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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1286

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income

certain amounts received as scholarships by an individual under the

National Health Corps Scholarship Program.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 9, 1997

Mr. JEFFORDS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude

from gross income certain amounts received as scholarships by an individual under the National Health Corps

Scholarship Program.

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 ‘‘National Health Serv5 ice Corps Scholarship Program Incentive Act’’.
2

•S 1286 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS RECEIVED

2 UNDER THE NATIONAL HEALTH CORPS

3 SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 117 of

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to the exclu6 sion from gross income amounts received as a qualified

7 scholarship) is amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘Subsections (a)’’ and inserting

9 the following:

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),

11 subsections (a)’’; and

12 (2) by adding at the end the following:

13 ‘‘(2) NATIONAL HEALTH CORPS SCHOLARSHIP

14 PROGRAM.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any

15 amount received by an individual under the National

16 Health Corps Scholarship Program under section

17 338A(g)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act.’’

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

19 subsection (a) shall apply to amounts received in taxable

20 years beginning after December 31, 1993.

Æ
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

 

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the foregoing Report on Form 10-K pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law.

 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78) and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broadway Financial Corporation as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019.

 

 
| Date:   May 19, 2020 |   | By:    | /s/   Brenda J. Battey           |
|---------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------|
|                      |   |   | Brenda   J. Battey               |
|                      |   |   | Chief   Financial Officer        |
|                      |   |   | Broadway   Financial Corporation |

 

----
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Wheat Health, Genetics, and Quality Research: Pullman, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Pullman, Washington WHGQ People & Locations







Karol  Marlowe
                        Wheat Health, Genetics, and Quality Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (509) 335-5740
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JAVIER EGUADE

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. '

'

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 5

- 00 2 68

- CR

Appeal from the

4 0 9 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20110D03949 )

O R D E R

The Court, on its own motion, vacates the September 29 , 201 6 submission and oral

argument setting. The case will be rescheduled at a later date.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 th day of September, 201 6

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., R odriguez and Hughes , JJ.
#### Dea Orellana, as Administratrix of the Estate of Lena Aguayo, Deceased, Respondent, v Joseph (First Name Fictitious) Malek, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

— In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, defendant Malek appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Morton, J.), dated January 28, 1985, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to substitute the deceased plaintiffs estate as the proper party plaintiff within a reasonable time, and which ordered substitution of the administratrix of the decedent’s estate.

Order affirmed, with costs.

It was not an abuse of discretion for Special Term to order substitution. Appellant’s motion to dismiss was made within a year of the plaintiffs death and within six months of the appointment of an administratrix *(see, Rosenfeld v Hotel Corp.,*20 NY2d 25, 29). Furthermore, in the absence of a showing of prejudice to appellant, or placement upon the Trial Calendar, dismissal for failure to substitute in an action which had been pending for only about a year at the time the motion to dismiss was made was not warranted *(see, Almo Serv. v Weisskopf,*58 AD2d 550; *cf. Meier v Schively,*10 AD2d 566; *Ruderman v Feffer,*10 AD2d 704; *Hemphill v Rock,*87 AD2d 836). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1CERTIFICATIONI, Jeffrey I. Dreben, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of CVF Technologies Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis 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 thisreport; 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 causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fiscal fourthquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. 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 theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: November 14, 2007       /s/ Jeffrey I. Dreben Jeffrey I. Dreben,    Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         502,846
<SECURITIES>                                     2,364
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,133
<INVENTORY>                                     73,399
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,599,182
<PP&E>                                       4,867,896
<DEPRECIATION>                                 859,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,023,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,203,474
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,933
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,985,232
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,023,551
<SALES>                                        171,551
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,143,645
<CGS>                                          155,636
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  155,636
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,547,396
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                (1,354)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,377
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 85,149
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             85,149
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    85,149
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
#### Smith *v.*Wilkinson.

July 20, 1915.

. Exceptions to auditor’s report. Before Judge Park. Wilkes superior court. August fi, 1914,

*W. A.*Slaton, for plaintiff.

*J. M. Pitner*and *Colley &*Colley, for defendant.

Lumpkin, J.

1. An equitable suit for an accounting and specific performanee was referred to an auditor. To the report of the auditor exceptions of law and fact were filed. The first and second grounds of exception, both of law and of fact, were “because the auditor does not include in his report of the evidence” certain documentary evidence and testimony introduced on the hearing before him; and the third exception of law was: “Plaintiff excepts, as an exception of law, to the auditor’s report, because the auditor does not separately report as such his findings of facts and his findings of law, so that the parties may properly except to said report.” *Held,*that such matters did not furnish proper grounds of exceptions to the auditor’s report, but should have been made the basis for a motion to reebmmit the case to the auditor. Civil Code (1910), § 5139; *Southern Pine Co.*v. *Dickey,*136 *Ga.*662 (71 S. E. 1110).

2. “The neglect of a party excepting to an auditor’s report on matters of fact, or on matters of law dependent for their decision upon the evidence, to set forth, in connection with each exception of law or of fact, the evidence necessary to be considered in passing thereon, or to point out the same by appropriate reference, or to attach as exhibits to his exceptions those portions of the evidence relied on to support the exceptions, is a sufficient, reason, in an equity case, for refusing to approve the exceptions of fact and for overruling the exceptions of law. *Orr*v. *Cooledge,*125 *Ga.*496 (54 S. E. 618).” *Winkles*v. *Simpson Grocery Co., 132 Ga. 32*(63 S. E. 627) ; *McCord*v. *City of Jackson, 135 Ga.*176 (4), 177 (69 S. E. 23).

in)) Certain other exceptions to the auditor’s report depend for their determination upon the evidence. At the close of the exceptions of fact iffcsre was the following statement: “Plaintiff hereto attaches a brief ®f ail the testimony material to his exceptions, which brief is referred to as part of each exception as if the testimony was included in the ex-cepl&m.” The brief covered seven typewritten pages, containing evidence ef a number of witnesses on different matters, and also documentary evidence. *Held,*that, under the ruling quoted in the second headnote, the trial judge did not err in refusing to approve such exceptions of fact or in overruling such exceptions of law.

