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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1080 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect employees in the 

building and construction industry who are participants in multiemployer 

plans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 9, 2017 

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. DURBIN, and Ms. 

DUCKWORTH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect 

employees in the building and construction industry who 

are participants in multiemployer plans, 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 ‘‘Vested Employee Pen5 sion Benefit Protection Act’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1080 IS

1 SEC. 2. MINIMUM AGE FOR DISTRIBUTIONS DURING WORK2 ING RETIREMENT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (36) of section 401(a) 

4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read 

5 as follows: 

6 ‘‘(36) DISTRIBUTIONS DURING WORKING RE7 TIREMENT.— 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A trust forming part 

9 of a pension plan shall not be treated as failing 

10 to constitute a qualified trust under this section 

11 solely because the plan provides that a distribu12 tion may be made from such trust to an em13 ployee who has attained age 62 and who is not 

14 separated from employment at the time of such 

15 distribution. 

16 ‘‘(B) CERTAIN EMPLOYEES IN THE BUILD17 ING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.—Subpara18 graph (A) shall be applied by substituting ‘age 

19 55’ for ‘age 62’ in the case of a multiemployer 

20 plan described in section 4203(b)(1)(B)(i) of 

21 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

22 of 1974, with respect to individuals who were 

23 participants in such plan on or before April 30, 

24 2013, if— 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1080 IS

1 ‘‘(i) the trust to which subparagraph 

2 (A) applies was in existence before Janu3 ary 1, 1970, and 

4 ‘‘(ii) before December 31, 2011, at a 

5 time when the plan provided that distribu6 tions may be made to an employee who has 

7 attained age 55 and who is not separated 

8 from employment at the time of such dis9 tribution, the plan received at least 1 writ10 ten determination from the Internal Rev11 enue Service that the trust to which sub12 paragraph (A) applies constituted a quali13 fied trust under this section.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 this section shall apply to distributions made before, on, 

16 or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 66256.

#### Atkins, Kroll & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 279619-K, etc. (San Francisco).

*389Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ELIJAH SMITH :

Petitioner, CRIMINAL ACTION

NO. 04-411-1

 v. :

 CIVIL ACTION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NO. 16-2930

Respondent. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3 day of August, 2018, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: rd

(1) Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 158) is DENIED as moot by

reason of his subsequently-filed Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 163); and,

(2) On or before August 24, 2018, the government shall file a Response to

Petitioner’s Motion to Correct Sentence (ECF No. 163).

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ C. Darnell Jones, II J.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NO.

:

LOVATO, et al. : 02-3924

MCLEAN : 02-3966

GAMEGAN-RICHARDSON : 02-3985

CLIPSON : 02-4137

TERILLI, et al. : 02-4243

MOUSER, et al. : 02-4271

STAMPER : 02-4321

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the C.T.O.

from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation.

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

Case 2:02-cv-04137-JG Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

James T. Giles, Chief Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04137-JG Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 99.5

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

We
hereby consent to the use of our name in the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the "Annual Report") of Enerplus Corporation (the "Registrant"). We hereby further consent
to the inclusion in the Annual Report of the Registrant's Annual Information Form dated February 22, 2013 for the year ended December 31, 2012, which document makes reference to our firm
and our reports dated January 28, 2013, evaluating the Registrant's oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids interests effective December 31, 2012.

Calgary, Alberta, Canada
February 22, 2013

MCDANIEL & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTANTS LTD./s/ C.B. KOWALSKI C.B. Kowalski, P. Eng.
Vice President


---



QuickLinks
Zw PAC RE IPAC Operational Metrics for November 2020

by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount] % of Total Dollar Amount] Number of Transactions] _ % of Total Number of Transactions|
Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 16,409,268, 186, 750] 33.77% 16,088] 15.24%|
Buy/Sell 29,520,861,015] 0.18% 83,241] #3.61%|
Benefits (RITS) 7.171,937,344] 0.0456] 415 0.39%]
[Check Aftermath (TRACS) 26,018, 767| 0.00% 736| 0.75%|
[Zero Dollar | 0.00%6| | 0.00%]
[Grand Total - November 2020 16,446,447,003,21| 100.00%| 105,540]
[Grand Total - October 2020 100.0%
[October to November Change
[Percentage Change
[Grand Total - November 2019
[Nov 2019 to Nov 2020 Change
[Percentage Change
Before the Second Division,

March 2, 1949

No. 52903.

