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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1003

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deductibility

of business meal expenses for individuals who are subject to Federal

hours of limitation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 21, 1995

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, and

Mr. JEFFERSON) 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 increase

the deductibility of business meal expenses for individuals

who are subject to Federal hours of limitation.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASED DEDUCTIBILITY OF BUSINESS

4 MEAL EXPENSES FOR INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT

5 TO FEDERAL HOURS OF SERVICE.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 274(n) of the Internal

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal

8 and entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is
2

HR 1003 IH

1 amended by adding at the end the following new

2 paragraph:

3 ‘‘(3) SPECIAL RULE FOR INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT

4 TO FEDERAL HOURS OF SERVICE.—In the case of

5 any expenses for food or beverages consumed by an

6 individual during, or incident to, the period of duty

7 subject to the hours of service limitations of the

8 Department of Transportation, paragraph (1) shall

9 be applied by substituting ‘80 percent’ for ‘50

10 percent’.’’

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

12 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

13 December 31, 1994.

Æ
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bain Capital Specialty Finance, Inc. (the "Company") for the annual period
ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael A. Ewald, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Sally F.
Dornaus, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

Date:
March 16, 2018



/s/ Michael A. Ewald Michael A. Ewald
Chief Executive OfficerBain Capital Specialty Finance, Inc./s/ Sally F. Dornaus Sally F. Dornaus
Chief Financial OfficerBain Capital Specialty Finance, Inc.


---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1077 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1077

              To authorize the Bureau of Land Management.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 1995

 Mr. Hansen (for himself, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Regula, Mr. Hefley, 
Mr. Torkildsen, Mr. Cooley, Mrs. Smith of Washington, and Mr. Shadegg) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To authorize the Bureau of Land Management.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) subsection (a) 
of section 318 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
(43 U.S.C. 1748) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(a) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary to carry out this Act.''.
    (b) Subsection (b) of such section is repealed, and subsections (c) 
and (d) of such section are redesignated as subsections (b) and (c), 
respectively.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 35.22



|     |  |                                                                                  
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Corporate Trust Services
MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
|    
|    
|     | 
|     |  | Tel: 410 884 2000                                                                
|     |  | Fax: 410 715 2380                                                                

Citibank, National Association

388 Greenwich Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|Re: | Annual Statement of Compliance for BBCMS 2016-ETC Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-ETC
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2016 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized
officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period):

(a)    A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has
been made under such officers supervision; and

(b)    To the best of such officers knowledge, based on
such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.



|              
|--------------
|March 1, 2017 
|              
|LOGO          
|              
|BRIAN SMITH   
|Vice President



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
<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>                               OCT-04-1998
<CASH>                                         508,596
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,205,974
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,222,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,817,418
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,097,950
<PP&E>                                       2,970,901
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,577,471
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,780,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,662,719
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       157,789
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,915,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,780,521
<SALES>                                     15,355,294
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,355,294
<CGS>                                        8,418,199
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,418,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             157,065
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (668,672)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (668,672)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (668,672)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 19.960 Ineligible or ineligibility.

*Ineligible or ineligibility* means that a person or commodity is prohibited from covered transactions because of an exclusion or disqualification.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 156 (Friday, August 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 41162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19505]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Advisory Board for Exceptional Children

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the 
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is announcing that the Advisory Board 
for Exceptional Children will hold its next meeting in San Diego, 
California. The purpose of the meeting is to meet the mandates of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA) on Indian 
children with disabilities.

DATES: The Advisory Board will meet on Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 
from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Time and on Thursday, September 17, 2009, 
from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Pacific Time.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Bahia Resort Hotel, 998 
West Mission Bay Drive, San Diego, California, 92109. Telephone: (858) 
488-0551; Reservations: (858) 576-4229.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jeffrey Hamley, Designated Federal 
Official, Bureau of Indian Education, (505) 563-5260; or Sue Bement, 
Education Specialist Bureau of Indian Education, (505) 563-5274.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Advisory Board is meeting in conjunction 
with the Bureau of Indian Education Special Education Academy, which 
will take place at the Bahia Resort Hotel in San Diego, California, 
September 15-19, 2009. The Advisory Board was established to advise the 
Secretary of the Interior, through the Assistant Secretary--Indian 
Affairs, on the needs of Indian children with disabilities, as mandated 
by the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-446). The 
meetings are open to the public.
    The following items will be on the agenda:
    <bullet> Advisory Board Committee Reports.
    <bullet> Report from Gloria Yepa, Supervisory Education Specialist, 
Bureau of Indian Education, Division of Performance and Accountability.
    <bullet> Public Comments (via conference call, September 17, 2009, 
meeting only*).
    <bullet> Discussion of Board Annual Report due November 1, 2009.
    <bullet> Next Advisory Board Meeting Date and Place.
    *During the September 17, 2009, meeting, time has been set aside 
for public comment via conference call from 1-1:30 p.m. Pacific Time. 
The call-in information is: Conference Number 1-888-387-8686, Passcode 
4274201.

