alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KIMBELL-DIAMOND MILLING CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 13307.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 16, 1951.

Rehearing Denied April 23, 1951.

R. B. Cannon, Fort Worth, Tex., for petitioner.

George D. Webster, Ellis N. Slack, Lee A. Jackson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Theron Lamar Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles Oliphant, Chief Counsel, Claude R. Marshall, Special Attorney, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and BORAH and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The correctness *vel non*of the challenged deficiencies, determined by the commissioner and approved and adopted by the Tax Court, turns on whether the taxpayer petitioner is right in insisting that assets acquired by it ’by first purchasing the stock of, and then liquidating, Whaley Company should be included in petitioner’s basis at their cost to Whaley or whether the commissioner is right in insisting that they should he included at the cost to petitioner of Whaley’s stock.

The facts are fully reported and the law of the case is correctly and adequately set forth in the opinion and decision of the Tax Court.1 It will, therefore, serve no useful purpose for us to again set down the facts and again canvass and state the controlling findings and conclusions which determined there and determine here what the decision should be. It will be sufficient for us to say that we are in full agreement with the findings and conclusions of the Tax Court and with the reasoning on which they are based.

So agreeing, in spite of petitioner’s earnest and vigorous attack upon them by brief and oral argument, we deny the petition for review and affirm the attacked order for the reasons and upon the considerations advanced by the Tax Court.

Affirmed.

1

. Kimbell-Diamond Milling Co. v. Commissioner, 14 T.C. 74.
EXHIBIT
32.1



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 report of FOMO CORP. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2019 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities
and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



|(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 results of operations
    of the Company.



|/s/
    Vikram Grover                       | 
|------------------------------------------- | 
|Vikram
    Grover                           | 
|President
    (Principal Executive Officer) | 
|December
    7, 2020                        | 
|                                            | 
|/s/
    Vikram Grover                       | 
|Vikram
    Grover                           | 
|Chief
    Financial Officer                 | 
|December
    7, 2020                        |
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4751 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4751

  To reauthorize appropriations for the weatherization program under 
       section 422 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 1994

  Mr. Sharp introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reauthorize appropriations for the weatherization program under 
       section 422 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 422 of the 
Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6872) is amended to 
read as follows:

                   ``authorization of appropriations

    ``Sec. 422. For the purposes of carrying out the weatherization 
program under this part, there are authorized to be appropriated for 
fiscal years 1995 through 1999 such sums as may be necessary.''.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of a plan for collection of meteorites; invitation for comments.

# SUMMARY:

On March 31, 2003, the National Science Foundation (NSF) issued a final rule that authorized the collection of meteorites in Antarctica for scientific purposes only. These regulations implement Article 7 of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and are issued pursuant to Section 6 of the Antarctic Conservation Act, as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996. The regulations require appropriate collection, handling, and curation of Antarctic meteorites to preserve their scientific value. Antarctic expeditions planning to collect meteorites in Antarctica are required to submit their plans for the collection, handling, and curation of the meteorites to the National Science Foundation. NSF is providing notice of availability of a meteorite collection plan and inviting comments on the plan.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A meteorite collection plan has been received from Dr. Ralph Harvey of Case Western Reserve University. Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this plan by August 29, 206. This plan may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address listed above.

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. 06-6894 Filed 8-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Exhibit 10.29


First Amendment to Salary Continuation Agreement for Donita Koval


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE


OMEGA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


SALARY CONTINUATION AGREEMENT


 


DATED DECEMBER 23, 2003


FOR DONITA KOVAL


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (“First Amendment”) is made and entered into this 18th day of December 2006, by and between OMEGA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, located in State College, Pennsylvania (the “Bank”), and DONITA KOVAL (the “Officer”).


 


WITNESSTH:


 


WHEREAS, on December 23, 2003, the Bank and the Officer entered into a deferred compensation agreement titled “Omega Bank, National Association Salary Continuation Agreement,” (“Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Bank and the Officer desire to amend the Agreement through this First Amendment.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Bank and the Officer agree as follows:


 





	
             
 	
            1.
 	
