alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 242

To extend the retroactive period during which farm insolvency transactions

are exempt from the prior law alternative minimum tax.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. EMERSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To extend the retroactive period during which farm insolvency transactions are exempt from the prior law alternative minimum tax.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF RELIEF FROM PRIOR LAW AL4 TERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX FOR FARM INSOL5 VENCY TRANSACTIONS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 13208

7 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

8 of 1985 (relating to certain insolvent taxpayers allowed

9 to reduce capital gains preference item for purposes of the
2

•HR 242 IH

1 individual minimum tax) is amended by striking ‘‘1981’’

2 and inserting ‘‘1978’’.

3 (b) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.—If refund or credit

4 of any overpayment of tax resulting from the application

5 of the amendment made by subsection (a) is prevented at

6 any time before the close of the 1-year beginning on the

7 date of the enactment of this Act, by the operation of any

8 law or rule of law (including res judicata), refund or credit

9 of such overpayment (to the extent attributable to the ap10 plication of such amendment) may, nevertheless, be made

11 or allowed if claim therefor is filed before the close of such

12 1-year period.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2119
DENNIS ARTHUR TALBOT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ACME PAPER AND SUPPLY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-04-1567-JFM) Submitted: March 13, 2006 Decided: March 24, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Arthur Talbot, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Nicholas Petkovich, JACKSON LEWIS LLP, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Dennis Arthur Talbot, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to his employer in his civil action alleging employment discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Talbot v. Acme Paper & Supply Co. , No. CA-04-1567-JFM (D. Md. filed Aug. 30, 2005 & entered Aug. 31, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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. 08-40855

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GERARDO GONZALEZ-GAMEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:01-CR-387-ALL

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gerardo GonzalezGamez (Gonzalez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Gonzalez has not

filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 20, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
From: Susie Veglia [mailto:sveglia@portandharbor.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:19 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Equal Insurance Treatment for Mental Health Issues

Hi, 

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to comment on this. 

We have a policy concerning first time offenders of our drug and alcohol policy. 

In lieu of termination they may elect mandatory assessment and treatment 

through our employee assistance program. The first three sessions are free to 

the employee, but if continued counseling is recommended, it can become a 

“sentence” to the employee, who may have to dig very deeply to afford the 

treatment. After the deductible is met, the employee receives a 50% benefit per 

session up to a maximum of $1500. This creates an uneven “playing field.” The 

wealthier employees have more spending power to afford the mandated 

counseling and preserve their jobs. 

Drug and alcohol abuse are a major factor in our society today; while paying 

astronomical prices for health insurance, employees are unable to receive 

suitable benefits to address their mental health problems. 

Thank you! 

Susan M. "Susie" Veglia

Human Resources Director

P O Box 2267

Bay St. Louis, MS 39521

228-467-9231 Telephone

228-467-9341 Fax

sveglia@portandharbor.com

 

Please continue to Shop, Eat, Play & Stay Local...
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                         9
<CIK>                         0000705671
<NAME>                        OMEGA FINANCIAL CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       40,596
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          424
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             10,700
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                  0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        4,954
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        284,232
<LOANS>                                     696,299
<ALLOWANCE>                                  11,812
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            1,058,486
<DEPOSITS>                                  857,439
<SHORT-TERM>                                 27,381
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          15,664
<LONG-TERM>                                   7,000
<COMMON>                                    148,691
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                   2,311
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>            1,058,486
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              44,291
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            10,639
<INTEREST-OTHER>                              1,191
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             56,121
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           19,656
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           20,676
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        35,445
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   870
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              260
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              24,905
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              18,997
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   13,551
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 13,551
<EPS-BASIC>                                  1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 4.57
<LOANS-NON>                                   2,514
<LOANS-PAST>                                    719
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                326
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                               3,559
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             11,772
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   933
<RECOVERIES>                                    103
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            11,812
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         11,812
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           0



