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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            2529
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        7
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2536
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               95
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        2441
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2536
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    89
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   152
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (63)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (63)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (63)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.45)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2006060EN.01001501.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/15

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 13 December 2005

in Case C-177/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras in María Cristina Guerrero Pecino v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Protection of workers in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC (amended by Directive 2002/74/EC) - Compensation agreed at the conciliation - Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution - Payment subject to the adoption of a judicial decision)

(2006/C 60/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-177/05: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain), made by decision of 30 March 2005, received at the Court on 20 April 2005, in the proceedings between María Cristina Guerrero Pecino and Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Schiemann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), and E. Juhász, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 13 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

María Cristina Guerrero Pecino

Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

Where, according to the relevant national legislation, compensation for unfair dismissal awarded by a judgment or administrative decision must be regarded, under national law, as severance pay on termination of employment relationships which falls within Article 3(1) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, compensation of the same type, determined by a judicial conciliation procedure such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must also be regarded as severance pay within the meaning of that provision. The national court must leave unapplied domestic legislation which infringes the principle of equality by excluding that compensation from the notion of ‘severance pay’ within the meaning of that legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 155 of 25.06.2005.

1

---
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Bobby Wayne FALL v. 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT.

No. 66530.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 1980.

In re Bobby Wayne Fall, applying for remedial writs. Parish of St. Landry. Number unknown.

Not considered. Relator must first file his application for post-conviction relief in the district court.
#### § 407.11 Forms used to apply for enrollment under Medicare Part B.

Forms used to apply for enrollment under the supplementary medical insurance program are available free of charge by mail from CMS, or at any Social Security branch or district office and online at the CMS and SSA websites. As an alternative, the individual may request enrollment by signing a simple statement of request, if he or she is eligible to enroll at that time.

[87 FR 66505, Nov. 3, 2022]
#### Raul IGLESIAS, Appellant, v. Rogelia IGLESIAS, Appellee.

No. 79-2005.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 24, 1980.

Aronovitz & Weksler and Anne Lise Gus-tafson, Miami, for appellant.

Saul T. Von Zamft, Coral Gables, for appellee.

*978Before HENDRY and BASKIN, JJ., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Kuhn v. Kuhn,*261 So.2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(1).
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.375 Fees for the cost of advisory opinions. ( a ) *Hourly rate.* CMS will charge an hourly rate of $220. Parties may request an estimate from CMS after submitting a complete request. Before issuing the advisory opinion, CMS will calculate the final fee for responding to the request.
( b ) *Agreement to pay all costs.* ( 1 ) By submitting the request for an advisory opinion, the requestor agrees, except as indicated in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, to pay all costs the Department incurs in responding to the request for an advisory opinion.
( 2 ) In its request for an advisory opinion, the requestor may designate a triggering dollar amount. If CMS estimates that the costs of processing the advisory opinion request have reached or are likely to exceed the designated triggering dollar amount, CMS notifies the requestor.
( 3 ) If CMS notifies the requestor that the actual or estimated cost of processing the request has reached or is likely to exceed the triggering dollar amount, CMS stops processing the request until the requestor makes a written request for CMS to continue. If CMS is delayed in processing the request for an advisory opinion because of this procedure, the time within which CMS must issue an advisory opinion is suspended until the requestor asks CMS to continue working on the request.
( 4 ) If the requestor chooses not to pay for CMS to complete an advisory opinion, or withdraws the request, the requestor is still obligated to pay for all costs CMS has identified as costs it incurred in processing the request for an advisory opinion, up to that point.
( 5 ) If the costs CMS has incurred in responding to the request are greater than the amount the requestor has paid, CMS, before issuing the advisory opinion, notifies the requestor of any additional amount that is due. CMS does not issue an advisory opinion until the requestor has paid the full amount that is owed. Once the requestor has paid CMS the total amount due for the costs of processing the request, CMS issues the advisory opinion. The time period CMS has for issuing advisory opinions is suspended from the time CMS notifies the requestor of the amount owed until the time CMS receives full payment.
( c ) *Fees for outside experts.* ( 1 ) In addition to the fees identified in this section, the requestor also must pay any required fees for expert opinions, if any, from outside sources, as described in § 411.377.
( 2 ) The time period for issuing an advisory opinion is suspended from the time that CMS notifies the requestor that it needs an outside expert opinion until the time CMS receives that opinion.
[69 FR 57228, Sept. 24, 2004, as amended at 84 FR 63192, Nov. 15, 2019]
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Additional Information - No Comments Received Form
40912.

