alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2700.81 Recusal and disqualification. ( a ) *Recusal.* A Commissioner or a Judge may recuse himself from a proceeding whenever he deems such action appropriate.
( b ) *Request to withdraw.* A party may request a Commissioner or a Judge to withdraw on grounds of personal bias or other disqualification. A party shall make such a request by promptly filing an affidavit setting forth in detail the matters alleged to constitute personal bias or other grounds for disqualification.
( c ) *Procedure if Commissioner or Judge does not withdraw.* If, upon being requested to withdraw pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the Commissioner or the Judge does not withdraw from the proceeding, he shall so rule upon the record, stating the grounds for his ruling. If the Judge does not withdraw, he shall proceed with the hearing, or, if the hearing has been completed, he shall proceed with the issuance of his decision, unless the Commission stays the hearing or further proceedings upon the granting of a petition for interlocutory review of the Judge's decision not to withdraw.
Exhibit 10.13



                                    ADDENDUM
                                OFFER TO SUBLEASE
                              1132 HAMILTON STREET


Further  to  the  Offer  to Sublease between Blastradius Inc. as Sublandlord and
Elgrande.com  Inc.  as  Subtenant.



The  Subtenant  agrees  to provide the Sublandlord with an additional deposit of
two  (2)  months  rent to be applied to the sixth and twelfth months rent of the
sublease  term.  The  Subtenant  agrees  to provide a post-dated cheque equal to
four (4) months gross rent payable to Royal LePage, in trust and dated September
6,  2001.

Signed  and  agreed  this  22  day  of  August,  2001.

ELGRANDE.COM
Subtenant


__________________     ______________________
     Witness

The  offer  to sublease ultimately accepted as of August 15, 2001 will remain in
full  force and effect and the Subtenant hereby approves the headlease as called
for  in  the  agreement.



We hereby accept this Addendum and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions
contained  herein,  and hereby remove the Sublandlord's Condition as outlined in
the Offer to Lease subject to the deposit cheques being deposited and cleared by
September  6,  2001.

Signed  and  agreed  this  24  day  of  August,  2001.

BLASTRADIUS  INC.
Sublandlord


__________________     ______________________
     Witness



It  is understood between the parties that if the Subtenant is in default of the
gross monthly rent due on the 1st day of each month during the term on more than
once  occasion  or,  remains  in  default for more than seven (7) days, then the
Sublandlord  shall  be entitled to cancel this sublease immediately upon written
notice to the Subtenant.  In addition, all funds on deposit will be forfeited to
the  Sublandlord and the parties shall have no further obligation to each other.





<PAGE>
#### § 1979.113 Judicial enforcement.

Whenever any person has failed to comply with a preliminary order of reinstatement or a final order or the terms of a settlement agreement, the Secretary or a person on whose behalf the order was issued may file a civil action seeking enforcement of the order in the United States district court for the district in which the violation was found to have occurred.
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 45

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the Ed Block Courage Award was established by 

Sam Lamantia in 1978 in honor of Ed Block, the head 

athletic trainer of the Baltimore Colts and a respected 

humanitarian; 

Whereas each year in Baltimore, Maryland, the Foundation 

honors recipients from the National Football League who 

have been chosen by their teammates as exemplifying 

sportsmanship and courage; 

Whereas the Ed Block Courage Award has become one of the 

most esteemed honors bestowed upon players in the 

NFL; 

Whereas the Ed Block Courage Award Foundation has grown 

from a Baltimore-based local charity to the Courage 

House National Support Network for Kids operated in 

partnership with 17 NFL teams in their respective cities; 

and 

Whereas Courage Houses are facilities that provide support 

and care for abused children and their families in these 

17 locations across the country: Baltimore, Maryland, 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Chicago, Illinois, Miami, Florida, Detroit, Michigan, Dallas, Texas, Westchester County, New York, Oakland, California, Seattle, Washington, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, Cleveland, Ohio, Atlanta, 
2

•SCON 45 ES 

Georgia, St. Louis, Missouri, Indianapolis, Indiana, Buffalo, New York, San Francisco, California, and Minneapolis, Minnesota: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) National Courage Month provides an oppor4 tunity to educate the people of the United States 

5 about the positive role that professional athletes can 

6 play as inspirations for America’s youth; and 

7 (2) the Ed Block Courage Award Foundation 

8 should be recognized for its outstanding contribu9 tions toward helping those affected by child abuse. 