#### Reichenbach *&*Co. *et*al. *v.*United States,

protests 604392-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Exhibit 99.1

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, Dale G. Rettinger, the Chief Financial Officer of PDC 2000-B Limited Partnership, hereby certify that: 

- I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

_/s/ Dale G. Rettinger                       

Name: Dale G. Rettinger

Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: __March 26, 2003_________
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T STEV E LI N D ER, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. A U R O R A L O A N S E R V I C E S , L L C ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 16905 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 3 4 9 0 - J A MK JM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn A . M e nde z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S t e ve L i nde rappe a l s f

r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng hi s a c t i on a r i s i n g o u to f

f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1291. W e r e vi e w f

ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l w i thout



# FI LED JAN 12 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 16905 2 le a v e to a m e n d . G ordon v . C i t yof O akland , 6 2 7 F .3 d1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) . W e a f f i rm. C ontr a ryt o L i nde r ’ s s ol e c ont e nt i on on appe a l , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not ab u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n b yd i s mi s s i n g Li n d e r ’ s Tru th i n Le n d i n g A c td a ma g e s c l a i m, R e a l E s ta te S e ttle m e n t P r o c e du r e s A c t c la im , a n dn e g lig e n c e , f r au d , a n du n f

a ir com pet i t i on cl ai m s w i tho utl eave t o am end b ec ause am endm entw as fut i l e. Se e i d. ; s e e a ls o J

a n a s v . Mc Cr a c ke n (

I n R e S ilic o n G ra

p h ic s Se c . L itig .) , 183 F . 3d 970, 991 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( no abus e of di s c r e t i on w he r e pl a i nt i f f f a i l e d t o s e tf

orth a ny fa ct s thatcoul d p ot ent i al l y s t at e acl ai m ). W e do n otconsi der m att er s notspec i fi ca l l y and di st i nct l y r ai se d and ar gu ed i n the ope ni ng br i e f

, nora r gum e nt s a nd a l l e ga t i ons r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on ap p e a l. Se e P adge t t

v . W r i ght , 58 7 F . 3d 98 3, 98 5 n . 2 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( per c uri am ). AF F I RME D.
No. 52178.

protests 127561-K, etc. (New York).

#### McKesson & Robbins, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise, issues, and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351), and that the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed were not in fact landed. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that the merchandise, insofar as it pertains to the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed, is subject to an allowance in duties and intSrnal revenue taxes. The protests were sustained to this extent.
# 2014_06 Pivot Table 5

# 2014_06 MTS Table 5 Detail

&F	

&P/&N
# C_2018072EN.01000801.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Belgium) — Vaditrans BVBA v Belgische Staat

(Case C-102/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Driver’s rest periods - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 8(6) and (8) - Whether it is possible to take daily rest periods and reduced weekly rest periods away from base and in a vehicle - Exclusion of regular weekly rest periods))

(2018/C 072/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vaditrans BVBA

Applicant:

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 8(6) and (8) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as meaning that a driver may not take the regular weekly rest periods referred to in Article 8(6) in his vehicle. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 8(6) and (8) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as meaning that a driver may not take the regular weekly rest periods referred to in Article 8(6) in his vehicle.

| 2. | Consideration of the second question referred has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Regulation No 561/2006, having regard to the principle of legality in criminal proceedings, enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Consideration of the second question referred has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Regulation No 561/2006, having regard to the principle of legality in criminal proceedings, enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      I, Christine A. Herren, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of
Innotrac Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
      March 31, 2006 (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.

Dated: May 15, 2006

                          /s/ Christine A. Herren
                          -------------------------
                          Christine A. Herren
                          Senior Director and Controller (Principal
                          Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
                          Officer)
No. 61749.

#### Dunnington & Arnold, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 310915-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Case 2:04-cv-02368-ER   Document 3   Filed 06/03/04   Page 1 of 8

Case 2:04-cv-02368-ER   Document 3   Filed 06/03/04   Page 2 of 8

Case 2:04-cv-02368-ER   Document 3   Filed 06/03/04   Page 3 of 8

Case 2:04-cv-02368-ER   Document 3   Filed 06/03/04   Page 4 of 8

Case 2:04-cv-02368-ER   Document 3   Filed 06/03/04   Page 5 of 8

Case 2:04-cv-02368-ER   Document 3   Filed 06/03/04   Page 6 of 8

Case 2:04-cv-02368-ER   Document 3   Filed 06/03/04   Page 7 of 8

Case 2:04-cv-02368-ER   Document 3   Filed 06/03/04   Page 8 of 8
No. 52892.

