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

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1673

To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 25, 1998

Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr.

INHOFE, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CRAIG, Mr.

GREGG, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. COATS, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MACK, Mr.

SANTORUM, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. MURKOWSKI,

Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. BURNS, and Mr. FAIRCLOTH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

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 ‘‘Tax Code Termination

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF

7 1986.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—No tax shall be imposed by the

9 Internal Revenue Code of 1986—
2

•S 1673 IS

1 (1) for any taxable year beginning after Decem2 ber 31, 2001, and

3 (2) in the case of any tax not imposed on the

4 basis of a taxable year, on any taxable event or for

5 any period after December 31, 2001.

6 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to

7 taxes imposed by—

8 (1) chapter 2 of such Code (relating to tax on

9 self-employment income),

10 (2) chapter 21 of such Code (relating to Fed11 eral Insurance Contributions Act), and

12 (3) chapter 22 of such Code (relating to Rail13 road Retirement Tax Act).

14 SEC. 3. NEW FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM.

15 (a) STRUCTURE.—The Congress hereby declares that

16 any new Federal tax system should be a simple and fair

17 system that—

18 (1) applies a low rate to all Americans,

19 (2) provides tax relief for working Americans,

20 (3) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces

21 tax collection abuses,

22 (4) eliminates the bias against savings and

23 investment,

24 (5) promotes economic growth and job creation,

25 and
3

•S 1673 IS

1 (6) does not penalize marriage or families.

2 (b) TIMING OF IMPLEMENTATION.—In order to en3 sure an easy transition and effective implementation, the

4 Congress hereby declares that any new Federal tax system

5 should be approved by Congress in its final form not later

6 than July 4, 2001.

Æ
Opinion issued December 4, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00703-CV

———————————

WALTER VARELA, Appellant

V.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1110896

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Walter Varela, has failed to timely file his appellant’s brief. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a)(1), (d), 38.8(a)(1). On November 6, 2018, the Clerk of this 

Court notified appellant that his deadline to file his appellant’s brief had expired and 

that his appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution if he failed to timely 
2

file his appellant’s brief or an extension within 10 days of the date of that notice. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Appellant failed to timely file a 

brief or request an extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to 

timely file an appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Lloyd, and Caughey.
<PAGE>

23.1    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





<PAGE>



               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

SeraCare, Inc.
Los Angeles, California

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 No 333-74663 and No. 333-57943 of SeraCare, Inc. of our report dated
May 18, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of SeraCare, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of February 28, 1999 and the related consolidated statements of
income, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for the year then ended,
which report appears in the February 28, 1999 annual report on Form 10-KSB of
SeraCare, Inc. and Subsidiaries.



                                      BDO Seidman, LLP


Los Angeles, California
May 18,1999




                                       53
<PAGE>   1




                                   EXHIBIT 11
<TABLE>


               STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS

<CAPTION>

                                                Three Months      Three Months
                                                    Ended            Ended
                                               March 31, 1997    March 31, 1996
                                               --------------    --------------

<S>                                                 <C>           <C>         
Net loss-Limited Partners                           $ (0)         $(3,380,792)
                                                    ====          ===========

Average Class A and B units outstanding              921                  921
                                                    ====          ===========

Net loss per Class A and B unit                     $  0          $    (3,671)
                                                    ====          ===========
</TABLE>
#### Kathleen Wolstencroft, Respondent, v Doris Sassower, Appellant.

The plaintiff’s complaint states a valid cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice in that it alleges that the defendant neglected to defend a British action *(see, Siegel v Kranis,*29 AD2d 477, 479) which was the proximate cause of the additional expense of litigating in Great Britain as well as in New York. Furthermore, the claim is viable despite the plaintiff’s settlement of the underlying matrimonial action because it is alleged that the settlement of that action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of the defendant, the plaintiff’s former counsel *(see, Cohen v Lipsig,*92 AD2d 536).

The plaintiff’s failure to join subsequent counsel is not fatal *583to her action *(cf.*CPLR 3211 [a] [10]) because joint tort-feasors are not necessary parties *(see, Hecht v City of New York,*60 NY2d 57, 62; *Siskind v Levy,*13 AD2d 538, 539; CPLR 1001 [a]).

Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint *(see, Fahey v County of Ontario,*44 NY2d 934, 935). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21.1     SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT Wilsons The Leather Experts Inc. (Minnesota corporation)Wilsons Center, Inc. (Minnesota corporation)Rosedale Wilsons, Inc. (Minnesota corporation)River Hills Wilsons, Inc. (Minnesota corporation)Wilsons Leather Direct Inc. (Delaware corporation)Wilsons Leather of Alabama Inc. (Alabama corporation)Wilsons Leather of Arkansas Inc. (Arkansas corporation)Wilsons Leather of Connecticut Inc. (Connecticut corporation)Wilsons Leather of Delaware Inc. (Delaware corporation)Wilsons Leather of Airports Inc. (Delaware corporation)Chicago O’Hare Leather Concessions Joint VentureWilsons Leather of Florida Inc. (Florida corporation)Wilsons Leather of Georgia Inc. (Georgia corporation)Wilsons Leather of Indiana Inc. (Indiana corporation)Wilsons Leather of Iowa Inc. (Iowa corporation)Wilsons Leather of Louisiana Inc. (Louisiana corporation)Wilsons Leather of Maryland Inc. (Maryland corporation)Wilsons Leather of Massachusetts Inc. (Massachusetts corporation)Wilsons Leather of Michigan Inc. (Michigan corporation)Wilsons Leather of Mississippi Inc. (Mississippi corporation)Wilsons Leather of Missouri Inc. (Missouri corporation)Wilsons Leather of New Jersey Inc. (New Jersey corporation)Wilsons Leather of New York Inc. (New York corporation)Wilsons Leather of North Carolina Inc. (North Carolina corporation)Wilsons Leather of Ohio Inc. (Ohio corporation)Wilsons Leather of Pennsylvania Inc. (Pennsylvania corporation)Wilsons Leather of Rhode Island Inc. (Rhode Island corporation)Wilsons Leather of South Carolina Inc. (South Carolina corporation)Wilsons Leather of Tennessee Inc. (Tennessee corporation)Wilsons Leather of Texas Inc. (Texas corporation)Wilsons Leather of Vermont Inc. (Vermont corporation)Wilsons Leather of Virginia Inc. (Virginia corporation)Wilsons Leather of West Virginia Inc. (West Virginia corporation)Wilsons Leather of Wisconsin Inc. (Wisconsin corporation)Bermans The Leather Experts Inc. (Delaware corporation)Wilsons Leather Holdings Inc. (Minnesota corporation)USA Wilsons Leather Holdings Inc. Qingdao RO (China Representative Office)(Operating entity organized in Qingdao, China)Wilsons International Inc. (Minnesota corporation)Wilsons Leather of Canada Ltd. (Minnesota corporation)Wilsons Leather of Hong Kong Ltd. (Hong Kong company)WWT, Inc. (Delaware corporation)Florida Luggage Corp. (Puerto Rico corporation)
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Chief Financial Officer****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002****(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode)**Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), theundersigned officer of LCC International, Inc. (the“Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’sknowledge that:(a) the Annual Report onForm 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) ofthe Company fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and(b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.     /s/ Charles R. Waldron       *Senior Vice President, Chief Financial* *Officer and Treasurer*March 16, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6962

RONALD L. COSNER,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

B. DODT, Nurse Practitioner at Powhatan Medical Unit; 

RONALD TONEY, Doctor and Medical Director in the P.M.U.,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Corp. under 

contract with V.D.O.C. to provide health services,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:12-cv-01366-LMB-TRJ)

Submitted: March 10, 2016 Decided: March 15, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald L. Cosner, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac Abraham McBeth, 

Edward J. McNelis, III, Rachel Lynne Procopio, RAWLS, MCNELIS & 

MITCHELL, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Ronald L. Cosner appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Cosner v. Dodt, 

No. 1:12-cv-01366-LMB-TRJ (E.D. Va. Mar. 14 & Aug. 1, 2014; 

June 17, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KENNETH R. KASHUBA,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF OREGON,

Respondent.

Case No. 2:15-cv-81-SU

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued a Findings and 

Recommendation in this case on March 11, 2015. Dkt. 7. Judge Sullivan recommended that 

Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition be denied sua sponte for lack for jurisdiction. No party has 

filed objections.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the 

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Case 2:15-cv-00081-SU Document 10 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – ORDER

If no party objects, however, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the 

Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections 

are filed.”). Nor does the Act “preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . 

under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. And the Advisory Committee 

Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court 

review the magistrate’s findings and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

As no party has made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Judge Sullivan’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the 

face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Sullivan’s

Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 7. Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED for 

lack of jurisdiction. Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court declines to issue a Certificate 

of Appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 10th day of April, 2015.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00081-SU Document 10 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 2
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
 Wind Erosion and Water Conservation Research: Lubbock, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Lubbock, Texas Cropping Systems Research Laboratory Wind Erosion and Water Conservation Research Docs







