alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Estella DE LA GARZA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 24220.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 2, 1967.

Stanley Schoenbaum, San Antonio, Tex., for petitioner.

Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, J. Nicholas McGrath, Gilbert E. Andrews, J. Edward Shilling-burg, Richard C. Pugh, Jeanine Jacobs, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Lester R. Uretz, Chief Counsel, IRS., Eugene F. Collela, Atty., IRS., Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before BELL, GODBOLD and DYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner seeks a review of a decision of the Tax Court1 sustaining a deficiency in her federal income tax for the taxable year 1962. The Tax Court held that although a multiple support agreement was executed pursuant to Section 152 (c), Internal Revenue Code 1954, the petitioner is not entitled to a dependency exemption for her sister where the sister contributed $409.71 to a common family fund used for the support of all members of the household which was greater than one-half of the total expenditure of $678.80 from the common fund for the sister’s support.

The Tax Court properly interpreted the applicable provisions of the code and regulations and its decision is

Affirmed.

1

46 T.C. 446.
#### § 2580.412-1 Statutory provisions.

Section 13(a) of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act of 1958, as amended, states, in part, that:

Every administrator, officer and employee of any employee welfare benefit plan or of any employee pension benefit plan subject to this Act who handles funds or other property of such plan shall be bonded as herein provided; except that, where such plan is one under which the only assets from which benefits are paid are the general assets of a union or of an employer, the administrator, officers and employees of such plan shall be exempt from the bonding requirements of this section.

- * * Such bond shall provide protection to the plan against loss by reason of acts of fraud or dishonesty on the part of such administrator, officer, or employee, directly or through connivance with others.
#### Cornelius H. Vanness *against*Elizabeth Nafie.

ON CERTIORARI.

Plea of title verfpi)111 tr°"(a)

THE state of demand filed by *Ñafie,*in the court below, is in technical form, for the trover and conversion, on the 21st of *January,*1819, of two hundred and fifty chestnut and butternut rails, and one load of fire wood, to her damage one hundred dol*lars. At the proper time, the defendant pleaded title to the land, from which the rails and wood were taken, and tendered to the justice, a bond, executed according to the statute; but the justice refused to receive it, “ as he could not conceive that the title of land could in any way come in question, as the controversy respected a quantity of rails, which, in his opinion, were moveable property, and not attached to the freehold.” The verdict and judgment were for 9 dollars, 75 cents.

*Halsey,*for plaintiff in *certiorari,*

relied upon several reasons, but it is necessary to notice only the rejection of the plea and bond, by the justice.

*Dod,*for defendant.

(a)

*Van Mater vs. Real, Pen. *472. Wilson vs. Clark, 1 South. 379.*

By the court

The justice ought to have received the plea and bond. The title to land may come in question, *787in an action of trover for rails and wood, as well as in trespass. The form of the action is nothing. The statute constituting courts for the trial of small causes, sec. 33, says, *“*that when, in *any*action, to be brought by virtue of this act, the defendant shall, as a justification, ple^d title to any real estate, in himself or another, under whom he acted or entered, such defendant shall commit the said plea to writing, and having signed tho same, shall deliver such plea to said justice, who *shall countersign,*and deliver it to the plaintiff,” &c. This judgment must, therefore, be *reversed.*
#### STATE ex WENCLEWICZ v BEREDA

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co

No 982.

Decided July 22, 1930

D. H. Wysong, Dayton, for State ex.

I. L. Jacobson, Dayton, for Bereda.

*582ALLREAD, J.

According to the testimony of the defendant he was acting merely as a friend in suggesting this plan to the complainant. We cannot escape the conclusion that this note is in fact, under the circumstances here, a statement tending to show guilt of the defendant and is sufficient to require this Court to reverse the judgment on that ground. We cannot conceive of the defendant writing this note if he was in fact innocent and cannot conceive that he would undertake the responsibility which he must have known he was assuming by having the complainant follow the directions therein contained. He must have known that he was advising a course, which, if carried out, would make him, along with the complainant, guilty of a serious offense against the laws of the state. Analyzing this statement and especially the last clause, we cannot escape the conclusion that the defendant in writing the note admitted that he was in the confidence of the complainant and must thereupon have been responsible for the complainant’s trouble.

We have reached the conclusion that in view of this testimony this Court is bound to hold that the verdict of the jury and judgment of the trial court are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

The judgment of the trial court must, therefore, be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Kunkle, PJ, and Hornbeck, J, concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.39(A)

                         EXTENSION OF CHANGE OF CONTROL
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     Pursuant to Section 1(b) of your Change of Control Employment Agreement
(the "Agreement"), dated as of November 12, 1999, the term of the Agreement, as
stated in Section 1(b) thereof, is hereby extended by three (3) years, so that
the Agreement, as extended, will end on the sixth anniversary of its effective
date (specifically on November 12, 2005) rather than on the third anniversary
date.

