alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 164 (Thursday, August 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50112-50113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7112]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Eighth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 207/Airport Security 
Access Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 207 Meeting, Airport Security 
Access Control Systems.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting RTCA Special Committee 207, Airport Security Access Control 
Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 14, 2006, from 10 a.m.-4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., Colson Board Room, 
1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, 
NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax 
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is 
hereby given for a Special Committee 207 meeting. The agenda will 
include:

<bullet> September 14:
<bullet> Opening Plenary Session (Welcome, Introductions, and 
Administrative Remarks).
<bullet> Agenda Overview.
<bullet> Workgroup Reports.
<bullet> Workgroup 2: System Performance Requirements.
<bullet> Workgroup 3: Subsystem Functional Performance Requirements.

[[Page 50113]]

<bullet> Workgroup 4: System Verification and validation.
<bullet> Workgroup 5: Biometrics.
<bullet> Workgroup 6: Credentials.
<bullet> Workgroup 7: Perimeter.
<bullet> ICAO Update.
<bullet> Closing Plenary Session (Other Business, Establish Agenda, 
Date and Place for Ninth and Tenth Meetings).

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 10, 2006.
Francisco C. Estrada,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 06-7112 Filed 8-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-0439V

UNPUBLISHED

BRENDA G. FRITZ,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: August 31, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Susan M. Cremer, Law Offices of Michael Lawson Neff, PC, Atlanta, GA, for Petitioner.

Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On April 15, 2020, Brenda Fritz filed a pet ition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine in her left shoulder on October 19, 2018, and subsequently suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at Preamb le. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Offi ce of Special Masters.

On August 30, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent stat es that “petitioner had no hist ory of pain, inflammation or dysfunction in her left shoulder; her pain occurred within 48 hours of receipt of an

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned ex planation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims ' website in accordance with the E-Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,

the disclosure of which would cons titute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 intramuscular vaccination; her pain and r educed range of motion were limited to the

shoulder in which the vaccine was administe red; and no other condition or abnormality

was identified to ex plain her symptoms.” Id. at 5-6. Respondent further agrees that the six month sequela requirem ent has been satisfied. Id.

In view of Respondent’s position a nd the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master
#### DEAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA REVENUE.

No. 10345.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued March 20, 1951.

Decided April 2, 1951.

Laurence Graves, New York City, for petitioner.

Melva Graney, Washington, D. C. (Theron Lamar Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit Judges.

GOODRICH, Circuit Judge.

This appeal from the Tax Court raises the question of the correctness of a claim for income tax against the taxpayer based on the rental value of property held in the name of a corporation of which the taxpayer and his wife are the sole shareholders. The facts are simple and undisputed.

The taxpayer and his wife are the sole shareholders in a personal holding company called the Nemours Corporation. The wife owns 80% of the stock. The real estate which is the subject matter of this controversy was owned by the taxpayer’s wife prior to her marriage. She and the taxpayer continued to occupy it after their marriage and the taxpayer’s wife expended and has continued to *1020expend appreciable sums in keeping up and beautifying the property. In 1931 the Nemours Corporation was indebted to a bank for a large sum. The bank insisted that the residence property above mentioned be transferred to the corporation. This was done. The parties continued to occupy the place as a home following the transfer. The taxpayer was in military service during the late war, but received from the corporation the difference between his military pay and the salary he had previously received. He also shared in the occupancy of the home at such times as he was free to do so.

The Commissioner takes the position that the fair rental value of the residence property is to be included in the taxpayer’s gross income under the general provisions of Section 22 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 22. The Tax Court agreed with the Commissioner. We do likewise. Although the taxpayer endeavors to distinguish it, we think our decision in Chandler v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 623, governs this case and the discussion therein is, for the most part, applicable here. It was the taxpayer’s legal obligation to provide a family home and if he did it by the occupancy of a property which was held in the name of a corporation of which he was president, we think the fair value of that occupancy was income to him.