(6) No exception which is sufficiently made in this case requires a reversal.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 30, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00302

- CR

Arturo Neri PRADO

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 4217

Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Response is hereby GRANTED.

T he Appellant ’ s response is due June 17, 2014.

_________________________________ Patric ia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 30th day of May, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1



           STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE (1)
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                  YEARS ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                                        =======================================
                                                                           1997            1996          1995
                                                                        ----------     ----------    ----------
     <S>                                                                <C>            <C>           <C>       

     Net income......................................................   $    5,826     $    2,878    $      374
                                                                        ==========     ==========    ==========

     Weighted average shares outstanding:
     Common stock....................................................       10,997          5,933         2,190
     Common stock issuable upon exercise of stock options............          732            505           762
     Convertible Preferred Stock (2).................................           --          3,506         5,837
     Common stock issuable upon exercise of stock options granted....
        subsequent to March 31, 1994 through November 6, 1995 (2)....           --            536           893
     Warrants........................................................           --             22            36
                                                                        ----------     ----------    ----------
     Weighted average common shares and equivalents..................       11,729         10,502         9,718
                                                                        ----------     ----------    ----------
     Net income per share............................................   $    0.50      $     0.27    $     0.04
                                                                        =========      ==========    ==========

</TABLE>

(1)      This exhibit should be read in conjunction with Note 1 of Notes to
         Consolidated Financial Statements.

(2)      Stock options granted (using the treasury stock method and the initial
         public offering price of $17 per share) and Convertible Preferred Stock
         (using the if-converted method) have been included in the calculation
         of common and common equivalent shares as if they were outstanding for
         all periods presented through November 6, 1995, the effective date of
         the Company's initial public offering.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1273

To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand the National Mail Order

Pharmacy Program of the Department of Defense to include covered

beneficiaries under the military health care system who are also entitled

to medicare.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 8, 1997

Mr. GRAHAM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand the National Mail Order Pharmacy Program of the Department

of Defense to include covered beneficiaries under the

military health care system who are also entitled to

medicare.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1273 IS

1 SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE COVERED

2 BENEFICIARIES IN DEPARTMENT OF DE3 FENSE NATIONAL MAIL ORDER PHARMACY

4 PROGRAM.

5 Section 1086 of title 10, United States Code, is

6 amended by adding at the end the following new

7 subsection:

8 ‘‘(i) Notwithstanding subsection (d)(1), the Secretary

9 of Defense shall ensure that any program to make pre10 scription pharmaceuticals available by mail to covered

11 beneficiaries does not exclude covered beneficiaries who

12 are entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A

13 of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c

14 et seq.). Such covered beneficiaries shall be eligible to re15 ceive pharmaceuticals available under the mail order pro16 gram on the same terms and conditions as other covered

17 beneficiaries included in the program.’’.

Æ
#### Laverne Ennist et al., Appellants, v Lawrence Shepherd et al., Defendants, Central Dubois Vans, Cabs, Inc., et al., Respondents.

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Donovan, J.), dated July 24, 1984, as granted the respondents’ motion for an order of protection limiting discovery and inspection of certain financial records named in a notice for discovery and inspection dated March 21, 1984, to a period of one year prior to the accident.

Order modified, by striking the provision limiting discovery and inspection for a period of one year prior to the accident and substituting therefor a provision granting discovery and inspection for a period of two years prior to the accident. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs failed to appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated February 15, 1984, which limited their notice for discovery and inspection dated September 29, 1983 to certain financial records of the respondents for a period of one year prior to the date of the accident in which plaintiffs allegedly suffered personal injuries. Such order became the law of the case with respect to a court of coordinate jurisdiction and was properly followed by Special Term when it made the order which is the subject of our review. However, the doctrine of the law of the case does not apply in a court which is required to review the later order on appeal *(see, Adelphi Enters, v Mirpa, Inc.,*33 AD2d 1019; 10 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 70.406). The plaintiffs are engaged in an effort to pierce the respondents’ corporate veils, demonstrate that all of the corporate respondents are inseparable components of a larger corporate entity, and impose liability for the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries upon all of the *581respondents. In furtherance of that effort, the plaintiffs should be entitled to examine the relevant financial records of the respondents demanded in the notice for discovery and inspection dated March 21, 1984 for the two-year period preceding the accident. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### Dermot C. Reilly, Appellant, v William Kroeger, Individually and as a Member of the Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent. (And Two Related Actions.)

—Levine, J.

Appeal from three orders and judgments of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Hughes, J.), entered December 19, 1984 in Albany County, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaints.

In our view, Special Term correctly concluded that plaintiffs exclusive remedy with respect to the decisions made by a panel of the Workers’ Compensation Board is by way of direct appeal (Workers’ Compensation Law § 23; *Matter of Bock v Cooperman,*89 AD2d 539, *affd*59 NY2d 776).

Moreover, even if plaintiff had the right to sue members of the Board for their acts or omissions in their official capacities, the complaints herein fail to state a cause of action for any recovery by plaintiff as a third-party beneficiary of alleged contracts of employment between such Board members and the State of New York *(see, Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner,*59 NY2d 314, 336; *Moch Co. v Rensselaer Water Co.,*247 NY 160, 168).

Orders and judgments affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.