    Dated: August 6, 2009.
Paul Tsosie,
Acting Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E9-19505 Filed 8-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-6W-P
39983.

#### EPSTEIN v. ALLEN.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

This is a suit in bail trover which was tried before the court without a jury. The only question for determination by this court is whether or not the evidence supports the judgment rendered for the defendant. It is well settled that, to support an action of trover, the plaintiff must show either title in himself at the time the suit was *579commenced, prior possession, or the right of possession. *Southern R. Co. v. Strozier & Waters,*10 Ga. App. 157 (73 SE 42); *Livingston v. Epsten-Roberts Co.,*50 Ga. App. 25 (177 SE 79). The plaintiff here produced an undated instrument conveying title to the automobile sued for which instrument had been assigned to plaintiff. Plaintiff testified that this assignment was made subsequently to institution of the trover action. This evidence authorized the judge, as the trior of the facts, to find that the plaintiff did not have title to the property at the time the action was brought, although the assignment was dated prior to the date on which the petition was filed. See *Mutual Fertilizer Co. v. Henderson,*18 Ga. App. 495 (89 SE 602). The record further reveals a bill of sale to the defendant and conflicting evidence of possible title in a fourth party. Testimony showing the defendant’s continuous possession of the property is undisputed and the plaintiff’s evidence certainly did not demand a finding that he was entitled to immediate possession. The judgment was amply supported by the evidence, and the trial court did not err in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for new trial.

Decided April 4, 1963.

*Heyman, Abram, Young, Hicks & Maloof, Robert E. Hicks,*for plaintiff in error.

*Kanes, Senator & Lambros, Nick G. Lambros,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.*
#### § 1025.200 General.

Insurance companies are subject to the program requirements set forth and cross referenced in this subpart. Insurance companies should also refer to subpart B of part 1010 of this chapter for program requirements contained in that subpart which apply to insurance companies.
#### Shonk v. Dungan

*John R. Verbalis*and *Thomas C. Moore,*for plaintiff.

*Arthur Silverblatt,*for defendant.

April 27, 1953.

Flannery, J.,

This is a motion to quash a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum which was executed simultaneously with a writ of fieri facias.

It appearing to the court that where a plaintiff levies a fieri facias upon the estate of defendant and, while this is in force, charges him in execution upon a capias ad satisfaciendum founded on the same judgment, an option is given defendant to set aside the service of one *295or the other of these writs. The ground for this rule is the oppression of defendant by the concurrent exercise on the part of plaintiff of two kinds of judicial process, both tending to the same end. While it is true the writs may issue together they may not be executed together. One may follow or supplement the other but their simultaneous execution is repugnant in the law. 10 Standard Pa. Practice 125; Davies v. Scott, 2 Miles 52; Grant et al. v. Potts et al., 2 Miles 164; Young v. Taylor and Barron, 2 Binney 217.

Wherefore, rule to show cause why the writ of capias ad satisfaciendum should not be quashed is made absolute.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Birch Branch, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy Brasel,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge,:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:           May
7, 2010





/s/Timothy
Brasel.


Timothy
Brasel


President,
Chief Executive Officer,


Chief
Financial Officer and Director
#### §§ 49.4253-8-49.4253-9 [Reserved]
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>



<BTB>
<S>                                          <C>
<ARTICLE>                                            5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,419,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,695,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,069,000
<PP&E>                                       2,114,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (994,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,292,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,880,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       284,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,460,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,292,000
<SALES>                                      9,539,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,539,000
<CGS>                                        4,997,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,541,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (414,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (408,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,413,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (113,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,300,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,300,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)




</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mohammed Rahmen, Also Known as Mohammed Rahman, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 268]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gorges, J., at trial; Firetog, J., at sentencing), rendered September 25, 2003, convicting him of sexual abuse in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 jury, 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 was not against the weight of the credible evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and/or are regarding the same issues considered on a prior appeal by the People where this Court reversed an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted his motion to dismiss the indictment *(see People v Rahmen,*302 AD2d 408 [2003]). H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Covello, JJ., concur.
39508.