The fact that the corporation was simply a means by which the taxpayer and his wife carried on certain business activities does not change the case. We have no reason for thinking that the corporate existence was anything but bona fide. And we think that the real estate deeded to the corporation would clearly have been held to belong to it had the bank had occasion, which it did not, to take advantage of the corporation’s title to the property. Our position is not based upon any thought that there is in this case any suggestion of tax evasion or avoidance. It is instead based upon taxpayer’s valuable occupation of the corporation real estate.

The decision of the Tax Court will be' affirmed.
No. 11-5430.

#### Sutherland *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Interactive Intelligence,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Dr. Donald E. Brown, Chairman of the Board, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, asadopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully  complies withthe  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The  information  contained in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Donald E. Brown, M.D.             |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Donald E. Brown, M.D.                 |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| May 12, 2004                          |   |
|                                       |        |  |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

** **

**SECTION1350 CERTIFICATION**

** **

In connection with this annual report of ML JWH Strategic AllocationFund  L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Michael L. Pungello,Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 

Date: March 1, 2006

 
| By                                           | /s/ MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Michael L. Pungello                          |                    |
| Vice President, Chief Financial Officer      |                    |
| and Treasurer                                |                    |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |                    |

 

----
# Information Resources Management College Biographies

Information Resources Management College Biographies RSS Feed

- Jonathan Beasley Areas of interest:Disruptive Technology; National Security Strategy; Roman RepublicJonathan (Jon) R.
- Elena Taube Bailey Areas of Focus: Intelligence; Counterintelligence; Counterterrorism; Collective Intelligence;
- Michael Brody, J.D. Areas of Interest:Strategic logic, homeland security, program assessment and evaluation,
- MAJ Abdullah H. Clark 
- Dr. Howard Gambrill Clark Areas of Interest: Information, Influence Strategy; Narrative, Subversion, Deception Warfare;
- CDR Andrew Gadbois Areas of Interest:Planning, joint operations, globally integrated operations, information warfare,
- CDR John Giuseppe Areas of Interest: Aviation, strategic studies, history CDR Giuseppe, a native of Arlington, VA,
- Dr. Jill Goldenziel Dr. Jill Goldenziel is a Professor at the National Defense University’s College of Information and
- Mr. David Harvey Academic Credentials: Bachelors of Business Administration (Accounting and Economics), James Madison
- Dr. Richard Love Areas of Interest:International solutions for state-based frameworks of environmental, nuclear, and
- Mr. Charles McLaughlin Areas of Interest:National Security Strategy, innovation and disruptive Technology Mr. Charles
- Mr. Domenic Savini Areas of Interest:Accounting and Auditing, cost and managerial accounting, teaching and tutoringMr.
- Dr. Joseph Schafer Areas of Interest:Malign influence, cyber, CS/SW/AI/ML, disruptive technology, CIO/ acquisition Dr.
- Dr. JoAnna Shore Academic Credentials: D. B. A. (2004), Argosy University, Sarasota, FL (Information Systems).
- Dr. Brian A. Shott A career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Brian joined the faculty of the College of
- Dr. Gwyneth Sutherlin Areas of Interest:Cognitive Linguistics, cross-cultural analysis, sociocultural analysis, influence
- Mr. John Sullivan Areas of Interest:Diplomacy (multinational and bilateral), pol / mil coordination, film / mediaMr.
- Dr. Andrew Whiskeyman Areas of Interest:Information Warfare, Strategic Foresight, Emerging and Disruptive Technology.Dr.
- Mr. Harry Wingo, J.D. Areas of Interest:Remote Warfare, AI / ML, 5G, privacyProfessor Wingo leads the Chief Information
Exhibit
10.14


Marten Transport, Ltd.