Businessheadline bar  UniversitiesExtension ServiceTexas Tech UniversityTexas Agriculture Extension ServiceTexas A&M University


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
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting
 

October 20‐21, 2015
 

List of Attachments 

No. Attachments Presenter / Author 

1 Action Item Tracking Report Vineetha Kartha 

2 Collaborative Riparian Restoration in Glen Canyon NRA PPT Larry Stevens 

3 Technical Work Group Ad Hoc Group List PPT Shane Capron 

4 Protocol Evaluation Panels PPT Scott VanderKooi 

5a Invasive Species Threats: Green Sunfish PPT Scott VanderKooi 

5b Green Sunfish Rapid Response Non-native Fish Control in Glen 

Canyon National Recreation Area 

Brian Healy 

Bill Stewart 

Chris Cantrell 

6a Summary: Lees Ferry Recreational Trout Fishery Management 

Recommendations 

Management Prescription and PPT

Fisheries Management Plan Colorado River-Lees Ferry 2015-2015 

GCMRC Technical Review of the Lees Ferry Recreational Trout 

Management Recommendations PPT

John Hamill 

 Bill Stewart 

Chris Cantrell 

Scott VanderKooi 

6b 

6c 

6d 

7a 2015 Zebra-Tailed Lizard Monitoring Hualapai Reservation PPT Kerry Christensen 

7b August 2015 River Trip-Navajo Historic Preservation Department 

PPT

Melinda Arviso-Ciocco 

7c Vegetation and Cultural Resource Monitoring Program PPT Charley Bulletts 

8a Mercury in Grand Canyon Trout PPT Brian Healy 

8b Mercury and Selenium in the Colorado River Food Web, Grand 

Canyon PPT

Ted Kennedy 

David Walters 

9a 2016 Glen Canyon Dam Annual Operating Plan PPT

Memo from Secretary Ken Salazar dated May 23, 2012, Subject: 

Directive on Implementation to Improve Conditions in the Colorado river 

in Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation 

Area 

Memo from AS-WS Anne Castle dated July 18, 2012, Subject: DOI 

Glen Canyon Leadership Team for HFE and Non-native Fish 

Control 

9b Katrina Grantz

9c 

10a Memo from PDAS Jennifer Gimbel dated October 19, 2015, 

Subject: Approval of Recommendation for No Experimental HighFlow Release from Glen Canyon Dam, November 2015 and Memo 

from DOI Glen Canyon Technical Team to DOI Leadership Team 

dated October 15, 2015 

Vineetha Kartha 

10b 2015 HFE Discussion: Biological Resource Updates PPT Scott VanderKooi 

10c Updates on 2014 HFE, 2015 Paria River inputs, and 2015 mass 

balance for Marble Canyon PPT

Ron Griffiths 

11 Using Conceptual Ecological Models as a Framework to Guide 

Decision Making for the LCR MSCP PPT

Sonja Kokos 

12a Updates on LTEMP EIS PPT

LTEMP Science Plan PPT

 Jan Balsom 

12b Scott VanderKooi
II

Calendar No. 379

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2032

To designate the Federal building in Juneau, Alaska, as the ‘‘Hurff A.

Saunders Federal Building’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 5, 1998

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

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

MAY 21, 1998

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, without amendment

A BILL

To designate the Federal building in Juneau, Alaska, as

the ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HURFF A. SAUNDERS FED4 ERAL BUILDING.

5 The Federal building in Juneau, Alaska, shall be

6 known and designated as the ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal

7 Building’’.
2

S 2032 RS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building’’.

Calendar No. 379

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2032

A BILL

To designate the Federal building in Juneau, Alasing’’. ka, as the ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal BuildMAY 21, 1998

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, without amendment
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FLOWERS
INDUSTRIES, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE FIFTY-TWO WEEKS ENDED
JANUARY 2, 1999, AND THE FLOWERS INDUSTRIES, INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT
JANUARY 2, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS:
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                          56,965
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  275,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,800
<INVENTORY>                                    297,593
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               783,245
<PP&E>                                       1,418,218
<DEPRECIATION>                                 430,516
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,860,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          761,038
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,627
<OTHER-SE>                                     510,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,860,900
<SALES>                                      3,776,461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,776,461
<CGS>                                        1,702,581
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,544,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              68,725
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                163,664
<INCOME-TAX>                                    74,391
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             45,968
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (938)
<CHANGES>                                       (3,131)
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,899
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43


</TABLE>