Passed the Senate October 3, 2007. 

Attest:

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 45

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Commending the Ed Block Courage Award Founvember 2007 as National Courage Month. lies affected by child abuse, and designating No- dation for its work in aiding children and fami-
----

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2004/C 214/02)

2.   Procedure

Community producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the removal of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Community producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Community producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Division B-1), J-79 5/16, B-1049 Brussels (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table in point 4.

----

(1)OJ L 67, 9.3.2001, p. 24 and p. 37 .

(2)  Telex COMEU B 21877; Fax (32-2) 295 65 05.

(3)OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

----
#### BAKER v. THE STATE.

(Decided January 9, 1917.)

Appeal from Walker Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. Sowell.

No counsel marked for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the .State.

Per curiani.

Appeal dismissed on motion of Attorney General.
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0330 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D0330

**Decision of the European Central Bank of 9 June 1998 on the adoption of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank as amended on 31 March 1999 (ECB/1998/4) **

*
Official Journal L 125 , 19/05/1999 P. 0032 - 0032 *

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 9 June 1998

on the adoption of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank as amended on 31 March 1999

(ECB/1998/4)

(1999/330/EC)

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Statute") and in particular to Articles 36.1 and 47.2, fifth indent, thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB),

Having regard to the contribution of the General Council of the ECB,

Having regard to the opinion of the Staff Committee of the European Monetary Institute,

(1) Whereas the Statute attributes to the Governing Council of the ECB, acting on a proposal from the Executive Board of the ECB, the task of laying down the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the ECB;

(2) Whereas the Conditions of Employment should contain the rules which, in conjunction with employment contracts, govern the employment relations between the ECB and its staff;

(3) Whereas the Conditions of Employment should be such that they secure for the ECB the service of staff of the highest standard of independence, ability, efficiency and integrity, recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of Member States of the European Union, and, at the same time, enable staff to discharge their duties under conditions which will ensure maximum efficiency;

(4) Whereas the Conditions of Employment are aimed at fostering equality of treatment, legal certainty, transparency and effectiveness;

(5) Whereas, in accordance with the policy of transparency followed by the ECB, the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the ECB shall be made available to all interested parties,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Conditions of Employment for Staff of the ECB are hereby adopted.

Article 2

For information to all interested parties, copies of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the ECB may be obtained upon request from the ECB(1).

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 31 March 1999.

The President of the ECB

Willem F. DUISENBERG

(1) European Central Bank, Directorate General - Administration and Personnel, Postfach 16 03 19, D-60066 Frankfurt am Main.
EXHIBIT 23.4



LOGO



Report of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm



To the Board of Directors

Madison Newspapers, Inc.

Madison,
Wisconsin

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Madison Newspapers, Inc. and Subsidiary as of September 27, 2009, and the
related consolidated statements of income, stockholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audits.



We conducted our audit in
accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes consideration of internal controls over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion of the effectiveness of
the Companys internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.



In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of Madison Newspapers, Inc. and Subsidiary as of September 27, 2009, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles.



|                          
|--------------------------
|                          
|/s/ McGladrey & Pullen LLP



Madison, Wisconsin

November 6, 2009

















McGladrey & Pullen, LLP is a member firm of RSM International,

an
affiliation of separate and independent legal entities.
§ 37.65 What is the Director's authority to monitor the activities of a Governor? ( a ) The Director may periodically review the adequacy of the Methods of Administration established by a Governor, as well as the adequacy of the Governor's performance under the Methods of Administration, to determine compliance with the requirements of §§ 37.50 through 37.55. The Director may review the Methods of Administration during a compliance review under §§ 37.62 and 37.63, or at another time.
( b ) Nothing in this subpart limits or precludes the Director from monitoring directly any WIA Title I recipient or from investigating any matter necessary to determine a recipient's compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA or this part.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4319 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily expand the 

deduction for business meals provided at a restaurant. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2020 

