alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54544, Sept. 26, 2007.

§ 10.27 Fees. ( a ) *In general.* A practitioner may not charge an unconscionable fee in connection with any matter before the Internal Revenue Service.
( b ) *Contingent fees.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2), (3), and (4) of this section, a practitioner may not charge a contingent fee for services rendered in connection with any matter before the Internal Revenue Service.
( 2 ) A practitioner may charge a contingent fee for services rendered in connection with the Service's examination of, or challenge to— ( i ) An original tax return; or
( ii ) An amended return or claim for refund or credit where the amended return or claim for refund or credit was filed within 120 days of the taxpayer receiving a written notice of the examination of, or a written challenge to the original tax return.
( 3 ) A practitioner may charge a contingent fee for services rendered in connection with a claim for credit or refund filed solely in connection with the determination of statutory interest or penalties assessed by the Internal Revenue Service.
( 4 ) A practitioner may charge a contingent fee for services rendered in connection with any judicial proceeding arising under the Internal Revenue Code.
( c ) *Definitions.* For purposes of this section— ( 1 ) *Contingent fee* is any fee that is based, in whole or in part, on whether or not a position taken on a tax return or other filing avoids challenge by the Internal Revenue Service or is sustained either by the Internal Revenue Service or in litigation. A contingent fee includes a fee that is based on a percentage of the refund reported on a return, that is based on a percentage of the taxes saved, or that otherwise depends on the specific result attained. A contingent fee also includes any fee arrangement in which the practitioner will reimburse the client for all or a portion of the client's fee in the event that a position taken on a tax return or other filing is challenged by the Internal Revenue Service or is not sustained, whether pursuant to an indemnity agreement, a guarantee, rescission rights, or any other arrangement with a similar effect.
( 2 ) *Matter before the Internal Revenue Service* includes tax planning and advice, preparing or filing or assisting in preparing or filing returns or claims for refund or credit, and all matters connected with a presentation to the Internal Revenue Service or any of its officers or employees relating to a taxpayer's rights, privileges, or liabilities under laws or regulations administered by the Internal Revenue Service. Such presentations include, but are not limited to, preparing and filing documents, corresponding and communicating with the Internal Revenue Service, rendering written advice with respect to any entity, transaction, plan or arrangement, and representing a client at conferences, hearings, and meetings.
( d ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable for fee arrangements entered into after March 26, 2008.
[T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54548, Sept. 26, 2007]
40134.

#### THE 33 PONCE DE LEON CORPORATION v. ALLEN.

Decided May 14, 1963.

*Rose & Lappas, Frank P. Lappas,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wilkinson*<fc *Nance, A. Mims Wilkinson, Jr.,*contra.

Eberhahdt, Judge.'

In a suit against a corporation by one who, while its president, made advances to third parties allegedly “for the sole benefit of the [corporation] . . . with [its] knowledge and consent, and [under] an express agreement by it” to repay the advances, the overruling of a general demurrer, unexcepted to, becomes the law of the case, *McDougal v. Johnson,*104 Ga. App. 233 (1), 234 (121 SE2d 417) and citations, and the issue of whether the plaintiff, as president of the corporation, was authorized to make the advances on its behalf can not now be raised. The allegations of the petition were supported by the evidence. Consequently there is no merit in the motion for new trial on the general grounds only.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Russell, J., concur.*
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 156 (Friday, August 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 41132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19656]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Federal Maritime Commission.

TIME AND DATE: August 19, 2009--10 a.m.

PLACE: 800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, 
Washington, DC.

Status: A portion of the meeting will be in Open Session and the 
remainder of the meeting will be in Closed Session

Matters To Be Considered

Open Session

    1. Docket No. 08-04: Tienshan, Inc. v. Tianjin Hua Feng 
Transportation Agency Co., Ltd.--Request for Extension of Time.
    2. FY 2009 Budget Status Update.

