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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10:15 A.M. TOMORROW

  Mr. REID. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, 
I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands 
adjourned until 10:15 a.m. tomorrow, unless the Senate receives a 
message from the House that it has adopted S. Con. Res. 59, in which 
case the Senate stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, September 10, 
2012, under the provisions of S. Con. Res. 59.
  Thereupon, the Senate, at 8:31 p.m., adjourned until Friday, August 
3, 2012, at 10:15 a.m. 

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4516 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4516

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the treatment of 
        certain payments made with respect to sexual misconduct.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2017

 Ms. DelBene 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 modify the treatment of 
        certain payments made with respect to sexual misconduct.

    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 ``Stop Tax Breaks for Sexual 
Misconduct Act''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE WITH RESPECT TO SEXUAL 
              MISCONDUCT.

    (a) Denial of Deduction for Certain Payments Made With Respect to 
Sexual Misconduct.--Section 162(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Certain payments made with respect to sexual 
        misconduct.--No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) 
        for any amount paid or incurred for--
                    ``(A) liability insurance providing coverage with 
                respect to sexual misconduct by an employee, or
                    ``(B) damages, settlement costs, or attorney's fees 
                with respect to sexual misconduct by an employee.''.
    (b) Exclusion From Gross Income of Certain Amounts Received With 
Respect to Sexual Misconduct.--Section 104(a) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph 
(5), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting 
``; and'', and by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(7) amount received as damages or settlement payments on 
        account of injuries due to sexual misconduct.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
FIRST AMENDMENT SALARY CONTINUATION AGREEMENT-HART



 Exhibit 10.5 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
 NEW PEOPLES BANK, INC. 
 SALARY CONTINUATION AGREEMENT 
 DATED DECEMBER 18, 2002 
 FOR

 KENNETH D. HART 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT executed on this 30th day of June, 2003, by and between the NEW PEOPLES BANK, INC., a state chartered commercial bank located in Honaker, Virginia (the “Company”), and KENNETH D. HART (the “Executive”) 
  
 On December 18, 2002, the Company and the Executive executed the SALARY
CONTINUATION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”). 
  
 Pursuant
to the power of amendment reserved by Article 7 of the Agreement, the undersigned hereby amends, in part, said Agreement for the purposes of: (i) removing definitions and (ii) adding a vesting clause. Therefore, 
  
 Section 1.2 shall be deleted from the Agreement. 
  
 Section 1.3 shall be deleted from the Agreement. 
  
 Section 8.2 shall be deleted from the Agreement. 
  
 Section 2.2.4 shall be added to the Agreement as follows:

  
 The benefit amount is subject to a vesting schedule of zero percent
(0.0%) in the first Plan Year, and one hundred percent (100%) thereafter. 
  
 IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the Executive and the Company have agreed to this First Amendment. 
  

									
	Executive:	 	 	 	 Company:

			
	 	 	 	 	NEW PEOPLES BANK, INC.
				
	 /s/ Kenneth D. Hart
	 	 	 	By	 	 /s/ Lynn Keene

	 Kenneth D. Hart
	 	 	 	Title	 	 Chairman of the Board
# C_2008313EN.01002101.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/21

---

Action brought on 21 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-459/08)

(2008/C 313/31)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. França, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 20 October 2007.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.

1

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4516 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the treatment 

of certain payments made with respect to sexual misconduct. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2017 

Ms. DELBENE 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 modify 

the treatment of certain payments made with respect 

to sexual misconduct. 

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 ‘‘Stop Tax Breaks for 

5 Sexual Misconduct Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE WITH 

7 RESPECT TO SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. 

8 (a) DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN PAY9 MENTS MADE WITH RESPECT TO SEXUAL MIS10 CONDUCT.—Section 162(c) of the Internal Revenue Code 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4516 IH

1 of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 

2 new paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(4) CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE WITH RESPECT

4 TO SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.—No deduction shall be al5 lowed under subsection (a) for any amount paid or 

6 incurred for— 

7 ‘‘(A) liability insurance providing coverage 

8 with respect to sexual misconduct by an em9 ployee, or 

10 ‘‘(B) damages, settlement costs, or attor11 ney’s fees with respect to sexual misconduct by 

12 an employee.’’. 

13 (b) EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF CERTAIN

14 AMOUNTS RECEIVED WITH RESPECT TO SEXUAL MIS15 CONDUCT.—Section 104(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 

16 of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of para17 graph (5), by striking the period at the end of paragraph 

18 (6) and inserting ‘‘; and’’, and by inserting after para19 graph (6) the following new paragraph: 

20 ‘‘(7) amount received as damages or settlement 

21 payments on account of injuries due to sexual mis22 conduct.’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4516 IH

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

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
# C_2013156EN.01003001.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Irish Music Rights Organisation v Commission

(Case T-415/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)

2013/C 156/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Irish Music Rights Organisation Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: D. Collins, Solicitor, and M. Favart, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and J. Bourke, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the applicant: International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers); and European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by D. Slater, Solicitor, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Irish Music Rights Organisation Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Irish Music Rights Organisation Ltd;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5702-H5703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              SENATE BILL AND A JOINT RESOLUTION REFERRED

  A bill and a joint resolution of the Senate of the following titles 
were taken from the Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as 
follows:

       S. 1409. An act to intensify efforts to identify, prevent, 
     and recover payment error, waste, fraud, and abuse within 
     Federal spending; to the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform.

