alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
3392 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 14 /Thursday, January 22, 1998 / Notices

OMB Number: 1545–1458.

Regulation Project Number: REG–

209835–86 Final (formerly INTL–933–

86).

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Computation of Foreign Taxes

Deemed Paid Under Section 902

Pursuant to a Pooling Mechanism for

Undistributed Earnings and Foreign

Taxes.

Description: These regulations

provide rules for computing foreign

taxes deemed paid under section 902.

The regulations affect foreign

corporations and their U.S. corporate

shareholders.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 1.

Frequency of Response: Annually.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 1

hour.

Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202)

622–3869, Internal Revenue Service,

Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20224.

OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt

(202) 395–7860, Office of Management

and Budget, Room 10226, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC 20503.

Lois K. Holland,

Departmental Reports, Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–1501 Filed 1–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission to OMB for Review;

Comment Request

January 14, 1998.

The Department of Treasury has

submitted the following public

information collection requirement(s) to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Copies of the

submission(s) may be obtained by

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance

Officer listed. Comments regarding this

information collection should be

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed

and to the Treasury Department

Clearance Officer, Department of the

Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

OMB Number: 1545–0145.

Form Number: IRS Form 2439.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Notice to Shareholder of

Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gains.

Description: Form 2439 is sent by

regulated investment companies and

real estate investment trusts to report

undistributed capital gains and the

amount of tax paid on these gains

designated under IRC section

852(b)(3)(D) or 857(b)(3)(D). The

company, the trust, and the shareholder

file copies of Form 2439 with IRS. IRS

uses the information to check

shareholder compliance.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Number of Respondents/

Recordkeepers: 8,363.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent/Recordkeeper:

Recordkeeping—2 hr., 52 min.

Learning about the law or the form—

35 min.

Preparing and sending the form to the

IRS—40 min.

Frequency of Response: Annually.

Estimated Total Reporting/

Recordkeeping Burden: 34,539 hours.

Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202)

622–3869, Internal Revenue Service,

Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20224.

OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt

(202) 395–7860, Office of Management

and Budget, Room 10226, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC 20503.

Lois K. Holland,

Departmental Reports, Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–1502 Filed 1–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
Task Force Spartan Maintainers Keep the Task Force Moving
 
  By Sgt. Andrew Winchell
  Soldiers of the 42nd Infantry Division working in the motor pool play a critical role in keeping the division and Task Force Spartan Shield mission capable and is responsible for more than just working on equipment.
“We have to order parts to keep all of Task Force Spartan operating,” said Sgt. Eric Monk. “Without us staying on top of things here, vehicles would go down and we wouldn’t be mission capable.
Parts and general vehicle maintenance are only part of remaining mission ready.
“It’s very important that we stay focused here and complete work orders in a timely manner,” said Staff Sgt. Edward Rucker. “Working on the equipment is just a part of what we do here.”
Another component of remaining mission ready is organization.
“Work orders are used to let the mechanics know what is ready to be worked, and in what order they should be worked,” said Monk. “It can get crazy around here with all the work we have.”
The Task Force Spartan team does not just handle equipment organic to the task force or the division or even the usual military equipment.
“We work on ARCENT stuff, there’s everyone’s vehicles here on post that we work on,” said Rucker. “It’s not only the trucks you might think of like the Humvee’s, we also work on things like the gators you see on post.”
Added equipment means increased challenges.
“With all the different equipment we work on, ordering parts can be a challenge sometimes,” said Staff Sgt. Jeffery Tajon. “We have to track all the parts and there special ID [identification] numbers to ensure we are getting and using the correct parts for the job.”
Despite all the added responsibilities and work, these professionals manage to keep all supported elements mission-capable while maintaining the sections' morale.
“Tracking all the reports we have to do and still training up other Soldiers can be overwhelming at times, but we get it done,” said Monk. “We even have soldiers here that we are helping to train from other companies, like the 302nd MP’s [military police].”
“With all the work we do helping other units, working on our equipment, training Soldiers, and keeping up on reports, the most import thing we do is take care of each other,” said Rucker. “Trying to keep morale up with Soldiers helps them to stay positive, which in turn they help to keep things running.”*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the U.S. Army Central website.*
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

                                                State or Other
Subsidiary                                  Jurisdiction of Domicile
----------                                  ------------------------
Ameritrade (Inc.)                                 Nebraska
Accutrade, Inc.                                   Nebraska
Advanced Clearing, Inc.                           Nebraska
AmeriVest, Inc.                                   California
OnMoney Financial Services Corporation            Delaware
Freetrade.com, Inc.                               New York
Ameritrade Institutional Services, Inc.           Florida
Ameritrade Canada, Inc.                           New Brunswick, Canada
Ameritrade IP Company, Inc.                       Delaware
Ameritrade Services Company, Inc.                 Delaware
Ameritrade Development Company, Inc.              Delaware
Ameritrade International Company, Inc.            Cayman Islands
Financial Passport, Inc.                          Delaware
PFN Financial, LLC                                Delaware
PFN Mortgage Services, LLC                        Delaware
PFN Mortgage Services, Inc.                       Delaware
PFN Investment Management, LLC                    Delaware
Financial Passport Insurance Agency, Inc.         Virginia
TenBagger, Inc.                                   Nevada
TradeCast Inc.                                    Delaware
TradeCast Enterprises LLC                         Texas
TradeCast Investments Ltd.                        Texas
TradeCast Services Inc.                           Texas
TradeCast Management Corp.                        Texas
TradeCast Resources Inc.                          Texas
TradeCast Ltd.                                    Texas
TradeCast Securities Ltd.                         Texas
QuoteCast Ltd.                                    Texas
TradeCast Advertising LLC                         Texas
Nebraska Hudson Company, Inc.                     New York

