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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 80

To replace the membership of the Select Committee on Ethics with former

Members selected by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 16 (legislative day, MARCH 3), 1993

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

Committee on Rules and Administration

RESOLUTION

To replace the membership of the Select Committee on Ethics with former Members selected by the Majority Leader

and the Minority Leader.

1 Resolved, That (a) subsection (a) of the first section

2 of Senate Resolution 338, agreed to July 24, 1964, is

3 amended to read as follows: ‘‘(a) there is hereby estab4 lished a permanent select committee of the Senate to be

5 known as the Select Committee on Ethics (referred to

6 hereinafter as the ‘Select Committee’) consisting of 6

7 former Members of the Senate, of whom 3 shall be selected

8 by the Majority Leader and 3 shall be selected by the Mi9 nority Leader. The Select Committee shall select a chair

10 and a vice chair from among its members. Members of
2

•SRES 80 IS

1 the Select Committee shall be entitled to a per diem

2 of $400 plus travel expenses while serving on the Select

3 Committee.’’.

4 (b) Subsection (e) of the first section of Senate Reso5 lution 338, agreed to July 24, 1964, is repealed.

6 (c) The amendments made by this resolution shall

7 take effect on May 1, 1993.

Æ
#### § 1026.315 Exemptions.

Refer to § 1010.315 of this chapter for exemptions from the obligation to file reports of transactions in currency for futures commission merchants and introducing brokers in commodities.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1057 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1057

    To provide for hearing care services by audiologists to Federal 
                          civilian employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 1995

  Mr. Gilman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for hearing care services by audiologists to Federal 
                          civilian employees.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Hearing Care for Federal 
Employees Act''.
    Sec. 2. Section 8902(k)(1) of the title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting the word ``audiologist'', after the word 
``optometrist'' wherever it appears in that section.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of Owl Rock Capital Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

 

1) the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) as applicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

2) the information contained in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Date: February 19, 2020 |   | By:    | /s/ Alan Kirshenbaum                           |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                    |   |   | Alan Kirshenbaum                                    |
|                    |   |   | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
#### In the Matter of Gordon Wilson, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 311]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner became verbally abusive during a pat frisk and tried to strike a correction officer, requiring the use of mechanical restraints to subdue him. As a result of this incident, he was charged in a misbehavior report with assaulting staff, refusing a direct order, engaging in harassment and failing to comply with frisk procedures. At a subsequent tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner pleaded guilty to engaging in harassment and failing to comply with frisk procedures. He was found guilty of all charges at the conclusion of the hearing. Thereafter, the determination was upheld on administrative appeal, but the penalty was modified. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Petitioner’s sole challenge is to that part of the determination finding him guilty of assaulting staff. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of a sergeant who witnessed the incident and the other documentary evidence, establish that petitioner swung at the officer with a closed fist but failed to make contact and provide substantial evidence supporting respondent’s determination *(see Matter of Boyd v Goord,*18 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2005]). Petitioner’s denial of such conduct presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Santiago v Goord,*11 AD3d 845, 846 [2004]). Consequently, we decline to disturb respondent’s determination.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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.

§ 301.6501(m)-1 Tentative carryback adjustment assessment period. ( a ) *Period of limitation after tentative carryback adjustment.* ( 1 ) Under section 6501(m), in a case where an amount has been applied, credited, or refunded under section 6411, by reason of a net operating loss carryback, a capital loss carryback, an investment credit carryback, or a work incentive program credit carryback to a prior taxable year, the period described in section 6501(a) of the Code for assessing a deficiency for such prior taxable year is extended to include the period described in section 6501 (h), (j), or (o), whichever is applicable; except that the amount which may be assessed solely by reason of section 6501(m) may not exceed the amount so applied, credited, or refunded under section 6411, reduced by any amount which may be assessed solely by reason of section 6501 (h), (j), or (o), as the case may be.
( 2 ) The application of this paragraph may be illustrated by the following example: Example. Assume that M Corporation, which claims an unused investment credit of $50,000 for the calendar year 1968, files an application under section 6411 of the Code for an adjustment of its tax for 1965, and receives a refund of $50,000 in 1969. In 1971, it is determined that the amount of the unused investment credit for 1968 is $30,000 rather than $50,000. Moreover, it is determined that M Corporation would have owed $40,000 of additional tax for 1965 if it had properly reported certain income which it failed to include in its 1965 return. Assuming that M Corporation filed its 1968 return on March 15, 1969, and that the 3-year period described in section 6501(a) has not been extended, the period prescribed in section 6501(j) for assessing the excessive amount refunded, $20,000 (*i.e.,* $50,000, original amount refunded less $30,000, correct amount of unused investment credit), does not expire until March 15, 1972, and $20,000 may be assessed on or before such date under section 6501(j). Under section 6501(m), M Corporation may be assessed on or before March 15, 1972, an amount not in excess of $30,000 ($50,000, the amount refunded under section 6411, minus $20,000, the amount which may be assessed solely by reason of section 6501 (j)).
( b ) *Effective date.* The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section apply only with respect to applications under section 6411 filed after November 2, 1966.
[T.D. 7301, 39 FR 975, Jan. 4, 1974]
#### Herbert Oelschlagel, Plaintiff, v United Parcel Service et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Burton L. Sekuler, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

