alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Start Here

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY	UNCLASSIFIED&A	

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY	

# Rating

&"Courier"&12UNCLASSIFIED	

&"Courier"&12UNCLASSIFIED	

# Quick View

# tempdata

# Rating Scale

# Glossary

# Autocomplete Values

&"Courier"&12	

&"Courier"&12	

# Keyboard Alternatives

&"Courier"&12	

&"Courier"&12	

# Recommended Test Tools

# Criteria Crosswalk
RECONSIDERATION DOCKET

98-1446.

#### Victoria Plaza Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 96-B-641. Reported at 86 Ohio St.3d 181, 712 N.E.2d 751. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Douglas, Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 186 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 186

   To improve transparency and efficiency with respect to audits and 
   communications between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 16, 2015

  Mrs. Fischer (for herself, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Inhofe) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To improve transparency and efficiency with respect to audits and 
   communications between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service.

    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 ``Taxpayer Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. DEADLINE FOR RESPONSES TO TAXPAYER CORRESPONDENCE.

    Not later than 30 days after receiving any written correspondence 
from a taxpayer, the Internal Revenue Service shall provide a 
substantive written response. For purposes of the preceding sentence, 
an acknowledgment letter shall not be treated as a substantive 
response.

SEC. 3. TAXPAYER NOTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURES BY IRS OF TAXPAYER 
              INFORMATION.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after disclosing any 
taxpayer information to any agency or instrumentality of Federal, 
State, or local government, the Internal Revenue Service shall provide 
a written notification to the taxpayer describing--
            (1) the information disclosed,
            (2) to whom it was disclosed, and
            (3) the date of disclosure.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the Secretary of 
the Treasury, or the Secretary's designee, determines that such 
notification would be detrimental to an ongoing criminal investigation 
or pose a risk to national security.

SEC. 4. DEADLINE FOR CONCLUSION OF AUDITS OF INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS.

    Any audit of a tax return of an individual by the Internal Revenue 
Service shall be concluded not later than 1 year after the date of the 
initiation of such audit and the Internal Revenue Service shall not 
assess any tax with respect to which such audit relates after the 
conclusion of such audit.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,578
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,121
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,642
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,304
<PP&E>                                          12,987
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,807
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,304
<BONDS>                                          4,566
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           210
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,721
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,206
<SALES>                                         24,522
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,522
<CGS>                                           18,982
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,019
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    10
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 165
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,346
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,206
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,140
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,140
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
        

</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00463

- CV

LATRICIA SMITH AND A LL OTHER
OCCUPANTS OF 4024 SO UTHERN CHARM COURT, ARLINGT ON, TX

76016 APPELLANT

V.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A

. APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

On January 22 , 2014, we notified appellant that the trial court clerk

responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court that

payment arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s record as

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2). See Tex. R. App. P.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

35.3(a)(2). We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

unless appellant, within ten days, made arran gements to pay for the clerk’s

record and provided this court with proof of payment.

Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s

record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want

of prosecution. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

37.3(b), 42.3(b).

Appellant shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DELIVERED: March 6, 2014
re EPU111ID : A58"'*11 ~ ( fiV.,.c------.....,,,,. Si:iiiiJ: i 'WI' ~:y Authority of the 

Crlmmand.b:i11 General 

ARMY SERVICE FORCES ln2!lala Delta 

ifuJJIA.. __ .n;_r.).'ls i.=i 

SIGNAL SECURITY AGENCY 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

SPSIR-l 13 August 1945 

SUBJECT: Suggested Photographs, Information and Liaison Branch 

TO: _Assi~tant Director ot Carmunications Research 

The f'ollowing photographic shots of' various sections ot Intormation and Liaison Branch are suggested: 

1. Wing .5--to be taken from the front ot 1500-B, to show parts 

of Information and Bulietin Sections at work. 

2. Documents Subsection-Room 105.3-B 

,3. Library--Roan 1064-B 

4. Topical Index--Room. 1052-B 

5. Editorial. Room--...'loom 1509-B 

6. Typing Unit--Rear of 15oo-B 

7. Ditto Room--Rear ot 1500-B 

8. Teletype Roan--Room 1046-B 

9. Current Situation Room--2300-B 

lO. Order ot Battle--2.300-B 

.. 

ll. Shipping Subsection--2300-B 

12. Chief, Information and Liaison Branch-Room 1052-B 

·~/&~ Captain, Signal Corps 

Acting Chier, Information & Liaison Branch 

Declassified and approved for release 

by NSA on 07-25-2013 pursuant to E.O. 

13526 SE81H _____ _ I
# CE2004084EN.01090901.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/909 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/909

---

(2004/C 84 E/1004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0906/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   The Threshold for British teachers in the European Schools

Subject:

Further to my questions E-2583/03 (1) and E-3295/03 (2) and the Commission's answers, what legal advice has the Commission received on the compatibility of the UK's contract with Art 12.4(a) of the European Schools' Convention?

