alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 31.6696-1 Claims for credit or refund by tax return preparers. ( a ) *In general.* For rules for claims for credit or refund by a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for employment tax under chapters 21 through 25 of subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code, the rules under § 1.6696-1 of this chapter will apply.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78454, Dec. 22, 2008]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

      The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of First Keystone Financial, Inc.
(the "Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.

                                   /s/ Thomas M. Kelly
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Name: Thomas M. Kelly
                                   Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  August 15, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to First Keystone Financial, Inc. and will
be retained by First Keystone Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1171
CHRISTOPHER G. HICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00222) Submitted: September 19, 2007 Decided: October 10, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George L. Fitzgerald, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Sidney P. Alexander, Assistant United States Attorney, Dino Trubiano, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Robert J. Triba, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Christopher G. Hicks appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hicks v. Commissioner , No. 1:06-cv-00222 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
###### 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.

#### § 301.6043-1 Returns regarding liquidation, dissolution, termination, or contraction.

For provisions relating to the requirement of returns of information regarding liquidations, dissolutions, terminations, or contracts, see §§ l.6043-1, 1.6043-2, and 1.6043-3 of this chapter (Income Tax Regulations).

[T.D. 7563, 43 FR 40222, Sept. 11, 1978]
www.gpo.gov

### §652. Claims against United States for appropriated lands; submission to United States Court of Federal Claims; appeal; grounds for relief

All claims of whatsoever nature the Indians of California as defined in section 651 of this title may have against the United States by reason of lands taken from them in the State of California by the United States without compensation, or for the failure or refusal of the United States to compensate them for their interest in lands in said State which the United States appropriated to its own purposes without the consent of said Indians, may be submitted to the United States Court of Federal Claims by the attorney general of the State of California acting for and on behalf of said Indians for determination of the equitable amount due said Indians from the United States; and jurisdiction is conferred upon the United States Court of Federal Claims,1 to hear and determine all such equitable claims of said Indians against the United States and to render final decree thereon.

It is declared that the loss to the said Indians on account of their failure to secure the lands and compensation provided for in the eighteen unratified treaties is sufficient ground for equitable relief.

(May 18, 1928, ch. 624, §2, 45 Stat. 602; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §150, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 46; Pub. L. 100–352, §6(b), June 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 663; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, §902(b)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516.)

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–572 substituted “United States Court of Federal Claims” for “United States Claims Court” in two places.

1988—Pub. L. 100–352 struck out “, with the right of either party to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit” before “, to hear and determine”.

1982—Pub. L. 97–164 substituted “United States Claims Court” for “Court of Claims” and for “Court of Claims of the United States” and substituted “United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit” for “Supreme Court of the United States”.

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–352 effective ninety days after June 27, 1988, except that such amendment not to apply to cases pending in Supreme Court on such effective date or affect right to review or manner of reviewing judgment or decree of court which was entered before such effective date, see section 7 of Pub. L. 100–352, set out as a note under section 1254 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

#### Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

1 So in original. The comma probably should not appear.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-31215

Summary Calendar

_____________________

KARAM BEDI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ANDRE GRONDIN, LEONARD A. RADLAUER, and CARLOS E. ZELEDON,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-2846-E)

_________________________________________________________________

September 5, 1997

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Karam Bedi, pro se, appeals from the district court’s

dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

We affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the district court.

Andre Grondin’s motion to dismiss, Bedi’s motion for hearing

en banc, and Leonard A. Radlauer’s and Carlos E. Zeledon’s motion

for sanctions are DENIED.

 AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED
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.

§ 301.6229(c)(2)-1 Substantial omission of income. ( a ) *Partnership return* —(1) *General rule.* (i) If any partnership omits from the gross income stated in its return an amount properly includible therein and that amount is described in clause ( i ) of section 6501(e)(1)(A), subsection (a) of section 6229 shall be applied by substituting “6 years” for “3 years.”
( ii ) For purposes of paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the term *gross income,* as it relates to a trade or business, means the total of the amounts received or accrued from the sale of goods or services, to the extent required to be shown on the return, without reduction for the cost of those goods or services.
( iii ) For purposes of paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the term *gross income,* as it relates to any income other than from the sale of goods or services in a trade or business, has the same meaning as provided under section 61(a), and includes the total of the amounts received or accrued, to the extent required to be shown on the return. In the case of amounts received or accrued that relate to the disposition of property, and except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, gross income means the excess of the amount realized from the disposition of the property over the unrecovered cost or other basis of the property. Consequently, except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, an understated amount of gross income resulting from an overstatement of unrecovered cost or other basis constitutes an omission from gross income for purposes of section 6229(c)(2).
( iv ) An amount shall not be considered as omitted from gross income if information sufficient to apprise the Commissioner of the nature and amount of the item is disclosed in the return, including any schedule or statement attached to the return.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section applies to taxable years with respect to which the period for assessing tax was open on or after September 24, 2009.
[T.D. 9511, 75 FR 78898, Dec. 17, 2010]
# L_2020013EN.01005801.xml

| 17.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 13/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 13/58

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1776 of 9 October 2019 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff

(Official Journal of the European Union L 280 of 31 October 2019)

On page 1030, for entry Switzerland, in the fourth column:

for:

‘Berne’,

read:

‘Delémont’.