Each subsidiary does business under its actual name.
# DSCR employees help clean up along James River

/ Published Sept. 30, 2019
RICHMOND, Virginia, 
Defense Logistics Agency employees from and Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia participated in the James River Regional Cleanup hosted by the James River Advisory Council Sep. 14, 2019 at Falling Creek Ironworks Park in North Chesterfield County. The river clean-up, which resulted in the collecting of more than 100 bags of trash, was part of a larger initiative sponsored by the James River Advisory Council that included similar activities throughout seventeen locations around the state of Virginia.
#### Com. v. Ely

08/16/2016

173 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 145 A.3d 771
#### People v Sanderline

2d Dept: 142 AD3d 1061

denied*
# DLA Indo-Pacific employee recognized as DLA Security Professional of the Year

/ Published March 11, 2019
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii,
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1500]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

January 12, 1998.
    The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Special Request

    In order to begin the survey described below in early February 
1998, the Department of the Treasury is requesting that the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and approve this information 
collection by January 15, 1998. To obtain a copy of this study, please 
contact the Internal Revenue Service Clearance Officer at the address 
listed below.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1432.
    Project Number: M:SP:V 98-001G.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: Revenue Agent Competencies Structured Group Interviews.
    Description: The objective of these structured group interviews is 
to gather feedback from Tax Practitioners to assist IRS in developing a 
complete list of the performance competencies required of Revenue 
Agents. Because Tax Practitioners work intimately with Revenue Agents 
on audits, their input is vital in developing a complete picture of the 
competencies required. Corporate Education will conduct a series of 
four structured groups which will be held in Philadelphia, Pa., 
Jacksonville, Fl., St. Louis, Mo. and Oakland, Ca.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 32.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 3 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Other (one-time only).
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 51 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-1500 Filed 1-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
### Adjustments to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan

The adjustments to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) include updates to the South Carolina 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration for the Portion of York County, South Carolina within the Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportati on Study Metropolitan Planning Organization and Appendix O, which addresses Reasonable Further Progress (RFP). Both were originally submitted to the EPA on 

### August 31, 2007, and resubmitted November 13, 2009.

Attainment Demonstration

The nitrogen oxide (NO
x ) emissions and NO
x motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) that appear in Tables VII-1 and VII-2 on page 81 of the attainme nt demonstration narrative and in Tables F.3-4 and F.3-5, on page 11 of Appendix F.3, have been update d. The Mobile6.2 files shown beginning on page 13 of Appendix F.3 were also updated.

Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, a VOC budge t, and text updates reflecting the addition of the VOC budget have been added to the attainme nt demonstration narrative and Appendix F.3. These updates can be found on page 81 of the attainment demonstration narrative and pages 7 and 10-11 of Appendix F.3.

Appendix O: Reasonable Further Progress

Appendix O has been amended with the addition of Section V, RFP 2008 volatile organic compound (VOC) MVEB.
No. 12-8100.

#### Miller *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of MTA Bus Company, Petitioner, v New York State Division of Human Rights, Respondent.

[55 NYS3d 171]

Determination of respondent, dated August 19, 2015, which, in this employment discrimination proceeding brought pursuant to Executive Law § 298 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Geoffrey D. Wright, J.], entered April 13, 2016), after a hearing, found that petitioner’s policy of disqualifying all employees with bipolar disorder from working as a bus operator was an unlawful discriminatory act, and ordered petitioner to pay a civil fine and penalty of $30,000, unanimously annulled, and the complaint dismissed, without costs.

The record demonstrates, and respondent determined, that the complainant, a bus operator, was placed on restricted duty for reasons unrelated to his alleged disability of bipolar disorder, namely, his reckless driving record, and that petitioner was justified in terminating him based on his conduct in vandalizing three buses in passenger service. Respondent awarded the complainant no damages. However, rather than dismissing the complaint, it proceeded to conclude that “[b]ecause [petitioner] has a blanket policy disqualifying all employees with bipolar disorder from being appointed to, or remaining in, the Bus Operator position and passenger service, and because [petitioner] does not individually assess the ability of those with bipolar disorder to perform the essential functions of the job, [petitioner’s] policy violates the Human Rights Law.” In making this determination without notice to petitioner that its policies were going to be reviewed, respondent denied petitioner its right to due process. While, upon its own motion, respondent may investigate and file a complaint alleging *513discriminatory practices (Executive Law §§ 295 [6] [b]; 297 [1]), it did not do so here. It could not, while investigating the bus operator’s complaint, which was filed solely on his behalf, find that he had not been discriminated against “and, at the same time, make broad findings and impose broad sanctions pertaining to petitioner['s] over-all operations” *(Hillside Hous. Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights,*44 AD2d 539, 539 [1st Dept 1974]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.
# EXHIBIT 8.1