1

2

In Case C-6/89, Commission v Belgium (1990), ECR 1-1595, the Commission acted against the Belgian Government for flouting Article 12 of the European Schools Statute. Will the Commission consider similar proceedings against the Government of the UK for failure to grant eligibility for the Threshold?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is carefully examining the issue of accessibility of the United Kingdom Threshold assessment system to British teachers employed by the United Kingdom Government with United Kingdom contracts but detached to the European schools. Consideration of legal issues in particular is on-going.

---

(1)  OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 180.

1

(2)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 252.

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1999             MAR-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1998             MAR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1998             DEC-27-1998
<CASH>                                           5,553                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,322                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        50                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,029                       0
<PP&E>                                           2,669                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,758                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,000                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,387                       0
<BONDS>                                            464                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           836                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,313                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,000                       0
<SALES>                                            961                   2,389
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,401                   3,735
<CGS>                                              682                   1,979
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      682                   1,979
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,271                   7,169
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  17                      48
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,489)                 (5,121)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,489)                 (5,121)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     185                     185
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,304)                 (4,936)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.39)                  (1.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.39)                  (1.48)
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004084EN.01018501.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/185 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/185

---

(2004/C 84 E/0225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0257/04

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Open call for proposals VP/2002/6 for the programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005)

Subject:

In order to determine how section 4 of the above call for proposals is to be interpreted and the implications for participation by women's organisations, will the Commission provide a list of the promoters who have submitted proposals and a list of promoters whose proposals were successful under the 2003 call for proposals?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

(4 March 2004)

The list of projects received under the open call for proposals VP/2002/6 and the list of projects selected for subsidy are being sent to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament Secretariat. The list of selected projects will be published as soon as possible on the Internet site of the Community Institutions in accordance with Article 169(1) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1).

1

This list has been drawn up on the basis of the exclusion, selection and award criteria laid down in the text of the call for proposals.

---

(1)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

1

---
REF ID:A67117 

Honorn.ble BDbart T. StAmms 

Secl'otar'.r or the >.zrq 

Deal' 1.fr., S~lS a 

611ayl9S3 

I c advised t."iot. l!f¥' &pQC1al adeta:1t1 Hr. \i'il11m r. Fr.iodr.lllnt 

prooont'.Qr a Lioutonant Col.onol in the r.onoror-.1 ~o or the Al'r.JY, 

baa applied to the Amy Boal'd on COl"l"eCt4.on of MU1tar,y Records to 

cattoct what I consider to ba an injuaticn done b.bi in April of 191&1, 

vhen ha '1118 relieved trm. active dutq a."Yt his ltescrve ccrdsa1on ws 

t.r.:11.nated because of vhat was then referred to 118 an anx1&t7 rocct!on 

b.lt vtd.ch was ot tc:lporary nature. i'h1e act.ion vu tatmn witbtut 

Nterenoo to an ~ Retiree.ant Board, as was then provided 'b;r re;ulatl.onu. 

Col.onal Friedian has for over )3 J'iar& held a very highly clusitied position 1n aovwmr.iont ae..-vice, either in a nd.lit.ar,r ar civ.U 

status. Arter h1a lfesoJ;'Ve caimd.sa1on V88 terminated be Hr'lod ld.th 

great holur duri.na the enttr~ per!oil of the war, thou:h 1n a civ.Uiftfl 

capacity. Tho ~'"lDe of his 8CCo:Jpljshrn.~nta :S.n h1a .t'iel.d ot wrk 

!a attested to \v' two citations end medalee in 1944 he l"ICOived the 

Wiii' De:p&l'tmo~ ts ~t civ.U awud, the Madel tor E:zooptional. Civilian 

\ha u. s. 

Serdae, 

Qovern.10nt• 

ml. 

o 

in 

highest 

l9b6 he•• 

mraN. 

1t10Z\"; 

ror aivilian 

the first 

aer'Vioo, 

to 'b~ 

tbe 

~ 

Hldal ~at' Merit, bcetowod by tho Pra.d.dent.. 

Be ie eeeld.nl to havo hie Roserro CO!!tmiasion re1.natatcd u at 

tho date or ita term.nation am to lave it rcrdl'i e!tectivo until tho 

latost date pol:'t!d.Qibla urder peri4.nent ,-w.ationa atr1 atat-Jtes. 

Tb181 ot oourse., wuld mm h1ll e1:1~l af'tor be lcairas the 

Ooverr.a:JOm M?'V'ice as a o1v.U.1an, to r(:Oe.1.VO H.OUorve re~ent ptq'., 

.As :S.t. 1•1 he lacks about tw and ono--helt 'l!IOntba of attain:ing the 

2D ~ ~ fo:t" Roatrro ~nt,. under Title III, Public 

Law 810 - eoth c~. 'l'ha action 'tfldOh ha •oeka to havo ~take, 

throu.!:h the ArrJ;f' BaP.i"d on Cort'OCtiO!l of Mllitaey Jl.ecorda1 1a solel;r 

rae tho pu.rpoao ot oorract:ln.1 this sarlouo injuat.ice. Ha is certain\r ~ ot ••er.r oon:dtlemtion which can bo shown b:hn. I 

Sin:erelY,. 