[804 NYS2d 765]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated June 1, 2004, which granted the motion of the third-party defendant Burton L. Sekuler for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Although physicians owe a general duty of care to their patients, that duty may be limited to those medical functions undertaken by the physician and relied on by the patient” *(Boone v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Forest Hills,*12 AD3d 338, 339 *[2004];see Wasserman v Staten Is. Radiological Assoc.,*2 AD3d 713, 714 [2003]). The third-party defendant Burton L. Sekuler submitted evidence sufficient to establish his entitle*360ment to judgment as a matter of law *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]; *Kleinert v Begum,*144 AD2d 645 [1988]). The single examination by Sekuler of the plaintiffs decedent did not render him responsible for her care subsequent to his consultation. In opposition, the third-party plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1089

To ensure that the acquisition of lands for inclusion in the National Forest

System does not result in reduced property tax revenues for the county

in which the acquired lands are located.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 1, 1995

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

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To ensure that the acquisition of lands for inclusion in the

National Forest System does not result in reduced property tax revenues for the county in which the acquired

lands are located.

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

3 SECTION 1. REQUIRED PAYMENTS TO COUNTIES IN CON4 NECTION WITH NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

5 ACQUISITIONS.

6 (a) PROPERTY TAX EQUIVALENCY PAYMENT.—Not7 withstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of

8 Agriculture may not acquire (by purchase, exchange, or
2

•HR 1089 IH

1 other method) any non-Federal land to be managed by the

2 Secretary as part of the National Forest System unless

3 the Secretary agrees to pay to the county in which the

4 acquired land is located an annual property tax equiva5 lency payment in the amount determined under subsection

6 (b).

7 (b) AMOUNT OF PAYMENT.—For each acre of land

8 for which the Secretary is required to make a property

9 tax equivalency payment, the amount of the payment for

10 a fiscal year shall be equal to the difference (but not less

11 than zero) between—

12 (1) the total amount of the property tax, as de13 termined by a tax assessment satisfactory to the

14 Secretary, that would be paid for such year with re15 spect to the land if the land remained in non-Fed16 eral ownership; and

17 (2) the total amount of payments with respect

18 to the land for such year under chapter 69 of title

19 31, United States Code, the sixth paragraph under

20 the heading ‘‘FOREST SERVICE’’ in the Act of

21 May 23, 1908, and section 13 of the Act of March

22 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 500).

23 (c) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN EXCHANGES.—Sub24 section (a) shall not apply to the acquisition of land by

25 exchange if the acquisition of the land does not increase
3

•HR 1089 IH

1 the percentage of land in Federal ownership in the county

2 in which the acquired lands are located.

3 (d) DEFINITION OF COUNTY.—For purposes of this

4 section, the term ‘‘county’’ has the same meaning given

5 the term ‘‘unit of general local government’’ in section

6 6901(2) of title 31, United States Code.

Æ
#### § 19.320 Must I verify that principals of my covered transactions are eligible to participate?

Yes, you as a participant are responsible for determining whether any of your principals of your covered transactions is excluded or disqualified from participating in the transaction. You may decide the method and frequency by which you do so. You may, but you are not required to, check the *EPLS.*
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129814 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan LAFARGE MIDWEST, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129814 COA: 253591 Muskegon CC: 03-042472-CK FRANKENMUTH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 11, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

p0221 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2006

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 64 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 44
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 64

                          [Report No. 104-113]

Authorizing the 1995 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the 
                            Capitol Grounds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 1995

Mr. Gilchrest submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                              May 9, 1995

                   Additional sponsor: Mr. Traficant

                              May 9, 1995

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the 1995 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the 
                            Capitol Grounds.
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF SPECIAL OLYMPICS TORCH RELAY 
              THROUGH CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    On May 19, 1995, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate may 
jointly designate, the 1995 Special Olympics Torch Relay may be run 
through the Capitol Grounds, as part of the journey of the Special 
Olympics torch to the District of Columbia Special Olympics summer 
games at Gallaudet University in the District of Columbia.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such action as may be necessary 
to carry out section 1.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event authorized by section 1.
                                     

                                                  House Calendar No. 44

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 64

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the 1995 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the 
                            Capitol Grounds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 9, 1995

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
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.

