alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 1, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8316]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 9322]
RIN 1545-BG26


Anti-Avoidance and Anti-Loss Reimportation Rules Applicable 
Following a Loss on Disposition of Stock of Consolidated Subsidiaries; 
Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to final and temporary regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final and temporary 
regulations that was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, 
April 10, 2007 (71 FR 17804) providing guidance to corporations filing 
consolidated returns and applying an anti-avoidance rule and revising 
an anti-loss reimportation rule that applies following a disposition of 
stock of a subsidiary at a loss.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theresa Abell, (202) 622-7700 or 
Phoebe Bennett, (202) 622-7770 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final and temporary regulations (TD 9322) that are the subject 
of these corrections are under section 1502 of the Internal Revenue 
Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, these final and temporary regulations (TD 9322) 
contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of 
clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, these final and temporary regulations (TD 9322) that 
were the subject of FR Doc. E7-6541, are corrected as follows:
    1. On page 17805, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph 
heading ``Background and Explanation of Provisions'' paragraph 2, line 
6 from the bottom of the column, the language ``the loss reimportation 
rule is also'' is corrected to read ``the anti-loss reimportation rule 
is also''.
    2. On page 17805, column 2, in the preamble, under the paragraph 
heading ``Special Analyses'', line 5 from the top of the column, the 
language ``U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that prior notice and'' is corrected to 
read ``U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) that prior notice and''.
    3. On page 17805, column 2, in the preamble, under the paragraph 
heading ``Special Analyses'', line 16 from the top of the column, the 
language ``reference notice of the proposed'' is corrected to read 
``reference notice of proposed''.

LaNita Van Dyke,
Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing 
Division, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and 
Administration).
 [FR Doc. E7-8316 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No. 48089.

#### Petition 6208-R of Norman G. Jensen (Pembina).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appeared from the testimony of the petitioner, who made the entry, that he secured from Canada by telegraph information that the *416correct value was $9 Canadian funds; that in making out the summary sheet he had inadvertently taken one which said “United States funds” and turned that summary sheet in with the invoice, but when he made entry he wrote “Canadian funds,” which was correct. • However, the merchandise was appraised on the basis of United States funds according to the statement on the summary sheet. It was found that the petitioner acted without intention to misrepresent the facts or to defraud the revenue of the United States, or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the goods. The petition was therefore granted.
No. 48081.

#### Protests 783865-G, etc., of Amerlux Steel Corporation (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

.Tilson, J.

Following *Wilbur-Ellis Co.*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 403, C. A. D. 47) and (9 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 673) the bale ties in question were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1604, as claimed.
Before the Third Division,

June 18, 1945

No. 50275.

#### Petition 6477-R of Overseas Trading Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Petitioner’s witness testified that he had paid the amount shown on the invoice; that the merchandise had been ordered through a broker in New York; that this was the second shipment of merchandise he had received from Uruguay; that he knew nothing about a Uruguayan tax; and that the tax was not entered on the invoice. After consideration of the evidence in this case, it was held that the petitioner acted without intention to misrepresent the facts or to defraud the revenue of the United States, or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the goods. The petition was therefore granted.
SEVEYON VALTIA PORTER, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1887

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 3, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Ross Goodman, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Jessica DaSilva and Jay Kubica, Assistant 

Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000101462
<NAME> UNITED REFINING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,695
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,701
<ALLOWANCES>                                       416
<INVENTORY>                                     61,143
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               101,081
<PP&E>                                         257,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,381
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 328,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,745
<BONDS>                                        200,963
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   328,494
<SALES>                                        551,811
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               551,811
<CGS>                                          492,976
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,479
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   105
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,570)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (7,424)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,146)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,146)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Blaisdell *versus*Lewis.

lío action can be maintained for the breach of a contract to employ the plaintiff, at stipulated daüy wages, unless there was some stipulation as to the length of time, for which the employment should continue.

Exceptions from the District Court.

Assumpsit for refusing to employ the plaintiff at certain daily wages according to contract.

The evidence tended to show that, by parole, it was agreed that the defendant would hire the plaintiff to labor for the defendant at Hallowed, but nothing was stipulated as to the continuance of the service. After the contract was made, the plaintiff, who resided at Bail, received a letter from the defendant, notifying that the defendant had postponed the time for the plaintiff’s coming to Hallo well, till further notice. The plaintiff never went to Hallowell.

The Judge instructed the jury that, “if they should be satisfied from any evidence in the case that Lewis, after Blaisdell had notified him that he was ready to enter upon the execution of his contract, had informed Blaisdell that he would not be employed, and plaintiff had suffered damage, then they would render a verdict for the plaintiff, though he had never gone to Hallowed; — and further that, if they should be satisfied from the evidence, that Blaisdell did not go to Hallowed, but remained at Bail for any time at the request of Lewis, and for his accommodation, they would be authorized to give to the plaintiff the difference between what, under the contract, he might have earned during that time, and what, with the *516exercise of due diligence, he might have earned in other employment.

The verdict was for the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted.

Paine, for the defendant.

Gilbert, for the plaintiff.

There was no tvaiver by., the plaintiff of his right to be employed. But he was ordered by the defendant not to go to Hallowell.

The instruction was therefore uncalled for and irrelevant.

The only question is, whether such instructions can operate to the injury of the plaintiff.