2007
Non-employee Director Compensation Summary


The Board of
Directors of Marten Transport, Ltd. approved the following fee schedule for
non-employee directors for fiscal year 2007:




	
  Annual Board Retainer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  20,000

  	
   

  
	
  Lead Director

  	
   

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  
	
  Audit Committee chair

  	
   

  	
  15,000

  	
   

  
	
  Compensation Committee
  chair

  	
   

  	
  7,500

  	
   

  
	
  Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee chair

  	
   

  	
  2,500

  	
   

  






 


The company
generally pays non-employee directors a fee of $1,000 for each Board or
committee meeting attended, and reimburses them for out-of-pocket expenses of
attending meetings.


Pursuant to the
non-employee director option program adopted on March 1, 2006, which is similar
to the program that was suspended in 2004, each non-employee director will also
receive an automatic grant of an option to purchase 2,500 shares of common
stock annually upon re-election to the Board by the stockholders.  These options will be issued at a per share
exercise price equal to the fair market value of one share of common stock on
the grant date and expire ten years from the grant date.
§ 80.332 Equipment to aid search and rescue operations. ( a ) Survival craft stations may transmit distress, urgency and safety signals, calls and messages.
( b ) EPIRB's may transmit only in accordance with the requirements of subparts V and X of this part.
[Civ. No. 1141.

Third Appellate District.

November 25, 1913.]

#### C. S. BALDWIN, Appellant, v. F. O. WALLS, Treasurer of the Town of Alturas, Respondent.

Appeal — Order Sustaining Demurrer to Amended Complaint— Whether Appealable.—An order sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to _ the plaintiff’s amended complaint is not appealable. The judgment is itself an adjudication upon the demurrer; and it is only from the judgment, and not from the order sustaining the demurrer, that the plaintiff could appeal.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Modoc County sustaining a demurrer. Clarence A. Raker, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

C. S. Baldwin, and N. A. Cornish, for Appellant.

Jamison *&*Wylie, for Respondent.

BURNETT, J.

The notice of appeal specifies that “plaintiff C. S. Baldwin, in the above entitled action, hereby appeals to the supreme court of said state of California, from the order of the superior court of said county of Modoc, sustaining *350defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s amended complaint in said action. C

It is well settled that such order is not - appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 939; *Agard*v. *Valencia,*39 Cal. 292; *Ashley*v. *Olmstead,*54 Cal. 616; *Hadsall*v. *Case,*15 Cal. App. 541, [115 Pac. 330].)

As stated in the Agard case: “The judgment is itself an adjudication upon the demurrer; and it is only from the judgment, and not from the order sustaining the demurrer, that the plaintiff could appeal.”

The purported appeal must be dismissed and it is so ordered.

Chipman, P. J., and Hart, J. concurred.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4702

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow builders to compute

on the installment sales method income from the sale of certain residential real property, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 30, 1994

Mr. GOODLING (for himself, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. FISH, Mr. MURPHY, Mr.

ROHRABACHER, Mr. UNDERWOOD, and Mr. PAYNE of Virginia) 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 allow builders to compute on the installment sales method income

from the sale of certain residential real property, and

for other purposes.

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 ‘‘First-Time Home5 buyers Assistance Act’’.
2

•HR 4702 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF INSTALLMENT METHOD OF AC2 COUNTING TO SALES OF RESIDENTIAL REAL

3 PROPERTY BY BUILDERS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 453(l)

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to excep6 tions to dealer dispositions) is amended by redesignating

7 subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D) and by inserting

8 after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph:

9 ‘‘(C) CERTAIN RESIDENCES.—The disposi10 tion on the installment plan of any newly con11 structed 1-family residential real property in

12 the ordinary course of the taxpayer’s business

13 if—

14 ‘‘(i) the acquisition cost (as defined in

15 section 143(k)(3)) does not exceed 75 per16 cent of the median purchase price for

17 newly constructed 1-family residential real

18 property for the statistical area (as defined

19 in section 143(k)(2)) in which the property

20 is located (95 percent in the case of a

21 property in a targeted area within the

22 meaning of section 143(j)),

23 ‘‘(ii) the face amount of any obliga24 tion held by the taxpayer and arising from