§ 301.6230(b)-1 Request that correction not be made. ( a ) *In general.* The request that a correction not be made under section 6230(b)(2) shall be in writing and shall— ( 1 ) State that it is a request that a correction not be made under section 6230(b);
( 2 ) Identify the partnership and the partner filing the request by name, address, and taxpayer identification number;
( 3 ) Be signed by the partner filing the request; and
( 4 ) Be filed with the Internal Revenue Service office that provided the notice of the correction of the error.
( b ) *Effective date.* This section is applicable to partnership taxable years beginning on or after October 4, 2001. For years beginning prior to October 4, 2001, see § 301.6230(b)-1T contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 1, 2001.
[T.D. 8965, 66 FR 50556, Oct. 4, 2001]
EXHIBIT 10.2




                                         May 4, 2001

Howard S. Cohen
Chief Executive Officer
GTECH Corporation
55 Technology Way
West Greenwich, Rhode Island 02817

          Re: Amendment to Employment Agreement

Dear Howard,

I am writing to confirm that your  employment  agreement,  effective as of March
12, 2001,  has been  amended,  with the express  approval of the GTECH  Holdings
Corporation Board of Directors, as follows: The relocation benefits provided for
in Section 1 of Appendix B  have been revised to provide that you will receive a
total of 6 points on the  purchase  price of your  house  (with  the  difference
between said amount and the amount  actually  paid to the mortgage  company,  if
any, paid to you directly from the relocation  agent) in  conjunction  with your
relocation.  In accordance  with the relocation  policy,  this payment of points
shall be grossed-up for all federal and state taxes by GTECH.

Please let me know if you require  further  information.  If you agree with this
amendment, kindly please execute and return to me the original of this letter.

Sincerely,

/s/  Marc A. Crisafulli
-----------------------
Marc A. Crisafulli
Senior Vice President and General Counsel

Accepted and Agreed:



/s/ Howard S. Cohen
-----------------------
Howard S. Cohen
#### In re: BORTIS CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, Debtor. Moise Bortis; Marius Bortis, d/b/a Bortis Construction & Development, Appellants, v. Michael J. Garrison, Appellee.

No. 01-35576.

BAP No. WW-98-1525-PMcMe.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 17, 2002.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

**The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and denies appellants’ request for oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Moise Bortis and Marius Bortis appeal pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order denying as untimely their motion to reopen the time to appeal filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We conclude that the BAP properly denied the Rule 4(a)(6) motion as untimely. *See Mitchell v. Burt Vetterlein & Bushnell PC (In re Stein),*197 F.3d 421, 425 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
10/18/2010 14;59 FAX 2024835142 

10/08/2010 15:02 81632S3771 

FAA + DMS 

FAA ACE 7 

21002/003 

PAGE 02/03 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matter of: 

AIR EVAC EMS, INC. 

Served: October 8, 2010 

FAA Docket No. CPlOCEOOOl 

DMS No. FAA-2 0 10-0022 

FAA Docket No. CP10CE0002 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0024 

Judee: Richard C. Croodwin 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT and 

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

COMES NOW the Federal Aviation Administration (Complainant), by counsel, and 

states that tlie parties have settled the raatter between them on September 27, 2010, obviating the 

need for a hearing in either of the cited cases consolidated for hearing. In keeping with [he terms 

of tlic agreement, the Agency hereby withdrawals the Complaints filed in this action ou May 10, 

2010. 

WHEREFORE, the Complainant, by counsel, respectfiilly requests that an 0:rder issue 

dismissing this action. 

Dated this 8'" day of October 2010 

Respectfully submitted, 

A. Lester Haizlip 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

iior Enforcement Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust Street, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106 

(816) 32?-3765 - Fax (816) 329-3771 

Counsel for Complainant 
10/18/2010 14:58 FAX 2024335142 

10/(39/2610 15:02 8163293771 

FAA * QMS 

FAA ACE 7 

§1003/003 

PAGE 03/03 

In the Matter of Air Evac EMS. Inc., FAA Docket No. CPlOCEOOOl, DMS No. FAA-2010-

0022, FAA Docket No. CP10CE0002, DMS No, FAA-2010-0024 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date sent the Agency's Withdrawal of Complaint, via 

methods listed, to below named addressees: 

Mr. Colin Collins 

President and CEO 

Air Evac EMS, Inc. 

P.O. Box 768 - 306 Davis Drive 

West Plains, MO 65775 

(1 copy via regular mail) 

James E. Ramsey, Esq, 

Cooling & Herbers, P.C 

2400 City Center Square 

1100 Main St, 

Kansas City, MO 64105 

(I copy via regular mail) 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Grotmd Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

(1 copy via regular mail; 1 copy via facsiitiilc to 202 366-7536) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue. S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2014 

(Original & 1 copy via regular ma ^ 1 copy via facsimile to 202-493-5142) 

Dated this s"' day of October 2010. 

enior Enforcement Attorney
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lorenzo Ramsey, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 252]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated October 23,1995 *(People v Ramsey,*220 AD2d 697 [1995]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 7, 1994.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Cozier and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### § 31.3111-1 Measure of employer tax.

The employer tax is measured by the amount of wages paid after 1954 with respect to employment after 1936. See § 31.3121(a)-1, relating to wages, and §§ 31.3121(b)-1 to 31.3121(b)-4, inclusive, relating to employment. For provisions relating to time of payment of wages, see § 31.3121(a)-2.

[T.D. 6744, 29 FR 8306, July 2, 1964]