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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 17 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                     

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 17

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
             allowing an item veto in appropriations bills.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

   Mr. Emerson introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
             allowing an item veto in appropriations bills.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and 
purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures 
of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The President shall have the power to disapprove any 
appropriation or provision and approve any other appropriation or 
provision in the same appropriation bill. In such case he shall, in 
signing the bill, designate the appropriations and provisions 
disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations and 
provisions, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall 
have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case 
of other bills disapproved by the President.
    ``Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have 
been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures 
of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date 
of its submission.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 94 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 94

  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a dedication 
ceremony incident to the placement of a bust of Raoul Wallenberg in the 
                                Capitol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 4, 1995

  Mr. Lantos submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a dedication 
ceremony incident to the placement of a bust of Raoul Wallenberg in the 
                                Capitol.
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. DEDICATION CEREMONY AND PLACEMENT OF A BUST OF RAOUL 
              WALLENBERG IN THE CAPITOL.

    The rotunda of the Capitol may be used on November 2, 1995, for a 
ceremony incident to the placement of a bust of Raoul Wallenberg in the 
Capitol as previously authorized by Congress.

SEC. 2. SECURITY AND PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such action with respect to 
security as may be necessary to carry out section 1. The Architect of 
the Capitol shall make appropriate physical preparations for the 
ceremony referred to in section 1.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1010.210 Anti-money laundering programs.

Each financial institution (as defined in 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2) or (c)(1)) should refer to subpart B of its chapter X part for any additional anti-money laundering program requirements.
www.gpo.gov

### §286kk. Discussions to enhance capacity of Fund to alleviate potentially adverse impacts of Fund programs on poor and environment

The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director of the Fund to seek policy changes by the Fund, through formal initiatives and through bilateral discussions, which will result in—

(1) the initiation of a systematic review of policy prescriptions implemented by the Fund, for the purpose of determining whether the Fund's objectives were met and the social and environmental impacts of such policy prescriptions; and

(2) the establishment of procedures which ensure the inclusion, in future economic reform programs approved by the Fund, of policy options which eliminate or reduce the potential adverse impact on the well-being of the poor or the environment resulting from such programs.

(July 31, 1945, ch. 339, §55, as added Pub. L. 101–240, title III, §302, Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2500.)

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in section 262r of this title.
#### Selective Insurance Company of America, Appellant, v Merchants Insurance Group, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[805 NYS2d 104]

In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant Merchants Insurance Group is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an underlying personal injury action entitled *Ganci v Bloomingdale Props.,*commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 705/00, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated September 15, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant Merchants Insurance Group is obligated to indemnify the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action.

The plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as the insurance policy issued by the defendant Merchants Insurance Group (hereinafter Merchants) stated that Merchants would act as a primary insurer. In opposition, Merchants failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Since this is a declaratory judgment action, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that Merchants is obligated to indemnify the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action *(see Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317 [1962], *appeal dismissed*371 US 74 [1962], *cert denied*371 US 901 [1962]). The issue of the defense of this action is now academic.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 26

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with

respect to the right to life.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. DORNAN (for himself, Mr. HANCOCK, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. SMITH

of New Jersey, Mr. HYDE, and Mrs. VUCANOVICH) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States with respect to the right to life.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•HJ 26 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. The right to life is the paramount and

5 most fundamental right of a person.

6 ‘‘SECTION 2. With respect to the right to life guaran7 teed to persons by the fifth and fourteenth articles of

8 amendment to the Constitution, the word ‘person’ applies

9 to all human beings, irrespective of age, health, function,

10 or condition of dependency, including their unborn off11 spring at every stage of their biological development in12 cluding fertilization.

13 ‘‘SECTION 3. No unborn person shall be deprived of

14 life by any person: Provided, however, That nothing in this

15 article shall prohibit a law allowing justification to be

16 shown for only those medical procedures required to pre17 vent the death of either the pregnant woman or her un18 born offspring, as long as such law requires every reason19 able effort be made to preserve the life of each.

20 ‘‘SECTION 4. The Congress and the several States

21 shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate leg22 islation.’’.

Æ
ex10-5.htm


EXHIBIT 10.5







Director Fee Arrangements


 


The board of directors of Sunshine Financial, Inc., the holding company for Sunshine Savings Bank, is identical to that of the Bank.  No board fees are paid for service on the board of directors of Sunshine Financial, Inc.







The non-employee directors of Sunshine Savings Bank receive compensation for their service on the board of directors of the Bank.  In setting their compensation, the board of directors considers the significant amount of time and level of skill required for director service.  Director compensation is reviewed annually by the compensation committee, which makes recommendations for approval by the board of directors of the Bank.  On June 26, 2012, the Board of Directors of the Bank set its compensation as follows:








	
  

	
•

	
directors receive $500 for each board meeting attended, except the chairman, who receives $600 per board meeting attended; and  








	
  

	
•

	
board committee members receive $150 for each board committee meeting attended.