---
Recertification of Authority issued by Manitex Liftking, ULC



 Exhibit 10.3 
 RECERTIFICATION OF AUTHORITY 
 The undersigned Secretary of Manitex
Liftking, ULC, a corporation incorporated uner the provincial laws of Alberta (“Company”) hereby certifies to Comerica Bank, a Texas banking association (“Bank”) that the Company’s (i) Articles of Incorporation and
Bylaws, and (ii) Corporate Resolutions and Incumbency Certification dated December 23, 2011, each previously delivered to Bank: (x) remain in full force and effect, (y) have not been amended, rescinded or repealed in any respect,
and (z) may continue to be relied upon by Bank until express written notice to the contrary is delivered to Bank. 
 Dated:
August 10, 2012 
  

			
	MANITEX LIFTKING, ULC
		
	 By:
	 	/s/ David H. Gransee
	 Name:
	 	David H. Gransee
	 Its:
	 	Secretary
#### Mark Rashford, Respondent, v City of Utica, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Cyndie Jones, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Sabra Jones, an Infant, Respondent, v City of Utica, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

[803 NYS2d 453]

*1001Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Norman I. Siegel, A.J.), entered June 30, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaints.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Mark Rashford, the plaintiff in action No. 1, and Cyndie Jones, the plaintiff in action No. 2, commenced these actions to recover damages for injuries sustained by Rashford and Sabra Jones, the daughter of Cyndie Jones, while snow tubing at a facility owned and operated by defendant. Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaints pursuant to General Obligations Law § 9-103. Although the immunity from liability afforded by that statute may in certain instances be available to municipal defendants *(see generally Sega v State of New York,*60 NY2d 183, 190-191 [1983]), it does not apply to defendant herein because “the hill where the accident occurred was part of a supervised public park not within the ambit of General Obligations Law § 9-103 immunity” *(Sena v Town of Greenfield,*91 NY2d 611, 613 [1998]; *see generally Ferres v City of New Rochelle,*68 NY2d 446, 451-455 [1986]). “The determinative inquiry with respect to the applicability of the statutory grant of immunity here concerns the role of defendant in relation to the public’s use of the park” *(Myers v State of New York,*11 AD3d 1020, 1021 [2004]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that defendant created and supervised the park in question for the purpose of winter recreation and provided numerous amenities within the park, including a sledding hill. Indeed, the record establishes that defendant actively encouraged sledding in the park.

Defendant’s further contention with respect to primary assumption of the risk is raised for the first time on appeal and is not properly before us *(see Ring v Jones,*13 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2004]; *Oram v Capone,*206 AD2d 839 [1994]; *cf. Matter of Przydatek v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.,*13 AD3d 1102). We have considered defendant’s remaining conten*1002tions and conclude that they are without merit. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.
IV

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 72

Providing for the adjournment of the two Houses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 1995

Mr. ARMEY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the adjournment of the two Houses.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, May 25, 1995, it stand adjourned

4 until noon on Tuesday, June 6, 1995, or until noon on

5 the second day after Members are notified to reassemble

6 pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which7 ever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or

8 adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, May 25,

9 1995, Friday, May 26, 1995, or Saturday, May 27, 1995,

10 pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader or his

11 designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand re12 cessed or adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday, June 5,
2

HCON 72 ATH

1 1995, or until noon on the second day after Members are

2 notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concur3 rent resolution, whichever occurs first.

4 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the majority

5 leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

6 the minority leader of the House and the minority leader

7 of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and

8 Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opin9 ion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Æ
www.gpo.gov

### §1300*l*–1. Economic development

#### (a) Plan for economic development

The Secretary shall—

(1) enter into negotiations with the governing body of the Tribe with respect to establishing a plan for economic development for the Tribe;

(2) in accordance with this section and not later than 2 years after the adoption of a tribal constitution as provided in section 1300*l*–5 of this title, develop such a plan; and

(3) upon the approval of such plan by the governing body of the Tribe, submit such plan to the Congress.

#### (b) Restrictions

Any proposed transfer of real property contained in the plan developed by the Secretary under subsection (a) of this section shall be consistent with the requirements of section 1300*l*–2 of this title.

(Pub. L. 103–434, title II, §203, Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4533; Pub. L. 104–109, §8(a), Feb. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 764.)

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 104–109, §8(a)(1), made technical amendment to reference to section 1300*l*–5 of this title, to correct reference to corresponding section of original act.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–109, §8(a)(2), made technical amendment to reference to section 1300*l*–2 of this title, to correct reference to corresponding section of original act.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Omowale George, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 272]

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 December 1, 2003 *(People v George, 2*AD3d 457 [2003]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 23, 2001.

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, H. Miller and Luciano, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       6,487,958
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  471,751
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,846
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,149,666
<PP&E>                                       5,616,526
<DEPRECIATION>                                 825,752
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,136,365
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,344,044
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        260
<COMMON>                                         1,738
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,103,613
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,136,365
<SALES>                                        948,188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               948,188
<CGS>                                          890,811
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,777,207
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               176,308
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             176,308
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,005,327)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,005,327)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,005,327)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)
        

</TABLE>
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 101

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 2 (legislative day, JANUARY 30), 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

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)

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

11 550 (84 Stat. 1437)).
2

•HR 101 RFS

1 (b) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The parcel of land re2 ferred to in subsection (a) is the land that is generally

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

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

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

6 26, 35, and 36, Township 27 North, Range 14 East, New

7 Mexico Principal Meridian, within the Wheeler Peak Wil8 derness, Carson National Forest, Taos County, New Mex9 ico.

10 (c) CONFORMING BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS.—The

11 boundaries of the Carson National Forest and the Wheeler

12 Peak Wilderness are hereby adjusted to reflect the trans13 fer made by subsection (a).

14 (d) RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING CLAIMS.—The

15 Congress finds and declares that, as a result of the enact16 ment of this Act, the Taos Pueblo has no unresolved equi17 table or legal claims against the United States on the

18 lands to be held in trust and to become part of the Pueblo

19 de Taos Reservation under this section.

Passed the House of Representatives February 1,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.