     In all other respects, the Agreement is reaffirmed and remains unchanged.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Extension Agreement, pursuant to authorization
from the Board of Directors of the Company, is executed in the Company's name
and on its behalf as of the day and year shown herein.

     Date: June 25, 2002



                                     /s/ D. Michael Parker
                                ---------------------------------
                                         D. Michael Parker

                                KEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION


                                By:  /s/ William A. Shumaker
                                    -----------------------------
                                         William A. Shumaker
                                    Its: President and Chief Executive Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.132 Services and other items to be furnished under a single contract.

If the principal purpose of a contract is to furnish services through the use of service employees within the meaning of the Act, the contract to furnish such services is not removed from the Act's coverage merely because, as a matter of convenience in procurement, the service specifications are combined in a single contract document with specifications for the procurement of different or unrelated items. In such case, the Act would apply to service specifications but would not apply to any specifications subject to the Walsh-Healey Act or to the Davis-Bacon Act. With respect to contracts which contain separate specifications for the furnishing of services and construction activity, see § 4.116(c).
# Úřední věstník C 205A/13.

| | ISSN 1725-5163 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 205A |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Svazek 4713. srpna 2004 |

ISSN 1725-5163

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 205A

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Svazek 4713. srpna 2004

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Oznámení |
| | Výkonná agentura Intelligent Energy |
| 2004/C 205A/1 | Oznámení o volných místech | 1 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

III   Oznámení

Výkonná agentura Intelligent Energy

2004/C 205A/1

Oznámení o volných místech

1

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

III Oznámení

Výkonná agentura Intelligent Energy

| 13.8.2004 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 205/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2004

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 205/1

---

OZNÁMENÍ O VOLNÝCH MÍSTECH

(2004/C 205 A/01)

Výkonná agentura „Intelligent Energy“ hledá kandidáty pro obsazení příslušných míst. Podrobnější informace o těchto volných místech, o cílech agentury a o postupu k vyplnění přihlášky jsou publikovány na následující internetové stránce: http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/intelligent/index_en.html.

---
-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

UNPUBLISHED

In re PORTIS, Minors. April 3, 2018

No. 340197

Wayne Circuit Court

Family Division

LC No. 16-523962-NA

Before: GLEICHER, P.J., and BOONSTRA and TUKEL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent appeals as of right the order terminating his parental rights to the minor 

children, RJP, SMP, GP, MJP, AIP, and AMP, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) (parent caused 

physical injury to child), (g) (failure to provide proper care and custody), and (j) (reasonable 

likelihood that the child will be harmed if returned to parent). We affirm.

Respondent argues on appeal that reversal is warranted because petitioner failed to offer 

services to facilitate reunification with his children, but this argument is without merit. 

Ordinarily, “[petitioner] must prepare a case service plan, which must include . . . a ‘[s]chedule

of services to be provided to the parent, child, and if the child is to be placed in foster care, the 

foster parent, to facilitate the child’s return to his or her home or to facilitate the child’s 

permanent placement.’ ” In re Mason, 486 Mich 142, 156; 782 NW2d 747 (2010), quoting MCL 

712A.18f(3)(d). However, petitioner need not make reasonable efforts to reunify the child and 

the family when circumstances specifically set forth in MCL 712A.19a(2) or MCL 722.638 are 

present. In re Mason, 486 Mich at 152. MCL 712A.19a(2)(a) states that such efforts to reunify 

the family do not apply to cases where “[t]here is a judicial determination that the parent has 

subjected the child to aggravated circumstances as provided in [MCL 722.638(1) and (2)].” 

MCL 722.638(1)(a)(ii), in turn, provides that “criminal sexual conduct involving penetration, 

attempted penetration, or assault with intent to penetrate” is one of the crimes for which 

petitioner is not required to provide reunification services.

Here, the trial court determined at the preliminary hearing that respondent subjected SMP 

to aggravated circumstances, as detailed in MCL 722.638(1)(a)(ii). This determination was 

supported by respondent’s pleas in this case and in his criminal case, where he admitted to 

sexually assaulting SMP. Accordingly, petitioner was not required to provide respondent with 

reunification services. Moreover, because petitioner sought termination of respondent’s parental 
-2-

rights in the initial petition, it was not obligated to provide reunification services. See In re 

HRC, 286 Mich App 444, 463; 781 NW2d 105 (2009).

Affirmed.