Directors who are also employees of Sunshine Savings Bank do not receive any compensation for their service on the Board of Directors or any committees thereof.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00521-CV

MEDINA INTERESTS, LTD.,

Appellant

v.

William Paul TRIAL, et al.,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-04-00098-CVK

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s Order Granting 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and the trial court’s Order Denying Plaintiffs’ CrossMotion for Partial Summary Judgment are AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that appellees recover their costs of appeal from appellant.

SIGNED June 24, 2015.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

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

 

 

RE: Annual Statement ofCompliance for COMM 2015-LC23 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of November 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

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

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

/s/ Jeffrey Coletta

Jeffrey Coletta 

Assistant Secretary

 

  

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |   |
|------------------------|--------|
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 101

To transfer a parcel of land to the Taos Pueblo Indians of New Mexico.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

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

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To transfer a parcel of land to the Taos Pueblo Indians

of New Mexico.

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

3 SECTION 1. LAND TRANSFER.

4 (a) TRANSFER.—The parcel of land described in sub5 section (b) is hereby transferred without consideration to

6 the Secretary of the Interior to be held in trust for the

7 Pueblo de Taos. Such parcel shall be a part of the Pueblo

8 de Taos Reservation and shall be managed in accordance

9 with section 4 of the Act of May 31, 1933 (48 Stat. 108)
2

•HR 101 IH

1 (as amended, including as amended by Public Law 91–

2 550 (84 Stat. 1437)).

3 (b) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The parcel of land re4 ferred to in subsection (a) is the land that is generally

5 depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Lands transferred to the

6 Pueblo of Taos—proposed’’ and dated September 1994,

7 comprises 764.33 acres, and is situated within sections 25,

8 26, 35, and 36, Township 27 North, Range 14 East, New

9 Mexico Principal Meridian, within the Wheeler Peak

10 Wilderness, Carson National Forest, Taos County, New

11 Mexico.

12 (c) CONFORMING BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS.—The

13 boundaries of the Carson National Forest and the Wheeler

14 Peak Wilderness are hereby adjusted to reflect the trans15 fer made by subsection (a).

16 (d) COMPLETION OF TRANSFER.—The Congress

17 finds and declares that the lands to be held in trust and

18 to become part of the Pueblo de Taos Reservation under

19 this section complete the transfer effected by section 4 of

20 the Act of May 31, 1933 (48 Stat. 108) (as amended, in21 cluding as amended by Public Law 91–550 (84 Stat.

22 1437)).

Æ
§ 55.6081-1 Automatic extension of time for filing a return due under Chapter 44. ( a ) *In general.* A Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) required to file a return on Form 8612, “Return of Excise Tax on Undistributed Income of Real Estate Investment Trusts,” or a Regulated Investment Company (RIC) required to file a return on Form 8613, “Return of Excise Tax on Undistributed Income of Regulated Investment Companies,” will be allowed an automatic 6-month extension of time to file the return after the date prescribed for filing the return if the REIT or RIC files an application under this section in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Requirements.* To satisfy this paragraph (b), a REIT or RIC must— ( 1 ) Submit a complete application on Form 7004, “Application for Automatic Extension of Time to File Certain Business Income Tax, Information, and Other Returns,” or in any other manner prescribed by the Commissioner;
( 2 ) File the application on or before the date prescribed for filing the return with the Internal Revenue Service office designated in the application's instructions; and
( 3 ) Remit the amount of the properly estimated unpaid tax liability on or before the date prescribed for payment.
( c ) *No extension of time for the payment of tax.* An automatic extension of time for filing a return granted under paragraph (a) of this section will not extend the time for payment of any tax due on such return.
( d ) *Termination of automatic extension.* The Commissioner may terminate an automatic extension at any time by mailing to the REIT or RIC a notice of termination at least 10 days prior to the termination date designated in such notice. The Commissioner must mail the notice of termination to the address shown on the Form 7004 or to the REIT or RIC's last known address. For further guidance regarding the definition of last known address, see § 301.6212-2 of this chapter.
( e ) *Penalties.* See section 6651 for failure to file or failure to pay the amount shown as tax on the return.
( f ) *Effective/applicable dates.* This section is applicable for applications for an automatic extension of time to file a return due under chapter 44, filed after July 1, 2008.
[T.D. 9407, 73 FR 37369, July 1, 2008]
www.gpo.gov

### §1300h–8. Compliance with Budget Act

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, any spending authority provided under this subchapter shall be effective for any fiscal year only to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriation Acts. For purposes of this subchapter, the term “spending authority” has the meaning provided in section 651(c)(2) 1 of title 2.

(Pub. L. 100–420, §10, Sept. 8, 1988, 102 Stat. 1579.)