#### BAGLEY v. AKINS.

Pannell, Judge.

1. In an action seeking recovery of damages for personal injuries based on tortious negligence of the defendant where the defendant’s answer denies any negligence and claims the injuries of plaintiff were solely the fault of plaintiff, a charge by the court to the jury that “If the plaintiff by the exercise of ordinary care could have avoided the consequences to herself caused by the defendant’s negligence, if you find the defendant was negligent, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover,” is not subject to the attack that it is not sound as an abstract principle of law or that it is erroneous because a charge on comparative negligence in the absence of a request was not also given. See *Ingram v. Hilton & Dodge Lmbr. Co.,*108 Ga. 194 (33 SE 961); *Seaboard A. L. R. v. Andrews,*140 Ga. 254 (3) (78 SE 925, AC 1914D 165); *Collum v. Georgia R. &c. Co.,*140 Ga. 573, 574 (2) (79 SE 475); *Western &c. R. Co. v. Smith,*145 Ga. 276, 277 (5) (88 SE 983); *Powell v. Berry,*145 Ga. 696, 697 (5) (89 SE 753, LRA 1917A 306).

2. While it is error to charge a jury in a tort action to reduce the damages for future pain and suffering to a present value, *Southern R. Co. v. Bottoms,*35 Ga. App. 804 (134 SE 824), such charge given in the present case was harmless error, the jury having found for the defendant.

3. Where the following question was asked of and the following answer given by the defendant: “Q. Then actually you don’t know the condition of these boats down there on this lake at the time this one was rented by Mrs. Bagley, do you? A. Yes, sir, if anything had been wrong with them, they would have told me,” an assignment of error in the motion for new trial on the refusal of the court to grant plaintiff’s request that the witness “be instructed to answer the question” shows no cause for reversal.

4. In such a case where the defendant rented a boat to the plain*339tiff, a charge of the court (referring to the defendant), “he is but a private carrier for hire and required to exercise due care and diligence in performance of the duty imposed upon him by the contract; that is to say, such care and skill as prudent and cautious men experienced in the business are accustomed to use under similar circumstances,” places a greater burden on the defendant than the law requires and is an inaccurate definition of “ordinary care.” See, in this connection, *Southern R. Co. v. Hill,*139 Ga. 549 (3) (77 SE 803). The charge was favorable to the plaintiff rather than harmful to her and does not require the grant of a motion for new trial.

Decided September 23, 1964.

*Joseph H. Briley, Kimzey & Kimzey, Herbert B. Kimzey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Whelchel, Dunlap & Gignilliat, William P. Whelchel,*contra.

5. The evidence authorized the verdict of the jury and the general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit, and the special grounds being without merit, as heretofore shown, the trial court did not err in overruling plaintiff’s motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                          107,116
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 3,725,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                     30,000
<INVENTORY>                                   5,619,008
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             10,334,865
<PP&E>                                       19,138,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                8,341,536
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               32,567,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         4,233,844
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         54,897
<OTHER-SE>                                   11,390,473
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 32,567,820
<SALES>                                      39,966,301
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             39,990,818
<CGS>                                        32,094,414
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                37,315,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            1,852,088
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 823,463
<INCOME-TAX>                                    441,666
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             381,797
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    381,797
<EPS-BASIC>                                         .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .07