Closed Session

    1. Docket No. 08-05: City of Los Angeles, California, Harbor 
Department of the City of Los Angeles, Board of Harbor Commissioners of 
the City of Los Angeles, City of Long Beach, California, Harbor 
Department of the City of Long Beach, and the Board of Harbor 
Commissioners of the City of Long Beach--Possible Violations of the 
Sections 10(b)(10), 10(d)(1) and 10(d)(4) of the Shipping Act of 1984.
    2. Internal Administrative Practices and Personnel Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 
523-5725.

Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19656 Filed 8-12-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certification ofQuarterly Report**

 

I, Robert W. Benson, Chief Financial Officer of ProCyte Corporation,(the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)           the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q for the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (12 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 

Dated:  August 12, 2004

 
|   | /s/ Robert W. Benson     |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert W.  Benson        |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

1

----
| (logo) NTS NATIONAL

TAX SEARCH, LLC | 130 S. Jefferson, Suite 300

Chicago, IL 60661

312-233-6440 |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OFCOMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S REGULATION ABSERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

For the calendar year ending December31, 2016, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for **WellsFargo Bank** (the “Servicer”).

 

National Tax Search, LLC(“NTS”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2016 and forthe period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “ReportingPeriod”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d)of the Code of Federal Regulations (the “CFR”). NTS has used the servicingcriteria communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria. Only servicing criteria 1122 (d) (l)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122 (d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and1122(d)(4)(xii) (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”) are applicable to theactivities NTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by thisreport. NTS has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122 (d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities itperforms with respect to the transactions covered by this report. Thetransactions covered by this report include all tax payments made on behalf ofthe Servicer using NTS’s TaxQ system (the “Platform Transactions”).

 

NTS, as a vendor, has assessedits compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Periodand has concluded that NTS has complied, in all material respects, with theApplicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2016 and for the ReportingPeriod with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

 

Plante& Moran, PLLC, anindependent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation reporton the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as ofDecember 31, 2016 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

 

National Tax Search, LLC, asVendor to Servicer

 

 

/s/ Lori D. Eshoo

Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO 

January 23, 2017
# L_2019308DE.01013501.xml

| 29.11.2019 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 308/135 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2019

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 308/135

---

Berichtigung der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2019/1935 der Kommission vom 13. Mai 2019 zur Änderung der Richtlinie (EU) 2016/97 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates durch technische Regulierungsstandards zur Anpassung der Euro-Grundbeträge für die Berufshaftpflichtversicherung und die finanzielle Leistungsfähigkeit von Versicherungs- und Rückversicherungsvermittlern

(Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 301 vom 22. November 2019)

Auf Seite 4 erhält der Text des Artikels 2 folgende Fassung:

„Diese Verordnung tritt am zwanzigsten Tag nach ihrer Veröffentlichung im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union in Kraft. Sie gilt ab dem 12. Juni 2020.“

---
www.gpo.gov

### §16a. Additional personnel for patients of Department of Veterans Affairs in naval hospitals

On and after May 29, 1945, additional commissioned, warranted, appointed, enlisted, and civilian personnel of the Medical Department of the Navy, required for the care of patients of the Department of Veterans Affairs in naval hospitals, may be employed in addition to the numbers annually appropriated for.

(May 29, 1945, ch. 130, §1, 59 Stat. 208; Pub. L. 102–54, §13(i)(1), June 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 276.)

#### Codification

Section is from act May 29, 1945, popularly known as the Naval Appropriation Act, 1946.

#### Amendments

1991—Pub. L. 102–54 substituted “Department of Veterans Affairs” for “United States Veterans’ Administration”.

#### Similar Provisions

Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

June 22, 1944, ch. 269, §1, 58 Stat. 308.

June 26, 1943, ch. 147, §101, 57 Stat. 204.
www.gpo.gov

### §§199, 200. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–621, §10(k)(2), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3380

Section 199, act Oct. 6, 1917, ch. 79, 40 Stat. 373, related to transfer of insane patients from military hospitals to nearest public hospitals.

Section 200, acts Oct. 6, 1917, ch. 79, 40 Stat. 373; 1940 Reorg. Plan No. IV, §11(a), eff. June 30, 1940, 5 F.R. 2422, 54 Stat. 1236; 1953, Reorg. Plan No. 1, §5, eff. Apr. 11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053, 67 Stat. 631; Oct. 17, 1979, Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), 93 Stat. 695, related to transfer of part of appropriations for support of patients at Saint Elizabeths Hospital to public hospitals for patient support.