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily 

expand the deduction for business meals provided at 

a restaurant. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting America’s 

5 Restaurant Workers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY ALLOWANCE OF FULL DEDUCTION 

7 FOR BUSINESS MEALS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 274(n)(2) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

10 end of subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4319 IS

1 end of subparagraph (C)(iv) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by 

2 inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new sub3 paragraph: 

4 ‘‘(D) such expense is— 

5 ‘‘(i) for food or beverages provided by 

6 a restaurant, and 

7 ‘‘(ii) paid or incurred before January 

8 1, 2021.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### § 1915.1005 [Reserved]
§ 36.125 Effect of other requirements. ( a ) *Effect of other Federal provisions.* The obligations imposed by these Title IX regulations are independent of, and do not alter, obligations not to discriminate on the basis of sex imposed by Executive Order 11246, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339; as amended by Executive Order 11375, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 684; as amended by Executive Order 11478, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 803; as amended by Executive Order 12087, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 230; as amended by Executive Order 12107, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 264; sections 704 and 855 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295m, 298b-2); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e *et seq.*); the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 U.S.C. 206); and any other Act of Congress or Federal regulation.
( b ) *Effect of State or local law or other requirements.* The obligation to comply with these Title IX regulations is not obviated or alleviated by any State or local law or other requirement that would render any applicant or student ineligible, or limit the eligibility of any applicant or student, on the basis of sex, to practice any occupation or profession.
( c ) *Effect of rules or regulations of private organizations.* The obligation to comply with these Title IX regulations is not obviated or alleviated by any rule or regulation of any organization, club, athletic or other league, or association that would render any applicant or student ineligible to participate or limit the eligibility or participation of any applicant or student, on the basis of sex, in any education program or activity operated by a recipient and that receives Federal financial assistance.
#### MONTE PARKER v LEAH PARKER

Ohio Appeals, 3rd Dist, Van Wert Co

No. 110.

Decided Feb. 20, 1930

Albert H. Stroup, Van Wert, for Monte Parker.

Conn, Hoke & Wright, Columbus, for Leah Parker.

CROW, J.

It is the position of plaintiff in error that 10859 GC, confers the right of appeal, inasmuch as the order attempted to be appealed from pertains to an order of distribution.

That Section when it was Section 6203, Revised Statutes, has been construed and applied by the Supreme Court of Ohio, at pages 701 and following of volume 50 OS. Reports, where it is held that the right of appeal can have no relation to “orders, judgments and decrees” other than those authorized by the act of which 10859 GC, was a part.

That act provides for the enforcement of an order of distribution resulting from the settlement of an account of an exe*254cutor, administrator or guardian. The fund in issue herein, did not result from an order of distribution. Indeed, such a fund has been held to be no part of the estate of the person on account of whose death the fund arose. 28 OS. 19055 OS. 517.

The act nowhere mentioned a fund arising under a statute like 10770 GC, and contains no other language evincing an intention to make any of its provisions, applicable to the disbursement of such a fund.

It is not claimed by counsel for plaintiff in error that 11206 GC, which is the statute providing in general for appeals to the court of common pleas from the probate court, authorized the appeal, but we have carefully studied that Section and find that it does make the order appeal-able. No other statute makes provision for the appeal, and consequently the court of common pleas rightly decided the motion to dismiss it.

Before Judges Hughes, Justice and Crow.
#### MASONCUP v WOOTEN

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Scioto Co

Decided Feb 12, 1929

Miller & Searl, Portsmouth, for Mason-cup.

Bannon & Bannon, Portsmouth, for Wooten.

BY THE COURT

In a former opinion this court disposed of the contention of the plaintiff in error that the verdict of the jury was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Since then additional objections have been urged by the plaintiff in error and have been duly considered by the court.