#### SIRMONS v. ROGERS, Executor.

Decided May 23, 1962

Rehearing denied June 18, 1962.

*D. W. Stone,*for plaintiff in error.

*S. B. McCall,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

E. M. Rogers, Jr., filed suit on open account against M. S. Sirmons in the Superior Court of Lanier County. The defendant in his amended answer denied the indebtedness and the case proceeded to trial on its merits, the jury returning a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant’s amended motion for new trial was denied and he excepted to that judgment, bringing the case to this court for review. The plaintiff below died after the writ of error was filed in this court, and the executor of his estate, E. M. Rogers, Sr., was named defendant in error, by order of this court dated May 2, 1962. *Held:*

1. “Partners are each liable for the debts of the partnership; and if one be sued upon such a debt, and no objection for nonjoinder is duly raised by demurrer or plea, it furnishes to the defendant sued no defense to prove that he contracted the indebtedness on behalf of a firm of which he was a member, and that he has a partner who is not before the court.” *Bray v. Peace,*131 Ga. 637 (4) (62 SE 1025). As held in the *Bray*case, where no objection for nonjoinder is duly raised by demurrer or plea, and the defendant goes to trial upon the merits of the case, he is not entitled to a judgment on the merits, wholly freeing him from payment, merely because he may have a partner who may also be liable. Accordingly, the defendant’s contention, that the court erred in not charging the jury that the defendant was entitled to a verdict in the event the jury found that the indebtedness sued upon was a partnership debt of the defendant and one Virgil Dougherty, is without merit; and the trial court did not err in overruling the sole special ground of the amended motion for new trial.

2. The verdict of the jury being authorized by the evidence, the general grounds of the amended motion for new trial are without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Prankum, J., concur.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shannon Gamble, Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 20]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward M. Davidowitz, J.), rendered January 23, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The element of serious physical injury was satisfied by ample evidence leading to the conclusion that the gunshot wound inflicted by defendant was the sole cause, or at least a “sufficiently direct cause” *(People v*
      *295
      *Kibbe,*35 NY2d 407, 413 [1974]), of the victim’s disabling and permanent knee injury *(see Matter of Anthony M.,*63 NY2d 270, 280-281 [1984]).

Defendant’s procedural challenge to his sentence is unpreserved *(see People v Samms,*95 NY2d 52, 57-58 [2000]). Although we decline to review it, we note as well it is unreviewable *(see People v Kinchen,*60 NY2d 772 [1983]). Were we nevertheless to review it, we would find it meritless *(see People v Rodriguez,*197 AD2d 355 [1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 902 [1993], see *also*22 NYCRR 100.3 [B] [6] [c]).

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel is not reviewable on direct appeal because it primarily involves matters outside the record. To the extent the existing record permits review, it establishes that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
www.gpo.gov

### §287f. Omitted

#### Codification

Section, act Oct. 22, 1951, ch. 533, title I, 65 Stat. 577, which authorized the Department of State to acquire surplus property for the United Nations and authorized the reduction of the United States contribution to the United Nations by the value of the property acquired and expenses incidental thereto, was from the Department of State Appropriation Act, 1952, and was not repeated in subsequent appropriation acts. Similar provisions were contained in act Sept. 6, 1950, ch. 896, ch. III, title I, 64 Stat. 610.
#### § 54.6061-1 Signing of returns and other documents.

Effective for any Form 8928 that is due on or after January 1, 2010, any return, statement, or other document required to be made with respect to a tax imposed by section 4980B, 4980D, 4980E, or 4980G of the Code or the regulations under section 4980B, 4980D, 4980E, or 4980G must be signed by the person required to file the return, statement, or other document, or by the persons required or duly authorized to sign in accordance with the regulations, forms, or instructions prescribed with respect to such return, statement, or document. An individual's signature on such return, statement, or other document shall be prima facie evidence that the individual is authorized to sign the return, statement, or other document.

[T.D. 9457, 74 FR 46000, Sept. 8, 2009]