            Section 1.8 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
 





 





	
             
 	
            “1.8.
 	
            “Normal Retirement Age” means the Officer’s 62nd birthday.”
 





 


2.           Section 2.3.1 is hereby amended by adding the following to the end thereof:  “The liability shall be calculated assuming that the Officer accrues her Normal Retirement Benefit ratably over the period beginning on the Effective Date and ending on her Normal Retirement Age.  However, effective as of January 1, 2006, the difference between the Officer’s accrued benefit as of December 31, 2005 and the Officer’s projected accrued benefit at Normal Retirement Age shall accrue ratably over the period beginning on January 1, 2006 and ending on her Normal Retirement Age.”


 





	
             
 	
            3.
 	
            A new Section 8.11 is hereby added to the Agreement which shall read as follows:
 





 


“8.11      Code Section 409A Matters.  Code Section 409A shall only apply to that portion of the Officer’s benefit that was not earned and vested prior to January 1, 2005.  The parties intend that the increased accruals that result from the change in the Normal Retirement Age to age 62 as of January 1, 2006 shall not be treated as a material modification so as to affect the pre-January 1, 2005 accruals and that such increased accruals shall be subject to Code Section 409A.”


 





	
             
 	
            4.
 	
            This First Amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 2006.
 





 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Officer and the Bank have executed this First Amendment on the date set forth above.


 





	OFFICER:

      

      

      /s/ Donita Koval

      ———————————————
      

      DONITA KOVAL 	 	BANK: 

      OMEGA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

      

      By:              /s/
      David B. Lee

             ———————————————————

             Print Name:        David
      B. Lee

                                  ——————————————

             Print Title:          Chairman

                                  ——————————————
      






 


 


39
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DANIEL KING

v.

HON. CHARLES B. BURR, II AND HON.

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER

PETITION OF: DANIEL KING AND

THOMAS P. GANNON :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 166 MM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of February , 201 7

, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED , and the Petition for Writ of Prohibition is DENIED

.

The Application for Relief Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 123, filed by Riverwatch

Condominium Owners Asso ciation, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

. See King

v. Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge , 2 MM 2017 (order dated February

28, 2017) (issuing a rule on Petitioners “to show cause why they should not be barred

from submitting any further filings in this Court relative to the civil action involving

Riverwatch Condominium Owners Assoc iation, including any related orders concerning

the awards of costs, as well as directives barring Tho mas P. Gannon, Esquire, from

representing Daniel King.”).

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the names of the jurists from the

caption.
§ 90.753 Conditions of license modification. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), and (c) of this section, a Phase I non nationwide licensee may modify its authorization to relocate its authorized base station up to one-half the distance over 120 km toward any co-channel licensee's initially authorized base station, to a maximum distance of 8 km.
( b ) A Phase I non-nationwide licensee with an authorized base station located outside a Designated Filing Area (DFA) (see Public Notice, DA 86-173, 52 FR 1302 (January 12, 1987)) may modify its authorization to relocate its authorized base station up to one-half the distance over 120 km toward any co-channel licensee's initially authorized base station, to a maximum distance of 25 km, so long as the base station is relocated no more than 8 km inside of any DFA (i.e., no more than 8 km from the nearest DFA boundary line).
( c ) A Phase I non-nationwide licensee that has been granted Special Temporary Authority (STA) to operate at an alternative base station location may modify its authorization to seek permanent authorization at that location, regardless of whether locating the station at the STA site is in strict conformance with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, if the licensee certifies that such a modification is in conformance with §§ 90.723 and 90.729 and: ( 1 ) It has constructed its base station and has placed it in operation, or commenced service, at the STA site on or before January 26, 1996; or
( 2 ) It has taken delivery of its base station transceiver on or before January 26, 1996.
( d ) The application for a Phase I non-nationwide licensee proposing a base station modification resulting in less than 120 km separation from a co-channel licensee's initially authorized base station will be accepted by the Commission only with the consent of that co-channel licensee, as evidenced in a statement submitted concurrently with the licensee's application submission on FCC Form 601.
( e ) The application of a Phase I non-nationwide licensee proposing a base station modification resulting in at least a 120 km separation from each co-channel licensee's initially authorized base station but more than one-half the distance over 120 km toward any co-channel licensee's initially authorized base station will be accepted by the Commission only with the consent of that co-channel licensee, as evidenced in a statement submitted concurrently with the licensee's submission on FCC Form 601.
[61 FR 3845, Feb. 2, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 68973, Dec. 14, 1998]
316P15