#### American Straw Goods Co. *v.*United States,

protests 634299-G, etc. (New York).

*248Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of hats known as harvest hats, valued at less than $3 per dozen, similar in all material respects to those involved in *Caradine Hat Co.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, the hats imported or withdrawn from warehouse prior to the effective date of T. D. 48075 were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), and those items imported or withdrawn from warehouse subsequent to that date were held dutiable at 12)4 percent under said paragraph.
Exhibit 31.1

FORM 10-K CERTIFICATION

I, Steven R. Williams, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the Registrant;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the year covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

(c)	Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter of 2003 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors:

(a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  March  25, 2004               
 /s/ Steven R. Williams                           

Steven R. Williams

Chief Executive Officer

of the Managing General Partner of the Registrant
No. 57189.

petition 6884-R (New York).

#### Johnson Bros. *v.*United States,

Ford, Judge:

This pétition, prttying'Tói* the remission of additional duties incurred by reason of undervaluation of certain imported merchandise on entry, .was filed under the provisions bf section '489' of the Tariff Act of .1930.

The merchandise, the undervalution of which formed the basis of this petition, consisted of earthenware imported from England. It appears from the statement of counsel for petitioner, which was not challenged by counsellor respondent, that just 1 day after this merchandise was'exported from England .a new price list became effective, in which a so-called plussage of 25 percent was advanced to 33)4 percent, and that that advance is the difference between the entered and final appraised value.

It was shown by competent testimony that petitioner herein had always been advised by the exporter of any advancé in .price and that petitioner had always entered this merchandise at the invoice prices; that petitioner was advised of the advance in this case occurring just 1 day after the date of exportation; and that upon receipt of this advance in price, notice thereof was passed on to the customs officials.

At the trial of this petition, counsel for petitioner made the following statement:

> * * * At the time that the invoice was prepared by the manufacturer in England, an old price list prevailed. A ne.w price list went into effect the day before the steamship left England. However, at the time when.the exporter prepared the invoice, that price list had not yet gone into effect. For that reason, it was prepared' at the old price, and the importer didn’t-notice that the vessel'had left one day after the new arid increased price list had gone into effect and therefore, entered at the old price list. The only difference in value occurs because under the old price list, there was a plussage on the invoice of 25 per cent. Under the new price list, that was advanced to 33J4 per cent and that is the difference between the entered and the appraised value. * * *.

The witness for petitioner testified that, for a period of 30 years the exporter had been notifying him of any change in the value of the merchandise; that when he had received this information on the value of this merchandise, he had immediately passed it on to the United States examiner of merchandise; and that the advance in value of the instant merchandise was based upon information furnished by him to the examiner of merchandise.

*392' The evidence adduced at the trial of this case establishes -the complete good faith of the importer. *Linen Thread Co. v. United States,*13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 395, T. D. 41322; *Syndicate Trading Co.*v. *United States,*13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 409, T. D; 41339; *Stone & Downer Co.*v. *United States,*13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 649, T. D. 41488. This petition is therefore granted. Judgment will be- rendered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1004 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1004

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow dentists and 
physicians to use the cash basis of accounting for income tax purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 1999

 Mr. Manzullo (for himself, Mr. Matsui, and Mr. Crane) 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 dentists and 
physicians to use the cash basis of accounting for income tax purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Accounting Fairness for Dentists and 
Physicians Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. CASH BASIS OF ACCOUNTING FOR DENTISTS AND PHYSICIANS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 446 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions to the general rule for 
methods of accounting) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) Exceptions.--
            ``(1) In general.--If no method of accounting has been 
        regularly used by the taxpayer, or if the method used does not 
        clearly reflect income, the computation of taxable income shall 
        be made under such method as, in the opinion of the Secretary, 
        does clearly reflect income.
            ``(2) Certain physicians and dentists.--A person engaged in 
        the trade or business of providing a service as a physician or 
        dentist (within the meaning of paragraph (1) or (2) of section 
        1861(r) of the Social Security Act) shall not be required to 
        compute income under an accrual method of accounting.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
                                 <all>
```