[[Page H5703]]

       S.J. Res. 49. Joint resolution providing for the 
     appointment of Barbara Barrett as a citizen regent of the 
     Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution; to the 
     Committee on House Administration.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2010234EN.01003401.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2010 — Grain Millers v OHIM — Grain Millers (GRAIN MILLERS)

(Case T-430/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GRAIN MILLERS - Earlier national business name Grain Millers and its figurative representation - Partial refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 234/59

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grain Millers, Inc. (Eden Prairie, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (R. Böckenholt, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2008 (Case R 478/2007-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG and Grain Millers, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Grain Millers, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Grain Millers, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.

1

---
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASIDNGTON, DC

R.L.S. Rental Company, Inc,. d/b/a Mizzou Aviation Complainant, 

### v. City ofJoplin, Missouri Respondent. FAA Docket No. 16-13-06

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based onthe abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance withFAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted AirportEnforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuantto 14 CFRPart 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued inthis matter is hereby extendedto February 13, 2015. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination inthis case.



# ~/te#JY

**~lS.Fiertz**

Director, Airport Compliance and Management Analysis 

# !It&

**1~,** 

# Loty DateCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on

## November~, 2014, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid)'a{rue copy ofthe Notice ofExtension of Time addressed to: Counsel for Complainant: Shelley A. Ewalt McBreen & Kopko 500 North Broadway Jericho, NY 11753 Respondent: Mr. Peter Edwards 602 South Main Street Joplin, MO 64801 Copy to: FAAPart 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 FAA Airport Compliance and Field Operations, AC0-100

erts Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
# C_2009193EN.01002003.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/20

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Perfetti Van Melle v OHIM — Cloetta Fazer (CENTER SHOCK)

(Case T-16/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark CENTER SHOCK - Earlier national word marks CENTER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2009/C 193/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle SpA (Lainate, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Cloetta Fazer AB (Ljungsbro, Sweden) (represented by: J. Runsten and S. Sparring initially, and subsequently by M. Treis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 November 2007 (Case R 149/2006-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cloetta Fazer AB and Perfetti Van Melle SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Perfetti Van Melle SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Perfetti Van Melle SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Robert S. Stefanovich certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Xcorporeal, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant is made known to us by others within the entity, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and          b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 6, 2007 /s/ ROBERT S. STEFANOVICH   Robert S. Stefanovich   Interim Chief Financial Officer
STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)

CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

§ 8 Sales and use taxes.

Sec. 8. Except as provided in this section, the Legislature shall not impose a sales tax on retailers at a rate

of more than 4% of their gross taxable sales of tangible personal property.

Beginning May 1, 1994, the sales tax shall be imposed on retailers at an additional rate of 2% of their gross

taxable sales of tangible personal property not exempt by law and the use tax at an additional rate of 2%. The

proceeds of the sales and use taxes imposed at the additional rate of 2% shall be deposited in the state school

aid fund established in section 11 of this article. The allocation of sales tax revenue required or authorized by

sections 9 and 10 of this article does not apply to the revenue from the sales tax imposed at the additional rate

of 2%.

No sales tax or use tax shall be charged or collected from and after January 1, 1975 on the sale or use of

prescription drugs for human use, or on the sale or use of food for human consumption except in the case of

prepared food intended for immediate consumption as defined by law. This provision shall not apply to

alcoholic beverages.

History: Const. 1963, Art. IX, § 8, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964;Am. Initiated Law, approved Nov. 5, 1974, Eff. Dec. 21, 1974;Am. S.J.R.

S, approved Mar. 15, 1994, Eff. Apr. 30, 1994.

Former constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. X, § 23.

Rendered Thursday, September 17, 2015 Page 1 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 130 of 2015

 Legislative Council, State of Michigan Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

ATTACHMENT 7
#### In the Matter of Julio Maldonado, Petitioner, v James Racette, as Superintendent of Adirondack Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Essex County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

At no time during the course of the disciplinary hearing or on administrative appeal did petitioner request an interpreter. Having failed to do so at a time when any alleged error could have been corrected or on administrative appeal constitutes a waiver of this issue *(see, Matter of McClean v LeFevre,*142 AD2d 911, 912). In any event, the regulations only require the presence of an interpreter when the inmate does not speak any English (7 NYCRR 253.2). At the commencement of the hearing petitioner indicated that he fully understood the Hearing Officer’s recitation of, among other things, petitioner’s procedural rights and he fully participated in the hearing. Consequently, it cannot be said that petitioner’s due process rights were violated *(see, Matter of Wong v Coughlin,*138 AD2d 899, 900; *Matter of Peart v Kelly,*134 AD2d 843, *lv denied*71 NY2d 801). Likewise, petitioner failed to raise any claim on administrative appeal with respect to the impartiality of the Hearing Officer and, therefore, that issue has also been waived *(see, Matter of Samuels v Kelly,*143 AD2d 506, *lv denied*73 NY2d 707). Moreover, there is no merit to petition*964er’s contention that the Hearing Officer was not impartial *(see, Matter of Diaz v Coughlin,*143 AD2d 485). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contention and find it lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.