Wells, J.,

orally.—An infirmity in this contract is, that it fixed no time during which the plaintiff’s services'should be rendered to the defendant. Suppose the plaintiff had gone to Hallowell, and tendered his services, there was nothing to prevent the defendant from discharging him at the end. of a single day. In such a contract there is no value.

*Exceptions sustained.*
# C_2016048EN.01010002.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/100

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Di Marzio v Council

(Case F-24/15) (1)

1

((Civil service - Contractual agent - Function group I - Reclassification of a contract into a contract as a member of the temporary staff for an indefinite term at Grade AST 3, AST 4 or AST 5 or into a contract as a member of the contract staff for an indefinite term in function group III - Articles 2, 3a, 3b, 80 and 88 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of sound administration - Duty of care - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 048/116)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Antony Di Marzio (Limelette, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for reclassification of his contract as a member of the contract staff in function group I into a contract as a member of the temporary staff or, alternatively, into a contract as a member of the contract staff in function group III, and the claim for compensation for the non-material and material damage allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Di Marzio shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Di Marzio shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 127 of 20/4/2015, p. 43.

1

---
No. 39051.

#### Protests 517736-G, etc., of A. G. Skourtsis et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the records presented the protests were overruled.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v PAUL K. FRANCIS, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 595, 38 CMR 393

No. 20,917

June 21, 1968

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Thomas D. Wise,*and *Captain Anthony F. Cilluffo*were on the pleadings for Appellant, • Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major Ediuin P. Wasinger,*and *Captain L. Frank Chopin*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

The decision of the board of review is affirmed. United States v Anderson, 17 USCMA 588, 38 CMR 386.

Judge Kilday concurs.

FERGUSON, Judge

(concurring in the result):

For reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Anderson, 17 USCMA 588, 38 CMR 386, I concur in the result.
No. 53191.

#### Butler Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61344-K, etc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York *325market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 10.1
 
  «Award Date» «Name»
  The Plan.
 Definitions.
 Calculation, Vesting and Payment of Cash Award.
 Calculation of Cash Award. $_____ «Start Date» «End Date»




---



##### 



Threshold
    
    
    
    
    
    
    MaximumThreshold
    
    
    Level (50%
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Level (200%Level not
    
    
    of Target
    
    
    Target
    
    
    of Targetachieved
    
    
    Level)
    
    
    Level
    
    
    Level)Annual Cash Award Credit
    
    
    0
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
  Vesting of Cash Award. «Vesting Date»
    Payment of Cash Award.
  2




---



##### 



Withholding and Consents. Withholding.
 Consents.
 Successors and Assigns of the Company.
 Committee Discretion.
 Amendment of this Award Notice. provided however
  UAL CORPORATION,By:Name:
    Glenn F. TiltonTitle:
    Chairman, President & CEO  3
No. 62078.

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc., and The Manves Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 148993-K, etc. (New York).

*601Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of kidskins and lambskins the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Joseph Rotberg & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 22, C. D. 1952), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Douglas D. Cole, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Trinity Learning
     Corporation;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this 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
     report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this 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 report;

4.   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 have:

     a)   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 report is being prepared;

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

     c)   disclosed in this report any change in internal control over financial
          reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
          quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
          materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
          reporting;

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 and the audit committee of registrant's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control 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: October 28, 2004

      /S/ DOUGLAS D. COLE
      -------------------

      Douglas D. Cole
      Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-20717 Conference Calendar

ESEQUIEL RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BABBILI ANANDA; U.S. STAFF ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-246

-------------------- February 13, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Esequiel Rodriguez, Texas prisoner # 421876, appeals the dismissal of his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit asserting that he has been denied medical treatment. The district court determined that Rodriguez was barred from proceeding IFP by the “three-strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), because, on at least four prior occasions, he has filed civil lawsuits which have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim.No. 00-20717 -2- Rodriguez does not challenge this determination, and any argument that the district court’s finding was error is waived. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1995). Instead, Rodriguez asserts that his lawsuit was not a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action but was a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. He is incorrect. See Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973);

see also Carson v. Johnson , 112 F.3d 818, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1997). Rodriguez has made no showing that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the instant suit was filed, and he has therefore failed to demonstrate any error in the district court’s dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Banos v. O’Guin , 144 F.3d 883, 884-85 (5th Cir. 1998). Rodriguez is thus BARRED from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), his IFP status is REVOKED, and he may not bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under § 1915 while incarcerated or detained in any facility, unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). The appeal is DISMISSED. Rodriguez has 30 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the district court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal. Rodriguez’s motion for release pending appeal is DENIED. IFP REVOKED; APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.
D:\netsite-docs\lps94295\2007.pdf
# C_2015089EN.01004902.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/49

---

Action brought on 26 January 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-12/15)

(2015/C 089/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, N. de Montigny, D. Verbeke and T. Van Lysebeth, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision determining the applicant’s rights to reimbursement of annual travel expenses pursuant to Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the CEOS.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the applicant’s salary statement for the month of June 2014 in so far as it applies, for the first time, Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in the version in force since 1 January 2014, in order to determine the reimbursement of his travel expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the applicant’s salary statement for the month of June 2014 in so far as it applies, for the first time, Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in the version in force since 1 January 2014, in order to determine the reimbursement of his travel expenses;

| — | to the extent necessary, annul the standard decision dated 15 October 2014 rejecting his claim; |
| --- | --- |

—

to the extent necessary, annul the standard decision dated 15 October 2014 rejecting his claim;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---