superior Court,

Gen. Term, 1901.)'

#### GUS. HILL v. M. C. ANDERSON

*Rule as to special damages*— ■

(1.) Where the prospective profits to be derived from the performance of a contract are so problematic as to be within1 the rule of remoteness barring recovery, plaintiff may recover, as special damages, for the expenses incurred by him in preparing for the execution of the contract.

*Genei'al and special damages may be plead*ed—

(1.) An allegation of general damages for of contracf does not preclude an allegation of special damages, covering the expenses incurred by plaintiff in preparing for the execution of the contract.

*Itemizing general*damages—

- (3.) General damages need not be specifically itemized.

*Pleading special*damages—

(4.) Special damages must always be pleaded and proven.

Dempsey, J.

The matter sought to be stricken out of" the petition consists of items of damage in the nature of special damages, and must be based upon the theory that they are immaterial in view of the general claim of da'mages to the-extent of $5,000. Special damages must always be pleaded and proven; general damages, need not be specifically itemized, but it is not always easy to distinguish between general" and special damages.

. The item of damages in this case will very likely be a vital one and one much contested.. The problematical nature of what plaintiff’s profits might have been under the contract, if it had been carried out, may bring his case within the rule of remoteness and bar any recovery so far as the value of his contract was concerned. If such should turn out to be the: *702case, plaintiff would then be entitled to reimbursement for all the expenses he has been to in preparing on his own side for the execution of the contract; and the items sought to be stricken out are expenses of that nature. See *Bernstein*v. *Meech,*130 N. Y., 354; *Sedgwick’s Elements of Damages,*208, 209. That he has itemized them and not pleaded them | generally is to defendant’s advantage, as he is now informed of what plaintiff’s, claims are,, and he ought not to complain on that score.

*Jones & James,*for Plaintiff.

*Shay & Cogcm,*Contra.

The motion will be overruled and twenty days allowed to answer.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Ron OConnor, certify that: (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB Great Western
Land and Recreation, Inc.; (2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; (4) The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:  (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which the quarterly
report is being prepared;(b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and(c)
    
    presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; (5) The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls (a pre-existing term relating to internal controls
regarding financial reporting) which could adversely affect the
companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
data and have identified for the companys auditors any material
weaknesses in internal controls; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal
controls; and (6) The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. Date: May 14, 2004/s/ Ron OConnorRon OConnorSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)Great Western Land and Recreation, Inc.
 24
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-18-00203-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 342nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 342-295089-17

Before Bassel, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Gabriel, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

LESTER J. STRAIT, Appellant

V.

SAVANNAH COURT PARTNERSHIP; PSJ PROPERTIES, LTD.; V. PATRICK 

GRAY CUSTOM HOMES, INC.; HOME CREEK, L.L.C.; JMJ TORIAN 

PROPERTIES, L.L.C.; CHEATHAM PARTNERS; THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE,

TEXAS; LAURA HILL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY 

OF SOUTHLAKE; AND SHANA YELVERTON, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY 

AS THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, Appellees
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order granting Appellees’ motions for 

summary judgment that were based solely on collateral estoppel and res judicata. In 

two interrelated issues, Appellant Lester J. Strait argues that Appellees’ summary 

judgments should be reversed because they were based on the preclusive effect of a 

prior judgment that was reversed on appeal. See Strait v. Savannah Court P’ship, 576 

S.W.3d 802, 818 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019, pet. denied) (Strait I). Appellees

concede that their motions for summary judgment in the underlying lawsuit (Strait II)

were based on preclusion doctrines and that this court’s reversal of the final judgment 

in Strait I renders the summary judgments in the Strait II lawsuit improper. We agree 

with the parties that this appeal requires reversal. We therefore sustain Strait’s issues, 

reverse the trial court’s summary judgments, and remand the case to the trial court for 

a new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(d); see also Chase Home Fin., LLC v. SFTF Holdings, 

LLC, No. 02-10-00423-CV, 2011 WL 2756175, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 

14, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (reversing and remanding after appellee 

agreed to the relief sought by appellant); Smith v. Law Office of Dale A. Burrows, P.C., 

No. 02-10-00112-CV, 2010 WL 4056229, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 14, 

2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same).