We find that there is no substantial' ground for the later contentions except in respect to special instruction number five which was given to the jury before argument at the request of the plaintiff below. The instruction follows:

> *164“On the subject of intoxication I charge you that the burden is upon the defendant to satisfy you by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff was at the time of the accident under the influence of intoxicating liquors to such an extent that it might have influenced his action at that time, and unless you so find by a fair preponderance of the evidence you should exclude from your minds in your deliberation the question of intoxication.”

This instruction imposed upon the defendant the burden to satisfy the jury by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the alleged accident before they could consider the question of intoxication as affecting plaintiff’s legal rights in the case. This instruction requires a greater degree of proof than is warranted by law. The defendant was required to support his contention by a preponderance of evidence, and that means only the greater weight of evidence.

In the case of Travelers’ Insurance Co. v. Gath, 118 O.S. 257, 261, the Supreme Court in referring to the degree of proof required in civil cases said:

(Here follows quotation from this opinion.)

We quote from the case cited for the reason that it is the most recent expression of condemnation by the Supreme Court of the use of the word “satisfied” in defining the degree of proof required in civil cases. It seems to us that the language quoted makes a reversal of the judgment in this case imperative. It is insisted that there is no substantial proof in the record of any intoxication whatever. At least three witnesses testify to the fact that they saw the plaintiff a short time prior to the accident complained of, one witness fixing the time at 10:30 P. M., and that the plaintiff at the time so seen gave evidences of intoxication. Certainly it is not within the power of this court to determine what such evidence tends to prove or fails to establish. That would amount to depriving the defendant of the right of trial by jury.

For the giving of plaintiff’s special instruction number five, quoted as aforesaid, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings according to law.

Middleton, PJ, Mauck and Blosser, JJ, concur.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 940 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 

subpart F exemption for active financing income. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 20, 2007 

Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. HATCH, and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 

extend the subpart F exemption for active financing income. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT SUBPART F EXEMPTION FOR AC4 TIVE FINANCING INCOME. 

5 (a) BANKING, FINANCING, OR SIMILAR BUSI6 NESSES.—Subsection (h) of section 954 of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for income 

8 derived in the active conduct of banking, financing, or 

9 similar businesses) is amended by striking paragraph (9). 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 940 IS

1 (b) INSURANCE BUSINESSES.—Subsection (e) of sec2 tion 953 of such Code (relating to exempt insurance in3 come) is amended by striking paragraph (10) and by re4 designating paragraph (11) as paragraph (10). 

5 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this section shall apply to taxable years of a foreign cor7 poration beginning after the date of the enactment of this 

8 Act, and to taxable years of United States shareholders 

9 with or within which such taxable years of such foreign 

10 corporation end. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### Leonard Morreare et al., Appellants, v Jeff Perlee, as Director of the New York Lottery, Also Known as New York State Division of Lottery, et al., Respondents, and Met Lottery Trust 1997—4P, Intervenor-Respondent, et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 675]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered March 30, 1999, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5239, declared that petitioner judgment creditors’ right to future payments of respondent judgment debtor’s New York State lottery prize are subordinate to respondent assignees’ right to such payments, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that Tax Law § 1613 (a) and 21 NYCRR 2803.11 unambiguously allow for voluntary assignment of lottery prizes “pursuant to an appropriate judicial order” *(see, Matter of Guri,*247 AD2d 388; *cf., Wolf v Brach,*241 AD2d 417, *lv dismissed*90 NY2d 1008, 91 NY2d 866), that the question of whether a particular assignment was made pursuant to an appropriate judicial order is to be decided initially by respondent Lottery Division *(see, Matter of Howard v Wyman,*28 NY2d 434, 438), and that the Lottery Division’s acceptance of the challenged assignments as having been made pursuant to appropriate judicial orders was not arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners having levied upon their judgment after the challenged assignments were made, and there being no issue raised as to whether fair consideration was given for the assignments, the IAS Court correctly declared that petitioners’ rights in the prize are subordinate to respondent assignees’ rights. We have considered petitioners’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.