Is/ fiofj) j · &.~ 

RALPH J. CANINE 

Lieutenant Generol, us Arrrr 

D1Not.or 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 06-20-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

--
)." 

.. 

·~ .:.~ -..,!="_ 

REF ID:A226299B 

e 

My dear Billie, 

69 • Dearfield Drive 

Greenwich Conn 

Aup;ust 2, 1943. 

First of all I want to thank you and Elizabeth for the very 

pleasant evening 1n your home, durinp; ny last visit to 

Washington. I enjoyed myself very much, I was only sorry 

that Elizabeth was so tired - I should really have ~ept out 

of your way that day. 

I have now ~one th~ou~h most of the motions required for the 

projected voyap;e to Sweden - but if or when the trip can 

take place ls as yet undecided. We shall however make all 

~rrrangementa, and trust for the best. 

Now there is a small matter, which I would be very glad if 

you could look into. You may remember, that when the first 

order for the converters was placed, a Swed!shh prototype 

was supplied to the Laboratory in Fort Monmouth by y)ur 

office, 1t being provided in the inatructionstto the Laboratory that this prototype was to be returned after completion of the contract in question. This machine was given you 

as a loan, and if it is only possible, I would very much 

like to have it returned. I wrote about this matter to Mr 

Warren Buchwalter in Ft Monmouth on July 13, but the letter 

was returned to me with the notation "deceased". 

I do hope that all is well with you and your girls. Give them 

our love and best regards. Margareta will be happ-'y to come 

to visit' you later on - just now we have no regular help in 

the house, so Margareta has to help ABnie, who has as yet 

not regained completely her strenght. 

Sincerely 

l!\pwoved for Release by NSA on 07-30-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352e 
REF ID:A226299B 

I 

r 

(. 

I 

! 

!~ . 

~(_,,__ }-L -

t lk_c- . '-D n :-1 "-- .iL1 ~. "----\_ . J " '- ~) -

. f f'-( >AJY{e,,_:l -

---) 

d-1Jvv~ ~ r... , • --r4tr ----·-) • · ~ 

-

-

. 

. . -
#### Manthey, Respondent, vs. School District No. 6 of the Town of Commonwealth, Appellant.

March 3

March *20, 1900.*

*Schools: Contracts: Action by board.*

Under sec. 432, Stats. 1898 (providing that no act authorized to be done by the school board shall be valid unless voted at its meeting), a contract which was never authorized by any vote or at any meet- .. ing is void, although signed by all the members of the board.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Florence county: JohN GoodlaND, Circuit Judge.

*Reversed.*

*341Eor the appellant there was a brief by *Mm Sells,*attorney, and *A. W. Shelton,*of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Shelton.*

For the respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of *John O'Hara.*

WiNslow, J.

The plaintiff is a qualified school teacher, and brought this action to recover damages for the breach of a written contract alleged to have been made by her with defendant’s school board to teach the district school for nine months, commencing September 13, 1897. There was no dispute in the material facts. The contract was in due form, and was signed by the director, treasurer, and clerk of the defendant district, and by the plaintiff, but was never authorized by any vote or at any meeting of the district board. The plaintiff taught six months, and was paid therefor by orders in the usual way, but was then discharged by the board. A verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of damages shown on account of the refusal to allow her to teach for the remaining three months was directed, and judgment rendered on the verdict.

It is clear that the verdict was wrongly directed. The case is identical in its essential facts with the case of *McNolty v. School Directors,*102 Wis. 261, and is ruled thereby. The board could only make the contract in the manner provided by sec. 432, Stats. 1898. That section provides that “ no act authorized to be done by the board shall be valid unless voted at its meeting.” The alleged contract in this case was therefore void, and no rights can be based upon it.

*By the*Court.— Judgment reversed, and action remanded for a new trial.
* 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. 97-10248

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MAHMMOUD SABRI ARNAOUT, also known as Pete Arnaout,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:94-CR-98-A)

April 17, 1998

Before JOHNSON, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mahmmoud Sabri Arnaout, also known as Pete Arnaout, appeals

his conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He argues that

the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

Because Arnaout renewed his motion for directed verdict at the

close of all the evidence, we review the sufficiency of the

evidence to determine whether “a rational trier of fact could have

found that the evidence established the essential elements of the

offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Lopez, 74
2

F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir. 1996). After a careful review of the

record and the controlling authorities, we hold that sufficient

evidence exists to support the conviction.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));      and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of, and for, the periods presented in the  Report. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May      11, 2009 |   By:  |  /s/      William W. Priest   |
|------------------------------|-----------------------|------------------------------------|
|                         |                  | William      W. Priest             |
|                         |                  | Chief      Executive Officer       |
|                         |                  | (Principal      Executive Officer) |

| Date:      May 11, 2009 |   By: |  /s/      Adam Borak                        |
|-------------------------|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                    |            | Adam      Borak                                  |
|                    |            | Chief      Financial Officer                     |
|                    |            | (Principal      Financial and AccountingOfficer) |

----