#### The Estate of Jerry Jacobs, The Estate of Ann Shepard, The Estate of Connie Tindall, and The Estate of Joe (William Dallas) Wright v. State of North Carolina

Pits’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-146)

Denied
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         116,392
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,093)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,125
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137,365
<PP&E>                                          12,857
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,956)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,443
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            29
<OTHER-SE>                                     142,770
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,242
<SALES>                                         15,822
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,822
<CGS>                                            4,113
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,953
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  53
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,874)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,874)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,874)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.40)


</TABLE>
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-P270Building Stronger, Safer CommunitiesBuilding Stronger, Safer Communities: A Guide for Law Enforcement and Community Partners to Prevent and Respond to Hate Crimes offers leadership strategies and actionable tactics to help law enforcement agencies work with community partners. Real-life examples, documented by the Not In Our Town movement against hate and intolerance, illustrate how agencies can work with community stakeholders to create an atmosphere where hate is not tolerated and take positive steps in the aftermath of a hate crime. This guide also explains the history of the Not In Our Town movement and provides multiples lists of resources to promote action, engagement, and empowerment for the community and law enforcement.By Kelly Whalen, Nazmia Alqadi, Libby McInernyCategories: Community Partnerships • Violent CrimeLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-p270Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFBook • Oct 2013Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 02:23 (UTC-5) in 0.19 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

September 22, 2006

Mr. C. Bryan Case Jr.

Assistant District Attorney

509 West 11th Street 

Austin, TX 78701

Mr. Robert Galvin

1610 West Avenue 

Austin, TX 78701

Honorable Darlene Byrne

126th District Court

PO Box 1748

Austin, TX 78767-1748

Mr. John Joseph Hindera

4425 S. Mopac South

Building 3, Suite 505

Austin, TX 78735

Ms.  Christina  M.  Utkov

P.O. Box 5634

Austin, TX 78763

RE:Case Number:  04-1043

Court of Appeals Number:  03-04-00464-CV, 03-04-00466-CV

Trial Court Number:  FM3-00564

Style:IN RE  TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion in the above-referenced cause.  Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.  The stay order issued November 19, 2004 is lifted.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 04-1043Page 2**
§ 80.1189 Portable ship earth stations. ( a ) Portable ship earth stations are authorized to operate on board more than one ship. Portable ship earth stations are also authorized to be operated on board fixed offshore platforms located in international or United States domestic waters.
( b ) Portable ship earth stations must meet the rule requirements of ship earth stations with the exeception of eligibility.
( c ) Where the license of the portable ship earth station is not the owner of the ship or fixed platform on which the station is located, the station must be operated with the permission of the owner or operator of the ship or fixed platform.
[52 FR 27003, July 17, 1987]
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-P149Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement AgenciesThis guide by the Institute for Law and Justice provides information that will help police departments measure the effects of information technologies to support community policing activities. The guide is based on the results of an assessment of the COPS OfficeBy Elizabeth Groff, Tom McEwenCategories: TechnologyLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-p149Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • Oct 2008Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 02:31 (UTC-5) in 0.19 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
No. 11-5717.

#### Tefera *v.*Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services et al.

Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.