|Name of company                               | Rate of ownership and control %
(direct and indirect) | Country of Residence
|--------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | --------------------
|
|
|
|
|Elscint Ltd.                                  |                                                       |                     
|                                              |                                                       |                     
|Bea Hotels N.V.                               |                                                       |                     
|                                              |                                                       |                     
|Elbit Trade and Retail Ltd.                   |                                                       |                     
|                                              |                                                       |                     
|Elbit Ultrasound Netherlands B.V.             |                                                       |                     
|                                              |                                                       |                     
|Plaza Centers NV                              |                                                       |                     
|                                              |                                                       |                     
|InSightec Ltd.                                |                                                       |                     
|                                              |                                                       |                     
|Elbit Plaza India Real Estate Holding Limited |                                                       |                     

|(*) | We hold 47.5% of the shares in EPI directly, and additional 47.5% through PC.
          Additional 5% were granted to our Executive Vice Chairman.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
#### Kimberly Caro et al., Appellants, v Edward Chesnick et al., Defendants, and Ioannis Kentimenos et al., Respondents.

[63 NYS3d 665]-

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson Jr., J.), entered January 11, 2016, which granted the motion of defendants Ioannis Kentimenos and U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ decedent was riding his motorcycle on the Cross Bronx Expressway, lane-splitting and weaving in and out of lanes at a rate of speed in excess of other vehicles on the road, in stop and go traffic, when he struck the rear of a motor vehicle in the center lane. Decedent was thrown from his motorcycle to the left lane, rolled under defendants’ tractor-trailer, and was run over by the tractor-trailer’s rear wheels.

Defendants made a prima facie showing that decedent’s negligent operation of the motorcycle caused the accident *(see Chowdhury v Matos,*118 AD3d 488, 488 [1st Dept 2014]; *Dattilo v Best Transp. Inc.,*79 AD3d 432 [1st Dept 2010]). Further, although defendants acknowledge that the tractor-trailer was unlawfully in the left lane at the time of the accident *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110 [a]), there is no evidence in the record that would support a finding that the statutory violation was a proximate cause of the accident. The presence of the tractor-trailer in the left lane merely furnished the condition that led to decedent’s death, and was not a proximate cause of the accident *(see Sheehan v City of New York,*40 NY2d 496, 503 [1976]; *Roman v Cabrera,*113 AD3d 541, 542 [1st Dept 2014], *lv dismissed in part and denied in part*24 NY3d 949*448[2014]). Nor is there any nonspeculative basis for finding that defendant driver could have avoided the accident.

Plaintiffs failed to present evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether any negligence on the part of defendants was a substantial factor in causing the accident. Although plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to depose defendant driver, they failed to demonstrate the existence of any testimony by defendant driver relevant to defendant’s summary judgment motion.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Gesmer and Oing, JJ.
Greater Bay Bancorp Amendment to Restricted Stock Award Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT, made and entered into entered into the 22nd day of May, 2006, by and between Greater Bay Bancorp (the “Company”) and
«Fname» «Lname» (the “Grantee”) amends the Restricted Stock Award Agreement dated March 22, 2005, by and between the Company and the Grantee (the “Award Agreement”). This Amendment amends the
Award Agreement only in the respect set forth below. 
 Subsection (g) is added to the end of Section 6 of the Award Agreement to
read as follows: 
  

	 	(b)	Accelerated Lapse of Restrictions. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Award, the Restrictions shall lapse with respect to 100% of the Shares covered by this
Award on May 22, 2006. 

 All other terms, conditions and provisions of the Award Agreement shall remain unchanged.

 Executed on, and effective as of, the date specified above. 
  

			
	GREATER BAY BANCORP
		
	 By:
	 	  

	
	  

	[NAME OF GRANTEE]
No. 11-10630.

#### Duronio *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<PAGE>





                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints each of Christie S. Flanagan, Renee Nichols Tucei, and Eric K.
Kawamura or any of them, each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact
and agent, with full power of substitution for him and in his name, place and
stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the CALIFORNIA FEDERAL
PREFERRED CAPITAL CORPORATION (the "Corporation"), Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1998 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to sign
the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the Corporation or on behalf of the
undersigned as a director or officer of the Corporation, and any amendments to
the Form 10- K and any instrument, contract, document or other writing, of or in
connection with the Form 10- K or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with
all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including
this power of attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office
of Thrift Supervision, or other appropriate regulatory authority and any
applicable securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body, granting unto
said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, full power and authority
to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be
done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might
or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorney-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this 11 day
of March 1999.



                                         /s/ P. Richard Frieder
                                         ----------------------
                                         P. Richard Frieder
160 A.3d 709

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. SAMUEL J. LLORET, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 9, 2010 

p0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

140871 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140871 

 COA: 288017 

Wayne CC: 07-009968-FC 

RODERICK KENDALL TOLBERT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 16, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.