alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charleston National Bank *et al., Executors v.*Fred L. Fox, *State Tax Commissioner*

(No. 8271)

Submitted September 24, 1935.

Decided October 15, 1935.

*488
      *Homer A. Holt,*Attorney General, and *J. F. Bouchelle,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

*Brown, Jackson*<§ *Knight*and *Charles W. Moxley,*for appellees.

Hatcher, Judge:

This appeal involves the construction of Acts, First Extraordinary Session 1933, chapter 36, section 28.

An inheritance tax of $64,281.36 was assessed against and paid by the estate of Frank Cox, deceased. The State Tax Commissioner also sought to impose on the estate an additional tax of $30,015.07, under section 28, *supra.*Resistance of the latter by the executors of the estate was sustained in the circuit court, and the Commissioner appealed.

The portions of section 28 pertinent here, follow:

> “It is the purpose of this section to impose an estate tax and to take full advantage of the credit allowed by laws of the United States because of transfer or death taxes actually paid to this state. There is, therefore, imposed hereby a tax in addition to any inheritance tax under the laws of this state upon the net estate of every decedent, * * *.

> “The amount of the tax shall be computed by determining the full amount of the federal tax due upon a transfer in accordance with laws of congress in force at the time of the death of the decedent, and by calculating that percentage of the federal tax allowed as credit because of the payment of this tax to the state.”

It will be observed that the statutory formula for computing the additional tax provides for two steps only, to-wit, (I) the determination of the federal tax, and (2) a calculation of “that percentage of the federal tax allowed as a credit because of the payment of this tax to the state.” The first step would determine the amount of the federal tax, and nothing more. Yet the second and last step would' compute merely a percentage of the federal tax, and in order to do so would assume that *this tax*(the additional tax) had already been determined (in manner not disclosed) and paid to the state. Under this second step, the percentage would not in*489itially fix the tax, but the tax would fix the percentage. Passing that anomaly, the word *percentage*means *a rate by the hundred.*A rate is not of itself a tax and the statute does not purport to say so. And it stops short of pointing to any sum, a ratio of which would be the tax. The incompleteness of the formula renders the meaning of the statute conjectural. It is therefore inoperative. “An act of the legislature, to have the force and effect of a law, must be intelligently expressed. * * * Where the legislative intent especially as to the matter or thing to which the act is intended to relate * * * is not expressed with reasonable certainty, no effect can be given the act.” 59 C. J., subject Statutes, secs. 160, 161.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
Form of Management Equity Investment and Incentive Acknowledgement



 Exhibit 10.24 
 Management Equity Investment and Incentive Acknowledgement 
 I
understand that, in connection with my new position at Momentive Performance Materials Inc. (the “Company”), an affiliate of Apollo Management VI, LP (“Apollo”), I have been given an opportunity to purchase up to
$           worth of shares (collectively, the “Shares”) of common stock (the “Common Stock”) of the Company’s parent, Momentive Performance Materials
Holdings Inc. (the “Parent”) at a per share price (the “Purchase Price”) equal to the greater of (i) $100 per share or (ii) the fair market value as determined by the Board of Directors of the Parent (the
“Board”) under the Parent’s 2007 Long-Term Incentive Plan (such purchase opportunity is collectively referred to herein as the “Investment”) and, if I elect to make an Investment, I will be granted options (the
“Options”), which will give me the right to purchase approximately            times the number of Shares I purchase as part of my Investment and shall be subject to vesting as
determined by the Board. I understand that the exercise price of the Options shall be equal to the Purchase Price. I understand that the dollar amount of Shares I am committing to purchase is set forth below. I further understand that the purchase
and sale of the Shares shall take place no later than      days after the date I am notified of the per share purchase price of the Common Stock and the per share exercise price of the Options. 
 I acknowledge and understand that my Investment and grant of Options are subject to Board approval and my execution of a subscription agreement, an option
grant agreement and an adoption agreement substantially in the form previously delivered to me, pursuant to which I will become subject to the terms and conditions of the Parent’s securityholders agreement. I further understand and acknowledge
that, as part of the Investment and my grant of Options, I will be subject to certain noncompetition and nonsolicitation covenants included in the securityholders agreement, which will apply while I am employed by the Company and for twelve months
after termination of my employment with the Company. 
 Investment Amount:
                                     
  

			
	By:	 	 
		 	Name:
		
	Date:	 	 

  

			
	Acknowledged and Agreed:
	
	Momentive Performance Materials Holdings Inc.
		