</TABLE>
SCWC-13-0005864
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
DISCOVER BANK, a Delaware Corporation, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. BRADFORD W. ADAMS and EI RAYNA K. ADAMS, Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-13-0005864; CIV. NO. 1RC09-1-009133) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and Circuit Judge Ochiai, assigned by reason of vacancy) The application for writ of certiorari, filed on March 25, 2014, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, April 14, 2014. Bradford W. Adams and Ei Rayna K. Adams, petitioners pro se /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Dean E. Ochiai Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0005864 14-APR-2014 10:59 AM
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 165 (Monday, August 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 48995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4170]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

[No. USAF-2007-0005]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by 
September 26, 2007.
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Request for Approval of Foreign 
Government Employment of Air Force Members; OMB Control Number 0701-
0134.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 10.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 10.
    Average Burden Per Response: 1 hour.
    Annual Burden Hours: 10.
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is to obtain 
the information needed by the Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary 
of State on which to base a decision to approve/disapprove a request to 
work for a foreign government. This approval is specified by Title 37, 
United States Code, Section 908. This statute delegates such approval 
authority of Congress to the respective service secretaries and to the 
Secretary of State.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Hillary Jaffe.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Jaffe at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: August 21, 2007.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 07-4170 Filed 8-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 169 (Friday, August 31, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 50393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4272]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


30-Day Notice of Submission of Study Package to the Office of 
Management and Budget; Opportunity for Public Comment (OMB<greek-i> 
1024-xxxx, ``Visibility Valuation in National Parks and Wilderness 
Areas: Pre-Test and Pilot Test'')

AGENCY: National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

ACTION:  Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
and 5 CFR Part 1320, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, the 
National Park Service (NPS) invites public comments on a proposed new 
collection of information (OMB<greek-i> 1024-xxxx). The 30-Day Federal 
Register Notice for this collection of information was published on 
August 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 154, Pages 45066-45067), was 
published in error and should be recognized as an incorrect version. 
The correct publication of the 30-Day Federal Register Notice for this 
collection of information will be published on August 28, 2007, and 
should be recognized as the correct version. If you have any questions 
or concerns regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Leonard E. Stowe, 
NPS, Information Collection Clearance Officer, 1849 C St., NW. (2605), 
Washington, DC 20240; or via fax at 202/371-1427; or via e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9bf7fef4f5fae9ffc4e8eff4ecfedbf5ebe8b5fcf4ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c8a4ada7a6a9baac97bbbca7bfad88a6b8bbe6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 22, 2007.
Leonard E. Stowe,
NPS, Information Collection Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-4272 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-53-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANNI MA,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 56544

D.C. No.

2:16

- cv

- 05819

- DMG

- RAO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 5, 2019 **

Pasadena, California

Before: FERNANDEZ and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and DONATO, *** District

Judge.

Plaintiff Anni Ma appeals from the district court’s order granting summary

judgment to Defendants City of Los Angeles (City) , Los Angeles Police

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable James Donato, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAR 7 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

Department (LAPD) , and individual police officers in Ma’s 42 U. S.C. § 1983

action arising from her arrest for the indecent exposure of her bare breasts and

nipples . As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.

We affirm.

Ma argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the

individual officers because they violated her constitutional right to be free from

false arrest. In the context of an unlawful arrest, officers are entitled to qualified

immunity if it is at least “ reasonably arguable that there was probab le cause for

arrest.” Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cty. , 663 F.3d 1071 , 1076 (9th Cir. 2011). Here,

the officers had “reasonably arguable” probable cause to arrest Ma because

“reasonable officers could disagree” as to whether California Penal Code s ection

314(1)’ s prohibition on the exposure of “private parts” includes female breasts and

nipples. See id

.

Ma also contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment

to the City and LAPD

— entities that “ may not b e held liable under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, u nless a policy, practice, or custom of the entity can be shown to be a

moving force behind a violation of constitutional rights.” Dougherty v. City of

Covina , 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). For the first time on

appeal, Ma argues that the City and LAPD acted with deliberate indifference

towards her constitutional right s by incorrectly training officers that s ection 314(1)3

applies to female breasts and nipples. We decline to exercise our di scretion to

consider Ma’ s waived argument, in part because it “depend[s] on the factual record

developed below,” which has not been fully developed. In re Mercury Interactive

Corp. Sec. Litig. , 618 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED

.
#### § 230.5 Preemptive effect.

The Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (49 U.S.C. 20701-20703) preempts all State laws or regulations concerning locomotive safety. *Napier* v. *Atlantic Coast Line R.R.,* 272 U.S. 605 (1926). However, FRA believes Congress did not intend to preempt State laws or regulations concerning rail operations over which FRA does not exercise jurisdiction. Therefore, in issuing this part, it is FRA's intent that State laws or regulations applicable to those rail operations to which this part does not apply (*i.e.,* insular tourist operations) not be preempted.
EXHIBIT 24.12
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


The  undersigned,  as Controller  of  Southwestern  Electric  Power Company (the
"Company"), hereby makes, constitutes and appoints Michael D. Smith his true and
lawful  attorney-in-fact  and agent, with full power and authority to execute in
the  name and on  behalf  of the  undersigned,  in any and all  capacities,  the
Company's  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K  for  1996  and any and all  amendments
thereto, to be filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and
any other documents and instruments  incidental  thereto,  and to file the same,
with all exhibits  thereto and all documents in connection  therewith,  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission,  hereby granting to such  attorney-in-fact,
and agent,  full power and  authority  of  substitution  and  revocation  in the
premises  and full power and  authority to do and perform each and every act and
thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully for
all intents  and  purposes  as the  undersigned  might or could do in person and
hereby ratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact and agent, may do
or cause to be done by virtue of this Power of Attorney.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I have hereunto  executed this Power of Attorney this 22nd
day of January, 1997.


                                                     R. Russell Davis
                                                     Controller





Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22nd day of January, 1997 by R. Russell
Davis.

                                                     Kit Hill
                                                     Notary Public

My Commission Expires:
6-14-97
#### Elizabeth G. Chipman, *Appellant, v.*Village of Saratoga Springs, Respondent.—

Order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Bocees, J.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50965-50966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4350]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

Time and Date: 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), September 17, 2007.

Place: 4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20005.

Status: Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the 
public.

Matters To Be Considered

Parts Open to the Public

1. Approval of the minutes of the August 20, 2007 Board member meeting.
2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.
    a. Monthly Participant Activity Report.
    b. Monthly Investment Performance Report.
    c. Legislative Report.
3. Increasing Decimal Places in Fund Prices.
4. Business Assurance and IT Infrastructure.
5. Annual Budget Report.

[[Page 50966]]

    a. Fiscal Year 2007 Results.
    b. Fiscal Year 2008 Budget.
    c. Fiscal Year 2009 Estimate.

Parts Closed to the Public

6. Personnel.

Contact Person for More Information: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, 
Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: August 31, 2007.
Thomas K. Emswiler,
Secretary to the Board, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 07-4350 Filed 8-31-07; 11:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
#### § 23.11 What compliance and enforcement provisions are used under this part?

The compliance and enforcement provisions of part 26 (§§ 26.101 and 26.105 through 26.109) apply to this part in the same way that they apply to FAA recipients and programs under part 26.

[70 FR 14508, Mar. 22, 2005, as amended at 72 FR 15616, Apr. 2, 2007]
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 6/12/15 9:08 AM

Received: June 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jb7-4mxn

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0310

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Greg Carrico

Address: 

51373 Silver Bell Dr

Macomb, MI, 48042

Email: gcarrico1@gmail.com

Phone: 586-202-0751

General Comment

This regulation will cost too much money to police and is fixing a problem that does NOT exist.

Yes, there are snake oil salesman out there who will take advantage of customers, but most 

advisers are good people.

Restricting commissions will directly hurt the very people this law aims to help, and that is 

"main street". It takes the same time and resources to service a large account and small account. 

If we limit the amount of compensation that can be earned from the small accounts, then 

advisers will completely abandon those people and focus on large accounts where they can earn 

enough to support their businesses.

Further, the disclosures required are unnecessary and too broad. Imagine if we forced doctors to 

use the same disclosures on each procedure and test they perform. It would be impossible for 

them to do so, as it will for advisers.

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b23256&format=xml&show... 6/12/2015