25 the disposition does not exceed 20 percent

26 of such acquisition cost,
3

•HR 4702 IH

1 ‘‘(iii) the purchaser of the property is

2 financially qualified to assume 100 percent

3 of the obligations arising from the disposi4 tion (without regard to whether such obli5 gations are held by the taxpayer),

6 ‘‘(iv) the property is to be used by

7 such purchaser as a principal residence

8 (within the meaning of section 1034), and

9 ‘‘(v) such purchaser had no present

10 ownership interest in such a principal resi11 dence during the 3-year period ending on

12 the date of acquisition of the property.’’

13 (b) EFFECT OF PLEDGE OF INSTALLMENT OBLIGA14 TION.—Paragraph (1) of section 453A(d) of such Code

15 (relating to pledges, etc., of installment obligations) is

16 amended by inserting after ‘‘this section applies’’ the fol17 lowing: ‘‘(or any installment obligation arising from a dis18 position described in section 453(l)(2)(C))’’.

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

20 this section shall apply to sales after the date of the enact21 ment of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit 10(n)


    Exhibit
      10(n)

    
 

    AMENDMENT

    TO
      THE

    TASTY
      BAKING COMPANY

    RETIREMENT
      PLAN FOR DIRECTORS

     

    This
      Amendment is made this 15th day of February, 2007, by Tasty Baking Company
      (the
“Company”). 

    


    W
      I T N
      E S S E T H:
      

    


    WHEREAS,
      the Company adopted the Tasty Baking Company Retirement Plan for Directors
      on
      October 16, 1987 (the “Plan”), and amended the Plan on September 24,
      1993;

    


    WHEREAS,
      the Company desires to “freeze” the Plan for current directors and to preclude
      future directors from participating in the Plan. 

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE, the Plan is amended, effective as of February 15, 2007, as follows:
      

    


    1.
      Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, an individual who
      commences service on the Board of Directors of the Company after February 15,
      2007, shall not be eligible to participate in the Plan. 

    


    2.
      Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, an individual who is
      serving on the Board of Directors of the Company on February 15, 2007, but
      who
      has less than five years of continuous service on the Board as of such date,
      shall be treated as eligible to participate in the Plan and as vested in
      benefits that the individual would have accrued under the Plan as of February
      15, 2007, for Board service through February 15, 2007, provided such individual
      completes five or more years of continuous service on the Board of Directors
      of
      the Company (whether before or after February 15, 2007). 

    


    3.
      Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, an individual serving
      on
      the Board of Directors of the Company on February 15, 2007, shall not accrue
      any
      additional benefits under the Plan after such date. Benefit payments shall
      be
      made to such Director upon retirement in accordance with the provisions of
      the
      Plan, based upon the Director’s service as a Director through February 15, 2007.
      The amount of the annual retirement payment for such Director shall be equal
      to
      $15,000 (which is the annual retainer in effect for service as a Director on
      February 15, 2007) or, for Directors who were eligible to participate in the
      Plan as of December 31, 1993, $16,000. 


    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    


    


    Executed
      and adopted this 15th day of February, 2007, pursuant to action taken by the
      Board of Directors of Tasty Baking Company at its meeting on February 15, 2007.
      

    


    TASTY
      BAKING COMPANY

    
 

    ATTEST:
      _______________________________ By:
      ______________________________

    Secretary
           
      President
No. 10-10885.

#### Luong et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO** 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Hans Boge the Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer ofKlondike Star Mineral Corporation, Inc. (the "Company") in compliance with 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, hereby certify that, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBfor the period ended May 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company. 

|   | *Date: July 14, 2006* | *Signed:* |                                         |
|--------|-----------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------------|
|   |                  |      |                                    |
|   |                  | *Name:*   | *Hans Boge*                             |
|   |                  | *Title:*  | *Chief Executive Officer and principal* |
|   |                  |      | *financial officer*                     |
No. 10-1221.

#### Holland et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.