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra 

/s/ Jonathan Tukel
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12457]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications Systems; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications 
Systems (1196).
    Date and Time: June 8-9, 2000--8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, Room 580, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Persons: Dr. Usha Varshney, Program Director, 
Electronic, Photonics and Device Technologies (EPDT), Division of 
Electrical and Communications Systems, National Science Foundation, 
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 675, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: 
(703) 306-1339.
    Purpose: To provide advice and recommendations concerning 
proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate research proposals in the 
Electronics, Photonics and Device Technologies program as part of 
the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are within exemptions 4 and 6 of 5 U.S.C. 
552 b. (c), (4) and (6) the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 12, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12457 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,142,137
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         6,384,140
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               1,005,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    1,671,628
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         40,866,003
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           40,097,524
<LOANS>                                        62,645,489
<ALLOWANCE>                                    333,759
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,674,474
<DEPOSITS>                                     83,081,370
<SHORT-TERM>                                   0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1,441,290
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       22,724
<OTHER-SE>                                     36,129,090
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 120,674,474
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                2,387,633
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1,680,053
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               29,335
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               4,097,021
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1,964,193
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,993,027
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          2,103,994
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  94,342
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                1,714,145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                740,889
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     740,889
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   500,428
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.10
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 3.64
<LOANS-NON>                                    60,432
<LOANS-PAST>                                   9,915
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               35,820
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               274,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  35,425
<RECOVERIES>                                   842
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              333,759
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           333,759
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12845]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Notice of Proposals To Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or To Acquire Companies That Are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than June 6, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. Concord EFS, Inc., Memphis, Tennessee; to acquire Cash Station, 
Inc., Chicago, Illinois (``CSI''), and indirectly engage in data 
processing activities, pursuant to Sec. 225.28(b)(14) of Regulation Y. 
CSI operates the Cash Station Network, an on-line debit network 
providing cardholder access to ATM's and POS terminals. In connection 
with its acquisition of CSI, Notificant also proposes to indirectly 
acquire CSI's 7.4 percent ownership interest in Primary Payment 
Systems, Inc., Scottsdale, Arizona. Primary Payment Systems, Inc. 
provides advance notification to participating financial institutions 
of potential check returns. The activities of Primary Payment Systems, 
Inc. have been approved by Board Order.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 17, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-12845 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```
#### STATE ex JONES v BRENNER

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Before Judges FARR (7th Dist), THOMAS (4th Dist) and WILLIAMS (6th Dist.)

*364BY THE COURT

The issue involved is solely as to whether or not the defendant as such official, is required to make collection of special assessments in connection with the collection of state and county taxes.

The sections of the General Code of interest in this connection are 3812 to 3911, inclusive, and 3905, 3906, 3892, but which it is not necessary to repeat for the reason that the above sections have been before the courts so that their meaning is well established, as in Makley v. Whitmore, 61 O. S. 587.

And to the same effect it is held in a later case of Central R. R. Company, et al., v. The City of Bellaire, 67 O. S., 297.

However, the issue in the present .case must be determined by a construction of 3892 GC, as amended in 112 Ohio Laws, page 61.

Therefore, it becomes clear that it is the statutory duty pf the county treasurer to collect such special assessments with the state and county taxes, and the above statute is so clear that any construction is unnecessary. Therefore, a peremptory writ is allowed as prayed for.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13112]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP97-14-006]


Midwestern Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate 
Filing

May 19, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 15, 2000, Midwestern Gas Transmission 
Company (Midwestern), tendered for filing certain Negotiated Rate 
Arrangements. Midwestern requests that the Commission approve the 
Negotiated Rate Arrangements effective November 1, 2000.
    Midwestern states that the filed Negotiated Rate Arrangements 
reflect negotiated rates between Midwestern and Nicor Gas (Nicor) for 
transportation under Rate Schedule FT-A beginning November 1, 2000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13112 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
----

Removal from the Register of Case T-236/99 (1)

(2004/C 239/59)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 4 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-236/99, Direcks Service Station Bocholtz B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

----

(1)  OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.

----
[No. 48399-4-I.

Division One.

October 28, 2002.]

#### Donna L. Johnston, *Appellant,*v. Hines GS Properties, Inc., et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 99-2-00045-5, J. Kathleen Learned, J., entered April 14, 2000. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### § 4219.13 Amount of liability for *de minimis* amounts.

An employer that is liable for *de minimis* amounts shall be liable to the plan for the amount by which the employer's allocable share of unfunded vested benefits for the purpose of determining its initial withdrawal liability was reduced pursuant to section 4209 (a) or (b) of ERISA. Any liability for *de minimis* amounts determined under this section shall be limited by section 4225 of ERISA to the extent that section would have been limiting had the employer's initial withdrawal liability been determined without regard to the *de minimis* reduction.