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1987, see section 12(b) of Pub. L. 98–621, set out as an Effective Date note under section 225 of this title.
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 87

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding

citizenship in the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 3, 1995

Mr. STOCKMAN (for himself, Mr. JONES, Mr. FUNDERBURK, Mrs.

CHENOWETH, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, and Mr. SALMON) 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 regarding citizenship in the United States.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by

7 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with8 in seven years after the date of its submission for ratifica9 tion:
2

•HJ 87 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE —

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Citizens of the United States shall only

3 be persons born to a parent who is a citizen of the United

4 States, persons born within the United States and to a

5 parent who was lawfully present in and subject to the ju6 risdiction of the United States at the time of that parent’s

7 entry into the United States, and all persons naturalized

8 according to the laws of the United States.

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall re10 quire either the Congress or the States to provide pay11 ments or services to any person who is not a citizen of

12 the United States.

13 ‘‘SECTION 3. No person shall become a naturalized

14 citizen of the United States who is not conversant in the

15 English language, except for persons under the age of five,

16 and who has not sworn allegiance to the United States

17 over and above allegiance to any other polity.

18 ‘‘SECTION 4. Representatives shall be apportioned

19 among the several States according to their respective

20 numbers, counting only the number of citizens of each

21 State.’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 18 (Thursday, January 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1938]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice-6492]


Shipping Coordinating Committee; Notice of Meeting

    The Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) will conduct an open 
meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 12, 2009, in Room 6103 of 
the United States Coast Guard Headquarters building, 2100 Second 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. The primary purpose of the meeting 
is to prepare for the 52nd session of the Sub-Committee on Ship Design 
and Equipment (DE 52) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 
to be held March 16-20, 2009 at the IMO's London Headquarters. The 
primary matters to be considered at DE 52 include:

--Amendments to resolution A.744(18) regarding longitudinal strength of 
tankers;
--Measures to prevent accidents with lifeboats;
--Compatibility with life-saving appliances;
--Test standards for extended service intervals of inflatable life 
rafts;
--Amendments to the Guidelines for ships operating in Arctic ice-
covered waters;
--Revision of resolution A.760(18) regarding symbols related to life-
saving appliances and arrangements;
--Guidelines for uniform operating limitations of high-speed craft;
--Consideration of International Association of Classification 
Societies (IACS) unified interpretations;
--Cargo oil tank coating and corrosion protection;
--Guidelines for maintenance and repair of protective coatings;
--Performance standards for recovery systems;
--Guidance to ensure consistent policy for determining the need for 
watertight doors to remain open during navigation;
--Revision of the Code on Alarms and Indicators (resolution A.830(19)); 
and
--Amendments to the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile 
Offshore Drilling Units (MODU Code).
Printed copies of documents associated with DE 52 will be available at 
this meeting of the SHC. To request further copies of documents please 
write to the address provided below. Members of the public may attend 
this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Interested persons 
may seek additional information by writing to Mr. Wayne Lundy, 
Commandant (CG-5213), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second 
Street, SW., Room 1300, Washington, DC 20593-0001 or by calling (202) 
372-1379.

    Dated: January 22, 2009.
Mark Skolnicki,
Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. E9-1938 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 155 (Thursday, August 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 40857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19486]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


 In the Matter of V-Twin Holdings, Inc. (n/k/a Tobacco One, 
Inc.), Valley Media, Inc., Venturequest Group, Inc. (n/k/a Dex-Ray 
Resources, Inc.), Verex Laboratories, Inc., Vibro-Tech Industries, 
Inc., Video City, Inc., and Vidikron Technologies Group, Inc.; Order of 
Suspension of Trading

