alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          19,321
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,966
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     52,525
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             706
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               691
<LOANS>                                        457,609
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 564,644
<DEPOSITS>                                     478,346
<SHORT-TERM>                                    18,253
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,602
<LONG-TERM>                                        678
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,652
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,113
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 564,644
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 21,339
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,643
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   278
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                23,260
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,802
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,030
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           14,230
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      644
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (12)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,368
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,304
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,304
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,808
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.83
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,485
<LOANS-PAST>                                       516
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,349
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      747
<RECOVERIES>                                        54
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,300
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,300
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         222,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,330,614
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,814,905
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,780,784
<PP&E>                                       3,071,314
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,154,196
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,434,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,093,704
<BONDS>                                      4,397,391
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       211,952
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,731,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,434,366
<SALES>                                      4,358,899
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,376,080
<CGS>                                        2,283,985
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,270,331
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             267,940
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,162,191)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,162,191)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,162,191)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.72)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America; Robert Glassburner, Revenue Agent, Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners-Appellees, v. George L. BENOIT; Nancy Benoit, Respondents-Appellants.

No. 00-16268.

D.C. No. MISC-00-0084-FCD.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 22, 2001.

*472Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

MEMORANDUM2

George L. Benoit and Nancy Benoit appeal pro se the district court’s order enforcing the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) summons to appear before an IRS officer and produce documents and records related to their federal income tax liability. The Benoits contend the summons is improper because the IRS had made no finding of any tax liability owed by the Benoits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error, *United States v.*Derr, 968 F.2d 943, 945 (9th Cir.1992), and affirm.

The IRS may issue a summons for production of information relevant to “determining the liability of any person for internal revenue tax.” I.R.C. § 7602(a). To establish a prima facie case for enforcement of a summons, the government must show that: (1) the summons was for a legitimate purpose, (2) the material being sought was relevant to the investigation, (3) the information was not already in the IRS’s possession, and (4) the administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code have been followed. *See United States v. Powell,*379 U.S. 48, 57-58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964); *United States v. Saunders,*951 F.2d 1065, 1067 (9th Cir.1991). Assertions by affidavit of the investigating agent that the requirements are satisfied are sufficient to make the prima facie case. *United States v. Abrahams,*905 F.2d 1276, 1280 (9th Cir.1990). The burden then shifts to the taxpayer to show that the summons was issued for an improper purpose or was otherwise deficient. *Id.*

Here, the sworn declaration by Revenue Agent Robert Glassburner satisfied the government’s “minimal” burden of showing that the summons was issued for *473a proper purpose. *See id.*Additionally, there is no requirement that the IRS make an assessment or show that the Benoits have a tax liability before issuing a summons, since the IRS may issue a summons to investigate possible tax liability. *See*I.R.C. § 7602; *Saunders,*951 F.2d at 1067.

We reject as frivolous the Benoits’ contentions that the IRS has no valid jurisdiction over them and that the summons was invalid because it failed to comply with the attestation requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 7603. Because the district court did not clearly err by enforcing the IRS summons, we

AFFIRM.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Charles Eddie BRIDGES, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Alfonso SEPE, Judge, etc., Respondent.

No. 46336.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 4, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 300 So.2d 772.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.100 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* ( 1 ) Section 1862(b) of the Act provides in part that Medicare is secondary payer, under specified conditions, for services covered under any of the following: ( i ) Group health plans of employers that employ at least 20 employees and that cover Medicare beneficiaries age 65 or older who are covered under the plan by virtue of the individual's current employment status with an employer or the current employment status of a spouse of any age. (Section 1862(b)(1)(A))
( ii ) Group health plans (without regard to the number of individuals employed and irrespective of current employment status) that cover individuals who have ESRD. Except as provided in § 411.163, group health plans are always primary payers throughout the first 18 months of ESRD-based Medicare eligibility or entitlement. (Section 1862(b)(1)(C))
( iii ) Large group health plans (that is, plans of employers that employ at least 100 employees) and that cover Medicare beneficiaries who are under age 65, entitled to Medicare on the basis of disability, and covered under the plan by virtue of the individual's or a family member's current employment status with an employer. (Section 1862(b)(1)(B))
( 2 ) Sections 1862(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act provide that group health plans and large group health plans may not take into account that the individuals described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section are entitled to Medicare on the basis of age or disability, or eligible for, or entitled to Medicare on the basis of ESRD.
( 3 ) Section 1862(b)(1)(A)(i)(II) of the Act provides that group health plans of employers of 20 or more employees must provide to any employee or spouse age 65 or older the same benefits, under the same conditions, that it provides to employees and spouses under 65. The requirement applies regardless of whether the individual or spouse 65 or older is entitled to Medicare.
( 4 ) Section 1862(b)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act provides that group health plans may not differentiate in the benefits they provide between individuals who have ESRD and other individuals covered under the plan on the basis of the existence of ESRD, the need for renal dialysis, or in any other manner. Actions that constitute “differentiating” are listed in § 411.161(b).
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart sets forth general rules pertinent to— ( 1 ) Medicare payment for services that are covered under a group health plan and are furnished to certain beneficiaries who are entitled on the basis of ESRD, age, or disability.
( 2 ) The prohibition against taking into account Medicare entitlement based on age or disability, or Medicare eligibility or entitlement based on ESRD.
( 3 ) The prohibition against differentiation in benefits between individuals who have ESRD and other individuals covered under the plan.
( 4 ) The requirement to provide to those 65 or over the same benefits under the same conditions as are provided to those under 65.
( 5 ) The appeals procedures for group health plans that CMS determines are nonconforming plans.
# CA2006105EN.01000101.xml

| 4.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 105/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 105/1

---

PUBLICATION OF A VACANCY NOTICE FOR TWO POSTS OF PAEDIATRIC NURSE

PUBLICATION OF A VACANCY NOTICE FOR TWO POSTS OF PAEDIATRIC NURSE

Reference: B/027

(2006/C 105 A/01)

The General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union is seeking to fill two vacant posts in the crèche of the General Secretariat of the Council (GSC) in Brussels, which is scheduled to open in September 2006.

two vacant posts

The successful candidates will be offered contracts as contract staff in function group III, for a maximum period of three years.