	By:	 	 
		 	Name:
		
	Date:
Exhibit 32(b)

ENERGY FUTURE INTERMEDIATE HOLDING COMPANY LLC

Certificate Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CFO

The undersigned, Paul M. Keglevic, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 24th day of February, 2010.



/s/ PAUL M. KEGLEVICName:

Paul M. KeglevicTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC and will be retained by Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-65,354] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 24, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of American Pride, LLC, Guilford, Maine. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of March 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9-6303 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
CHARLESTON.

#### State *et al., ex rel.*Appaline Oil Company *et al. v.*O. F. Arthur, *etc., et al.*

(No. C. C. 413)

Submitted January 9, 1929.

Decided January 16, 1929.

*560
      *Robt. R. Wilson*and *Robt. T. Donley,*for plaintiffs.

*John C. Sherriff*and *E. M. Everly,*for defendants.

Hatcher, Judge:.

O. F. Arthur contracted with the State of West Virginia and the comity court of Monongalia county, severally, to construct certain sections of a state road. The Fidelity & Casualty Company was surety on the bonds executed to the state and the county court, respectively, to secure the faithful performance of the contracts and the payment for materials furnished and labor performed in and about the construction of the road. The Appaline Oil Company, the Cluss Lumber Company, the Loving Furniture Company, Lewis Lemley and Daniel W. Arthur furnished supplies and labor, respectively, to Arthur in and about the construction of the road, for which they have not been paid. This is a suit in equity to enforce the payment of their claims. The lower court sustained a demurrer to the bill and then certified the case here for our decision on the sufficiency of that pleading.

A comprehensive statement of the matters contained in the bill is not necessary, as the suit is not properly brought. The claimants should have sued in equity in their own names. See *State ex rel.*v. *Royal Indemnity,*99 W. Va. 277, 289, and cases there cited. Instead, this suit is brought in the names of the state and county, respectively, for the use of the claimants. That procedure is not allowed in this jurisdiction. An early decision of this Court bluntly declares: “There is no such thing in equity as bringing a suit in the name of one party for the use of another. Equity deals with the real parties in interest.” *Kellam*v. *Sayer,*30 W. Va. 198, 199. Later decisions have strictly adhered to that ruling. *Bank*v. *Cook,*53 W. Va. 220; *State*v. *Flanagan,*77 W. Va. 505; *County Court*v. *Cottle,*81 W. Va. 469; *Parsons*v. *Parsons,*94 W. Va. 584. Claimants contend that sections 2 and 3, Chapter 10, Code, authorize their suit. This same argument was advanced in *State*v. *Flanagan, supra,*but the court there said: ‘' This statute was not intended to change and does not change the rule of equity practice. It was designed to au*561thorize actions at law to be brought upon the bond, in the name of the state, by any one injured by a breach of its conditions. * * * But if for any reason he is entitled to bring his suit on the bond in equity and does so, he must complain in his own name and on his own behalf.” Sections 12 and 13 of Chapter 75 are also relied upon by claimants. We find nothing in those sections altering 'the above equity rule. It is true that the practice pursued by claimants was followed in the case of *State ex rel.*v. *Coda,*103 W. Va. 676. But no objection was raised in that case to the manner of bringing the suit, and its violation of equity procedure was not brought to our attention. Our inadvertence in that case must not be taken as approval of that practice.