</TABLE>
§ 407.20 Special enrollment period related to coverage under group health plans. ( a ) *Terminology* — ( 1 ) *Group health plan (GHP) and large group health plan (LGHP).* These terms have the meanings given them in § 411.101 of this chapter except that the “former employee” language of those definitions does not apply with respect to SEPs for the reasons specified in § 406.24(a)(3) of this chapter.
( 2 ) *Special enrollment period (SEP).* This term has the meaning set forth in § 406.24(a)(4) of this chapter. In order to use a SEP, an individual must meet the conditions of paragraph (b) and of paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, as appropriate.
( b ) *General rule.* All individuals must meet the following conditions: ( 1 ) They are eligible to enroll for SMI on the basis of age or disability, but not on the basis of end-stage renal disease.
( 2 ) When first eligible for SMI coverage (4th month of their initial enrollment period), they were covered under a GHP or LGHP on the basis of current employment status or, if not so covered, they enrolled in SMI during their initial enrollment period; and
( 3 ) For all months thereafter, they maintained coverage under either SMI or a GHP or LGHP. (Generally, if an individual fails to enroll in SMI during any available SEP, he or she is not entitled to any additional SEPs. However, if an individual fails to enroll during a SEP because coverage under the same or a different GHP or LGHP was restored before the end of that particular SEP, that failure to enroll does not preclude additional SEPs.)
( c ) *Special rule: Individual age 65 or over.* For an individual who is or was covered under a GHP, coverage must be by reason of the current employment status of the individual or the individual's spouse.
( d ) Special rules: Disabled individual. [4] Individuals entitled on the basis of disability (but not on the basis of end-stage renal disease) must meet conditions that vary depending on whether they were covered under a GHP or an LGHP. ( 1 ) For a disabled individual who is or was covered under a GHP, coverage must be on the basis of the current employment status of the individual or the individual's spouse.
( 2 ) For a disabled individual who is or was covered under an LGHP, coverage must be as follows: ( i ) Before August 10, 1993, as an “active individual”, that is, as an employee, employer, self-employed individual (such as the employer), individual associated with the employer in a business relationship, or as a member of the family of any of those persons.
( ii ) On or after August 10, 1993, by reason of current employment status of the individual or a member of the individual's family.
( e ) *Effective date of coverage.* The rule set forth in § 406.24(d) for Medicare Part A applies equally to Medicare Part B.
[61 FR 40346, Aug. 2, 1996] Footnotes -
407.20
[4] Under the current statute, the SEP provision applicable to disabled individuals covered under an LGHP expires on September 1998. Unless Congress changes that date, the last SEP available under those provisions will begin with June 1998.
HomeTurkey

# Turkey

396 items

        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan	  January 6, 2024 
        -    		Travel to Türkiye, Greece, Jordan, Qatar, U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Israel, the West Bank, Bahrain, and Egypt, January 4-11, 2024	   
        -    Media Note  		Rewards for Justice: Reward Offer for Information on Hamas Financial Networks	  January 5, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Secretary Blinken’s Travel to Türkiye, Greece, Jordan, Qatar, U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Israel, the West Bank, Bahrain, and Egypt	  Matthew MillerJanuary 4, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – January 3, 2024	  Matthew MillerJanuary 3, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan	  December 27, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 18, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 18, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan	  December 17, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 14, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 14, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting on Gaza with Joint Arab League-Organization of Islamic Cooperation Delegation	  December 9, 2023 

previous page123456…40next page

Back to Top
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3126 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3126

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to place the burden of proof 
 on the Secretary to prove that the cash method of accounting does not 
                        clearly reflect income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 1996

 Mr. English of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to place the burden of proof 
 on the Secretary to prove that the cash method of accounting does not 
                        clearly reflect income.

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

SECTION 1. BURDEN OF PROOF ON SECRETARY TO PROVE CASH METHOD OF 
              ACCOUNTING DOES NOT CLEARLY REFLECT INCOME.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 446 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general rule for methods of 
accounting) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
``In the case of a taxpayer not otherwise precluded under section 447 
or 448 from using the cash receipts and disbursements method of 
accounting, in any proceeding involving the issue of whether such 
method clearly reflects income, the burden of proof in respect of such 
issue shall be upon the Secretary.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to proceedings commenced after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global Casinos, Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report'), I, Frank L. Jennings, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of 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/ Frank L.Jennings                Frank L. Jennings,Principal Executive Officer andand Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 13, 2003 |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# C_2005281EN.01000202.xml

| 12.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 2 June 2005

in Case C-282/02: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Water pollution - Directive 76/464/EEC)

(2005/C 281/04)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-282/02, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 31 July 2002, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Shotter) v Ireland (Agent: D.J. O'Hagan, assisted by A.M. Collins, lawyer) the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, C. Gulmann, J. Makarczyk and P. Kūris, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005, in which it:

Commission of the European Communities

Ireland

| 1. | Declares that, in failing to take all of the measures necessary to ensure a correct transposition and application of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 7 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, in failing to take all of the measures necessary to ensure a correct transposition and application of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 7 of that directive;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

1

---