#### References in Text

Section 651 of title 2, referred to in text, was amended by Pub. L. 105–33, title X, §10116(a)(3), (5), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 691, by striking out subsec. (c) and redesignating former subsec. (d) as (c).
#### § 1.818-8 Special rules relating to consolidated returns and certain capital losses.

Section 818(g) provides that, in the case of a life insurance company filing or required to file a consolidated return under section 1501 for a taxable year, the computations of the policyholders' share of investment yield under subparts B and C, part I, subchapter L, chapter 1 of the Code (including all determinations and computations incident thereto) shall be made as if such company were not filing a consolidated return. Thus, for example, if X and Y are life insurance companies which are entitled to file a consolidated return for 1975 and X has paid dividends to Y during such taxable year, Y must include such dividends in the computation of gross investment income under section 804(b). For other rules relating to the filing of consolidated returns, see sections 1501 through 1504 and the regulations thereunder.

[T.D. 7469, 42 FR 12181, Mar. 3, 1977]
§ 7.57(d)-1 Election with respect to straight line recovery of intangibles. ( a ) *Purpose.* This section prescribes rules for making the election permitted under section 57(d)(2), as added by the Tax Reform Act of 1976. Under this election taxpayers may use cost depletion to compute straight line recovery of intangibles.
( b ) *Election.* The election under section 57(d) is subject to the following rules: ( 1 ) The election is made within the time prescribed by law (including extensions thereof) for filing the return for the taxable year in which the intangible drilling costs are paid or incurred or, if later, by July 25, 1978.
( 2 ) The election is made separately for each well. Thus, a taxpayer may make the election for only some of his or her wells.
( 3 ) The election is made by using, for the well or wells to which the election applies, cost depletion to compute straight line recovery of intangibles for purposes of determining the amount of the preference under section 57(a)(11).
( 4 ) The election may be made whether or not the taxpayer uses cost depletion in computing taxable income.
( 5 ) The election is made by a partnership rather than by each partner.
( c ) *Computation of cost depletion.* For purposes of computing straight line recovery of intangibles through cost depletion, both depletable and depreciable intangible drilling and development costs for the taxable year are taken into account. They are treated as if capitalized, added to basis, and recovered under § 1.611-2(a). Costs paid or incurred in other taxable years are not taken into account.
(Secs. 57(d) and 7805 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (90 Stat. 1551; 68A Stat. 917; 26 U.S.C. 57(d), 7805))
[T.D. 7541, 43 FR 17816, Apr. 26, 1978; 43 FR 18993, May 3, 1978]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Craig P. Serafin, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[804 NYS2d 477]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 26, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his position as a customer service agent after he failed to call his employer to report that he would be absent because he was unable to repair a flat tire on his vehicle. He had previously received a final warning that he would be terminated if his absenteeism problems continued. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant now appeals.

“It is well settled that an employee’s failure to report to work or to abide by an employer’s call-in policy can constitute disqualifying misconduct” *(Matter of Kurtz [City of New*York—*Commissioner of Labor],*12 AD3d 770, 771 [2004] [citations omitted]). Here, although claimant called the employer’s hotline and left a message that he would be late, he did not call again to report that he would be absent when it became apparent that he would not be able to immediately repair the tire. In addition, contrary to the employer’s call-in policy, he did not speak with his supervisor. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision *(see Matter of Hughes [Commissioner of Labor],*283 AD2d 753, 753 [2001]; *Matter of McPhail [Commissioner of Labor],*277 AD2d 559, 560 [2000]).

Cardona, *P.J.,*Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
PPE Sanitized
-~

YELLOWSTONE

REGIONALAIRPORTr. q~' ").0 \

CODY, WYOMING :U .~v I. i-- .J' - \

December 11. 2013

Michael F. Martin

Office of Aviation Analysis

US Department of Transportation

400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: USDOT Essential Air Service Bid for Cody, Wyoming

Dear Mr. Martin:

After reviewing the proposals from SkyWest Airlines and United Airlines to provide Essential Air Service (EAS) to Cody,

Wyoming, it is the Yellowstone Regional Airport Joint Powers Board's desire to voice our strong support for the

proposals submitted by both carriers. We feel the proposals provide the citizens of Cody and Park County the best

options to connect to the nation's air transportation system. Community comments indicate the support for reliable

and continued air service to both Denver and Salt Lake City.

Quality air service is essential to our community and the level of service offered by both of these proposals provided the

best overall options for air service in the Cody community. The proposed air service is also an excellent tool in recruiting

new business and the continued economic growth of our community.

Thank you for considering our comments.

Sincerely,

The Yellowstone Regional Airport Joint Powers Board

Rob Whisonant, Chairman

2101 ROGER SEDAM DRIVE *

307-587-5096 • FAX 307-587-4909

P.O. BOX 2748 *

• info@flyyra.com

CODY, WYOMING 82414

• www.flyyra.com
§ 1021.520 Special information sharing procedures to deter money laundering and terrorist activity for casinos and card clubs. ( a ) Refer to § 1010.520 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]