The ruling of the circuit court is accordingly affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
Exhibit 10.3
 
 Labor Contract
 
 Party A:Sichuan Xintai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd
 Legal Representative:Xiaodong Zhu
 Company Address:Room 10,9 Floor, Building 5, 9 Gaoshengqiao Road (Dayi Louver Plaza), Wuhou District, Chengdu City, Sichuan Prov, 610041, P.R.China
 
 Party B:Di Wu
 Sex:Male
 Birth of Date:5/31/1967
 ID No.:320502196705310511
 Education:Postdoc
 Physical Address:Room 401,Building 52 Xinsheng Xinyuan Huli District, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province
 Post code:215000
 
 In accordance with relevant provisions of the “The People’s Republic of China Labor Law,” “The People’s Republic of China Labor Contract Law,” both Party A and Party B have reached an agreement through friendly consultation to conclude this contract.
 
 1. Term of the Labor Contract
 
 The labor contract is a fixed term labor contract, which is effective from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2011.
 
 2. Content of Work
 
 Party B agrees to serve as Vice President and Chief Development Officer in accordance with the working requirements of Party A.
 
 3. Labor Remuneration
 
 The amount of basic salary of Party B is RMB 20,000.  The month salary of Party B is income before tax. The amount of personal income tax is paid as prescribed by the State and monthly withheld by the company.




Party A


Party BLegal Representative (Signature)


(Signature)/s/ Xiaodong Zhu


/s/ Di WuDate :


Date :
OFFICE OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

Thiswfll a0

### Haa*YorXunsohlk, Q~sml~or, mgo I!

F6J-l uoaoe T&U. artlol8r, 8, upcwa6a, Mod, La part, 8e 141lal41 

### “Art, 61694 X0 fomlo shall b6 8aploysd ln any laundry r0r isorb

than fifty-four

hour8 in ana aalonder week8 tha houm ot au&i enployment to bo lo Wrangedal to per&&the anploymaat of suoh roml* '0:rrnf

tlrps a0 that sb* ohalL n& work mr6Wmnammxlmum of ele?en hour@ &win& the

"Art. lab34 a rOi&hh6h6u b4 OJfiPw6al **a+4 *%4 In aay lawdry or ol68aing and proubg ~~abliahmant ior IIIWOtbaa flf'ty-four (54) **hours irr-oar**  **(1)** MlonQr **woks %~LO**  **bourn of**  work to be w ~-4 a8 to psnnib t&e UnproymfmtarmmhiomUatanytirmnothddM &allworknare thanaamxlaum hourralaring

t&o~twalty-anlr Qr al4 (1) day*
a **ecu

### 332

FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
#### In the Matter of Edwin Flores, Petitioner, v New York State and Local Retirement Systems et al., Respondents.

[718 NYS2d 900]

Peters, J. P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits.

In May 1997, petitioner filed a claim for performance of duty disability retirement benefits alleging that he was disabled from performing the duties of a correction officer as the result of posttraumatic stress disorder arising out of an incident which occurred in 1994 when he was assigned to the warrant squad. Respondent Comptroller ultimately denied the application and petitioner commenced this proceeding to review the determination.

In contrast to the testimony of petitioner’s expert that petitioner was disabled by posttraumatic stress disorder, the expert for respondent New York State and Local Retirement Systems testified that while petitioner had an anxiety disorder, he did not suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder and was not disabled from performing the duties of a correction officer.

Although the Retirement Systems’ expert also testified that *836petitioner was disabled from performing the undercover investigative work of the warrant squad, he provided a rational explanation for the alleged inconsistency based upon the differences between the work of the warrant squad and that of a correction officer. In concluding that any posttraumatic stress disorder petitioner suffered as a result of the 1994 incident was in remission, the Retirement Systems’ expert relied in part on the November 1995 letter of petitioner’s treating psychiatrist which stated that petitioner had recovered from his symptoms and could return to work. Petitioner’s testimony that the November 1995 letter was written at his demand and did not express the psychiatrist’s true opinion of petitioner’s condition presented a question of credibility for the Comptroller to resolve *(see generally, Matter of Di Guida v McCall,*244 AD2d 756). Notably, this psychiatrist did not testify.