Per Curiam

Delivered: February 6, 2020
www.gpo.gov

### §285v. Sense of Congress respecting membership of Taiwan in Bank

It is the sense of the Congress that it is the policy of the United States that Taiwan (before January 1, 1979, known as the Republic of China) shall be permitted to retain membership in the Asian Development Bank and that the United States Executive Director of the Bank shall notify the Bank that a serious review of future United States participation, including any future payments to the Asian Development Fund, would ensue if Taiwan were expelled from the Bank.

(Pub. L. 89–369, §25, as added Pub. L. 96–259, title II, §201, June 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 430.)
(logo) CWCapital

ASSET MANAGEMENT

 

 

**Annual Statement as toCompliance**

**For the Period of January1, 2016 to December 31, 2016**

 

 

**WFCM 2016-LC25**

 

 

In accordance with Item 1123of Regulation AB and with the requirements detailed in §11.09 of thePooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for theabove-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital AssetManagement LLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, isproviding this Officer’s Certificate with respect to the following:

 

(A) a review ofCWCAM’s activities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof(the “Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and;

 

(B) to the best of suchofficer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Sincerely,

CWCapital Asset Management LLC

 

/s/ David B. Iannarone

David B. Iannarone 

President

 

 

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite500 West, Bethesda, MD 20814

www.cwcapital.com
These folders only contain material from 1982. As of 5/6/2014 no other material was available.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
               This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted
               from  the  Condensed   Consolidated   Balance  Sheet,   Condensed
               Consolidated  Statements of Operations and Condensed Consolidated
               Statements of Cash Flows, and is qualified in its entirety by
               reference to such financial statements.


</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000856143
<NAME>                        BCAM International, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                       1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.000
<CASH>                                         3,297,000
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,858,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      11,000
<INVENTORY>                                    6,411,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              11,932,000
<PP&E>                                         3,280,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   725,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                15,772,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,517,000
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         174,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,313,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  15,772,000
<SALES>                                          353,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 771,000
<CGS>                                            442,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    442,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,026,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               378,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,842,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (2,842,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,842,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.18)
        


</TABLE>
# Dziennik Urzędowy C 311A/19 g

| | ISSN 1725-5228 |
| --- | --- |
| Dziennik Urzędowy
  Unii Europejskiej | C 311A |
| | |
| Wydanie polskie | Informacje i zawiadomienia | Tom 4919 grudnia 2006 |

ISSN 1725-5228

Dziennik Urzędowy

Unii Europejskiej

C 311A

Wydanie polskie

Informacje i zawiadomienia

Tom 4919 grudnia 2006

---

| Powiadomienie nr | Spis treśći | Strona |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Powiadomienia |
| | Rada |
| 2006/C 311A/1 | Ogłoszenie o naborze na stanowisko: administrator doradca ds. audiowizualnych (nr ref. CONS/AD/046) | 1 |

Powiadomienie nr

Spis treśći

Strona

III   Powiadomienia

Rada

2006/C 311A/1

Ogłoszenie o naborze na stanowisko: administrator doradca ds. audiowizualnych (nr ref. CONS/AD/046)

1

| PL | |
| --- | --- |

PL

---

III Powiadomienia

Rada

| 19.12.2006 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | CA 311/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2006

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

CA 311/1

---

OGŁOSZENIE O NABORZE NA STANOWISKO ADMINISTRATOR DORADCA DS. AUDIOWIZUALNYCH

(Nr ref. CONS/AD/046)

(2006/C 311 A/01)

Sekretariat Generalny Rady Unii Europejskiej poszukuje pracownika, by obsadzić wolne stanowisko w Jednostce 1 w Biurze Prasowym Dyrekcji Generalnej F (Prasa, Komunikacja, Protokół).

Wybranemu kandydatowi zostanie zaproponowana umowa dla pracownika zatrudnionego na czas określony kategorii AD10 na okres czterech lat (wraz z sześciomiesięcznym okresem próbnym), którą będzie można jednorazowo przedłużyć na okres maksymalnie dwóch lat.

Szczegółowe informacje o wolnym stanowisku oraz warunki zgłaszania kandydatur można znaleźć na stronie internetowej Rady pod adresem:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/concours

Termin składania wniosków upływa dnia 19 stycznia 2007 r., liczy się data stempla pocztowego.

---