August 11, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
V-Twin Holdings, Inc. (n/k/a Tobacco One, Inc.) because it has not 
filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Valley Media, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since 
the period ended September 29, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Venturequest Group, Inc. (n/k/a Dex-Ray Resources, Inc.), because it 
has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 
2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Verex Laboratories, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since the period ended March 31, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Vibro-Tech Industries, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic 
reports since it filed a Form 10-SB on January 5, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Video City, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since 
the period ended July 31, 2003.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Vidikron Technologies Group, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic 
reports since the period ended March 31, 1999.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT 
on August 11, 2009, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on August 24, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19486 Filed 8-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
§ 0.212 Use of government property. ( a ) An employee shall not directly or indirectly use, or allow the use of, government property of any kind, including property leased to the government, for other than officially approved activities. This includes the use of government-provided information technology equipment, internet access, cellular telephones, personal digital assistants, and other devices in a manner that is inconsistent with the Department's policy permitting reasonable personal use. An employee has a positive duty to protect and conserve government property including equipment, supplies, intellectual property, and other property made available, entrusted, or issued to the employee for official use.
( b ) Employees shall not use government vehicles for unofficial purposes, including to transport unauthorized passengers. The use of government vehicles for transporting employees between their domiciles and places of employment is prohibited except when authorized by the Secretary pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1344 or other statute.
(Licking Common Pleas,

Jan’y Term', 1898.)

#### CHAS. ROE v. SAMUEL M. HUNTER ADMR.

*On claims not filed within a year n'o costs, can be*recovered—

In an action against an administrator on a claim for services rendered to deceased in his last sickness, which was not filed with the administrator, and demanded within a year after he qualified, no costs can be recovered.-

*J. B. Jones,*for Plaintiff.

.S'. *M. Hunter,*for Defendant.

Jones, J.

This case is submitted to the court upon a question of costs. The action is brought against Samuel M. Hunter, as administrator of George Roe, decease"1, on a claim of $120. A verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $100, and a motion for a new trial made and overruled. It is not claimed by the defendant that no recovery for costs can be had under sec. 6106, Rev. Stat. I might say that this case was brought against the administrator on a claim for services rendered to George Roe in his last sickness. The claim was not filed^ with- the administrator and demanded within a year after he qualified.

Section 6106, Rev. Stat., is as follows: “In suits for the recovery of money only, or of specific personal property against the estate, in which no provision is made herein in relation to costs, no costs shall be recovered against the executor or administrator, to be levied of his property or of the property of the deceased, unless it appear that the demand on which the action was founded was presented within one year after his giving bond for the discharge of his trust, that its payment was unreasonably resisted or neglected, or that the defendant refused to refer the same, pursuant to the preceding provisions.”

No provision is made in the settlement of estates for- the payment of costs in such cases as this. Of course, the code provides generally, that where suit is brought for the recovery of money only, and the plaintiff recovers, that the plaintiff will be entitled to a judgment for costs, as of course. Now, this section provides that “no costs shall be recovered against the executor or administrator, to be levied of his property or of the property of the deceased.” That settles the matter of costs in this case. But then the question is, what does “recovery of costs” mean? I suppose the recovery of costs is a judgment in favor of one party against the other for his costs; and, that being the case, the plaintiff in thjs case can have no judgment for costs-i against the defendant.

The result of that is, that each party shall ’ pay his own costs, and the order will be so made. ■
www.gpo.gov

### §1616b. Recruitment activities

(a) The Secretary may reimburse health professionals seeking positions in the Service, including individuals considering entering into a contract under section 1616a of this title, and their spouses, for actual and reasonable expenses incurred in traveling to and from their places of residence to an area in which they may be assigned for the purpose of evaluating such area with respect to such assignment.

(b) The Secretary, acting through the Service, shall assign one individual in each area office to be responsible on a full-time basis for recruitment activities.

(Pub. L. 94–437, title I, §109, as added Pub. L. 100–713, title I, §108, Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4794; amended Pub. L. 102–573, title I, §107, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4538.)

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–573, §107(1), substituted “Recruitment activities” for “Travel expenses for recruitment” in section catchline.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–573, §107(2), amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows: “There are authorized to be appropriated $100,000 for each of the fiscal years 1990, 1991, and 1992, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section.”