The crèche, which will have a maximum capacity of 180, will be open to children of staff of the GSC, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Commission, as well as the Member States' Permanent Representations to the European Union.

Further information and application forms can be obtained by contacting the Recruitment Department at the following e-mail address:

service.recrutement@consilium.eu.int

or via its website at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/concours

31 May 2006, the postmark serving as proof.

---
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Our report on our audits of the financial statements
of Alfacell Corporation as of July 31, 2008 and 2007 and for each of the years
in the three-year period ended July 31, 2008 and on the statements of operations,
changes  in stockholders' equity (deficiency) and cash flows for the period from
August 24, 1981 (date of inception) to July 31, 2008, included in this annual
report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2008, dated October 13, 2008
expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements and included an
explanatory paragraph regarding the Companys ability to continue as a going
concern. Our report on Alfacell Corporations
internal control over financial reporting included in this annual report on Form
10-K for the year ended July 31, 2008 is dated October 13, 2008. We consent to
the incorporation by reference of our reports in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (SEC File Nos. 33-81308, 333-110074 and 333-112866) and on Form S-3
(SEC File No. 333-112865 and 333-136678) previously filed by the Company with
the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933.

/s/ J.H. Cohn LLP

Roseland, New JerseyOctober 13, 2008

---
# C_2006086EN.01003102.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/31

---

Action brought on 16 January 2006 — K-Swiss/OHIM

(Case T-14/06)

(2006/C 86/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: K-Swiss (Westlake Village, USA) [represented by: H. E. Hübner, lawyer]

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 26 September 2005 (Case R 1109/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 26 September 2005 (Case R 1109/2004-1);

| — | order the OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: A figurative mark representing a shoe with five parallel stripes placed on the side for goods in class 25 (shoes for men, women and children) — application No 2 788 511

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the combination of the characteristic elements of the mark applied for is inherently capable of distinguishing the goods of the applicant from those of others. Breach of the principle of non-discrimination as the OHIM allowed the registration of among others a figurative mark representing a shoe with two parallel stripes placed on the front of the shoe.

Pleas in law:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                                        203,485
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    0
<PP&E>                                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                203,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          23,821
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                    179,664
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  203,485
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                7,669
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               61,233
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (53,564)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0



</TABLE>
HomeEEO/No FEAR Act & Whistleblower Protection Acts...The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012

# 									The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012							

Office of Civil Rights

January 29, 2019

Reference: Public Law 112-199: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ199/pdf/PLAW-112publ199.pdf 

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 was signed into law in November 2012, and provides that the implementation and enforcement of nondisclosure agreements by the Department shall be consistent with the existing statutory framework for whistleblower protections, as set forth below.

The provisions of the Department’s nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive order relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection. The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling Executive orders and statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and are controlling. See Executive Orders 12958 and 13526; Section 7211 of Title 5, United States code (governing disclosures to Congress); Section 1034 of Title 10, United States code, as amended by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosure to Congress by members of the military); Section 2302(b) (8) of Title 5, United States Code, as amended by the Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosures of illegality, waste, fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats); the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.) (governing disclosures that expose confidential Government agents), and the statutes which protect against disclosure that may compromise the national security, including Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952, and 1924 of Title 18, United State Code, and Section 4(b) of the Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. Section 783(b)).

Tags

Civil RightsDiscriminationEmploymentEqual Opportunity

Back to Top
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 Global Casinos, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Clifford L. Neuman, President and Todd Huss, Chief Financial Officer 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:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the Company.  __/s/ Clifford L. Neuman_______ Clifford L. Neuman President February 14, 2011  _/s/ Todd Huss__________ Todd Huss Chief Financial Officer February 14, 2011
HomeBurma

# Burma

247 items

        -    Media Note  		State Department Engages Partners on Burma Sanctions Coordination	  May 24, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – May 23, 2023	  Matthew MillerMay 23, 2023 
        -    Other Release  		IRFBA Chair’s Statement on the arbitrary detention of Reverend Dr Hkalam Samson	  May 22, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Burma	  May 15, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		The Attack on AHA Centre Convoy	  Matthew MillerMay 8, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Reverend Samson’s Prison Sentence	  Vedant PatelApril 17, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Counselor Chollet’s Travel to Singapore and the Republic of Korea	  April 13, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Burma Regime Airstrikes	  Vedant PatelApril 11, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Burma New Year 2023 – Thingyan Festival	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 10, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		The Dissolution of Political Parties in Burma	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 30, 2023 

previous page1…34567…25next page

Back to Top
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: CONDEMNATION BY NEWTOWN TOWNSHIP DELAWARE COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, OF A
PERMANENT EASEMENT ACROSS THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4700 W. CHESTER PIKE, NEWTOWN TOWNSHIP, DELAWARE COUNTY, PA FOLIO
NUMBER: 30

- 00

- 02906

- 01 TAX MAP
NUMBER: 30

- 34

- 001

- 00 DOROTHY RAFFERTY, CONDEMNEE NEWTOWN TOWNSHIP, DELAWARE COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, CONDEMNOR

PETITION OF: DOROTHY RAFFERTY :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 123 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal
from the Order of the
Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of August, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.