alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. NIELSON et al. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ENERSEN et al.

Nos. 12609, 12610.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 7, 1951.

Theron Lamar Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Harry Marselli and Louise Foster, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Harry R. Horrow, Joseph L. Seligman, Jr., San Francisco, Cal. (Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for respondents Nielson.

Henry D. Costigan, Stanley Morrison, Gordon M. Weber, San Francisco, CaL (McCutchen, Thomas, Matthew, Griffiths & Greene, San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for respondents Enersen.

Before HEALY and BONE, Circuit Judges, and GOODMAN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

These cases are here on petitions to review decisions of the Tax Court. They are concerned with the construction of § 107(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. The question in' each case is whether the taxpayer, a member of a law partnership, is entitled to the benefits of § *234107(a) with respect to his share of fees received by the partnership for services rendered by it during a period which began prior to the taxpayer’s admission to the firm, he having become a partner less than 36 calendar months prior to the receipt of such fees.

The Tax Court decided that the taxpayer in each 'case is entitled to the full benefits of the section, reaching its conclusion on the authority of the cognate case of Marshall v. Commissioner, 14 T.C. 90, since affirmed by the third circuit, Commissioner v. Marshall, 185 F.2d 674. We are satisfied that the Tax Court has correctly construed the statute and see no need for adding anything to what it has said.

The decisions are accordingly affirmed.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Report of Houston Operating Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Low
Chin Sin Martin, President and 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/ Low Chin Sin
-------------------------------------
Low Chin Sin
President and CFO
August 22, 2004
No. 11-130.

#### Hawley *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
----

Corrigendum to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community

(Official Journal of the European Union L 169 of 10 July 2000)

On page 95, Annex VII, fourth indent:

The following footnote reference and the following corresponding footnote shall be added:

----

(1)  The colour of the paper shall be white. The colour of the printing shall be green for phytosanitary certificates and brown for reforwarding phytosanitary certificates.’         

----
<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.22

                               CELADON GROUP, INC.
              AMENDMENT TO SEPARATION AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 3, 2000
                         DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2001


The following modification will be applied to the base salary clause of the
original agreement dated March 3, 2000 between Paul Will and Celadon Group, Inc.

Any subsequent salary increases will not apply to the aforementioned separation
agreement. The employee's annual salary, which was $135,000 as of March 3, 2000,
will automatically increase for purposes of the defined base salary calculation
within the separation agreement by 5% each year beginning March 3, 2001 and
continue increasing by 5% each year thereafter. However, the defined base salary
will never be less than $155,000.

Any stock option grants issued subsequent to the date of this amendment
agreement will not apply to the aforementioned separation agreement. Any stock
option grants issued subsequent to the date of this amendment agreement will
vest in the normal course per the individual stock option agreement and will not
be accelerated if the employee separates his employment from the Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have each executed and delivered
this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.


                                    EMPLOYEE


                                    /s/ Paul Will
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    By:  Paul Will
                                    Executive Vice President


                                    CELADON GROUP, INC.


                                    /s/ Stephen Russell
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    By:  Stephen Russell
                                    Chief Executive Officer
792 A.2d 408

#### IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY T. COLASANTI, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 241291967).

March 20, 2002.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 01-039, concluding that ANTHONY T. COLASANTI of WEST CALDWELL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1967, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.15(a)(negligent misappropriation of client trust funds), *RPC*1.15(d), and *R.*1:21-6 (recordkeeping violations), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ANTHONY T. COLASANTI is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
§ 69.709 Dedicated transport and special access services other than channel terminations between LEC end offices and customer premises. ( a ) *Scope.* This paragraph governs requests for pricing flexibility with respect to the following services: ( 1 ) Entrance facilities, as described in § 69.110.
( 2 ) Transport of traffic over dedicated transport facilities between the serving wire center and the tandem switching office, as described in § 69.111(a)(2)(iii).
( 3 ) Direct-trunked transport, as described in § 69.112.
( 4 ) Special access services, as described in § 69.114, other than channel terminations as defined in § 69.703(a)(2) of this part.
( b ) *Phase I triggers.* To obtain Phase I pricing flexibility, as specified in § 69.727(a) of this part, for the services described in paragraph (a) of this section, a price cap LEC must show that, in the relevant area as described in § 69.707 of this part, competitors unaffiliated with the price cap LEC have collocated: ( 1 ) In fifteen percent of the petitioner's wire centers, and that at least one such collocator in each wire center is using transport facilities owned by a transport provider other than the price cap LEC to transport traffic from that wire center; or
( 2 ) In wire centers accounting for 30 percent of the petitioner's revenues from dedicated transport and special access services other than channel terminations between LEC end offices and customer premises, determined as specified in § 69.725 of this part, and that at least one such collocator in each wire center is using transport facilities owned by a transport provider other than the price cap LEC to transport traffic from that wire center.
( c ) *Phase II triggers.* To obtain Phase II pricing flexibility, as specified in § 69.727(b) of this part, for the services described in paragraph (a) of this section, a price cap LEC must show that, in the relevant area as described in § 69.707 of this part, competitors unaffiliated with the price cap LEC have collocated: ( 1 ) in 50 percent of the petitioner's wire centers, and that at least one such collocator in each wire center is using transport facilities owned by a transport provider other than the price cap LEC to transport traffic from that wire center; or
( 2 ) in wire centers accounting for 65 percent of the petitioner's revenues from dedicated transport and special access services other than channel terminations between LEC end offices and customer premises, determined as specified in § 69.725 of this part, and that at least one such collocator in each wire center is using transport facilities owned by a transport provider other than the price cap LEC to transport traffic from that wire center.
§ 32.4510 Capital stock. ( a ) This account shall include the par value, stated amount, or in the case of no-par stock, the amount received for capital stock issued and outstanding.
( b ) Subsidiary records shall be maintained so as to show separately each class of stock.
( c ) This account shall be charged with the book amount of any stock retired.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 97-10273

Conference Calendar

__________________

ELBERT SILAS GREEN,

 Plaintiff,

SAMUEL H. LESLIE, 

Intervenor-Plaintiff,

versus

R. O. LAMPERT, Senior Warden, et al.,

 Defendants,

JERRY LISBY,

 Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:97-CV-12C

 - - - - - - - - - -

December 10, 1997

Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry Lisby, a Texas prisoner (# 766897), appeals from the

denial of his motion to intervene in the captioned action. Lisby

was not entitled to intervene “of right” in this action because
No. 97-10273

-2-

he has not shown that his absence from the action would “impair

or impede” his ability to protect his interests. FED. R. CIV. P.

24(a). Inasmuch as Lisby sought “permissive” intervention under

Rule 24(b), the district court did not abuse its discretion by

denying Lisby's motion. Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic

Ass'n, 806 F.2d 1285, 1289, (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, this

court lacks jurisdiction over Lisby's appeal, and the appeal is

DISMISSED. Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 992 (5th

Cir. 1996).

APPEAL DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4910 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4910

 To designate the United States courthouse under construction in White 
      Plains, New York, as the ``Thurgood Marshall United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 5, 1994

     Mr. Engel (for himself, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Gilman, and Mr. Fish) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the United States courthouse under construction in White 
      Plains, New York, as the ``Thurgood Marshall United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse under construction at 300 Quarropas 
Street in White Plains, New York, shall be known and designated as the 
``Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Thurgood 
Marshall United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 64.6015 xxx

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 77364, Sept. 20, 2024.