Despite petitioner’s criticisms, the opinion of the Retirement Systems’ expert is not so lacking in foundation or rationality as to preclude the Comptroller from exercising the authority to evaluate conflicting medical opinions *(see, Matter of Harper v McCall,*277 AD2d 589). We reject petitioner’s claim that the Comptroller was bound by the findings of the Workers’ Compensation Board on the issues of disability and causal relationship *(see, Matter of Knight v New York State & Local Retirement*Sys., 266 AD2d 774, 776; *but see, Matter of Balcerak v County of Nassau,*94 NY2d 253).

Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2

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

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form
10-Q Quarterly Report of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy Capital Corp. (collectively, the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                       |  |     |  |                                                                                                                  
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 14, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Stephanie D. Lepori                                                                                          
|                       |  |     |  | Stephanie D. Lepori, Chief Financial Officer of
Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy Capital Corp.
----

Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-426/03, C-427/03, C-428/03 and C-429/03 (1)

(2005/C 115/34)

(Language of the case: Italian)

By order of 15 December 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases C-426/03, C-427/03, C-428/03 and C-429/03: (references for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Massa Carrara): GE.M.E.G. Srl v Comune di Carrara CERIT SpA.(C-426/03), OMYA Spa v Comune di Carrara (C-427/03), Roberto Lorenzoni v Comune di Carrara Bipielle Riscossioni SpA (C-428/03) and DUEGI TRASPORTI Srl v Comune di Carrara (C-429/03).

----

(1)OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2203

EDWARD R. ROUSE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

TOGO D. WEST, JR., Acting Secretary of

Veterans Affairs,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-98-425-3)

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward R. Rouse, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward R. Rouse appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action. The district court

dismissed Rouse’s complaint without prejudice for failure to show

that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. Because a dismissal without prejudice is not generally appealable, we dismiss

the appeal. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union

392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000185

06-DEC-2019

08:00 AM
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I,
James A. Krantz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd., hereby certify to the best of my
knowledge and belief that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Platinum Underwriters Holdings,
Ltd.
 
 
 Date: April
      30, 2009
              /s/  James
      A. KrantzBy:
      James A. KrantzExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

subject: Notice of Communication in Docket: 

DOT -OST-20 1 0-0018 

From: The Secretary 

To: Renee Wright, Pro ram Manager 

Docket Management 

Memorandum 

Date: 

Reply to 

Attn. of: 

OCT 19 2011 

r--._.~ 

0::.:::..) 

,......_ 

In accordance with Department rules ( 14 CFR Part 300), I am reporting the followmg 

communication. 

On October 5, 2012, during a call with Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the Senator 

expressed her support for the application of Delta Air Lines to operate between Seattle and 

Tokyo's Haneda International Airport. 

I informed the Senator that, while I appreciated her interest in this case, I could not comment on 

its merits because the proceeding was under active consideration by the Department. 

Please place this memorandum in the appropriate file and in the Docket. 

CC: Senator Patty Murray
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification ofCEO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

*Icertify that this periodic report containing the issuer’s financial statementsfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that informationcontained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.*

 
| * * | * * | *By: /s/ Keith C. Robbins*           | * *            |
|----------|----------|--------------------------------------|---------------------|
| * * | * * | * *                             |
| * * | * * | *President, Chief Executive Officer* |
| * * | * * | * *                             |
| * * |     | *Date:*                              | *November 10, 2004* |   |
|          |          |                                      |                     |  |  |

 

----
Exhibit
      32.1








**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








I,
      Michael D. Price, President and Chief Executive Officer of Platinum Underwriters
      Holdings, Ltd., hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that
      this
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
      78o(d)) and that the information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form
      10-Q
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd.








Date:
                July 26, 2007
            /s/  MICHAEL
                D. PRICEBy:
                Michael D. PricePresident
                and Chief Executive Officer