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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3330 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the deduction 

for domestic production activities for film and television productions, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 24 (legislative day, JULY 23), 2008 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. SMITH) 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 modify 

the deduction for domestic production activities for film 

and television productions, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Domestic Film Produc5 tion Equity Act of 2008’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROVISIONS RELATED TO FILM AND TELEVISION 

7 PRODUCTIONS. 

8 (a) MODIFICATIONS TO DEDUCTION FOR DOMESTIC

9 ACTIVITIES.— 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3330 IS

1 (1) DETERMINATION OF W–2 WAGES.—Para2 graph (2) of section 199(b) of the Internal Revenue 

3 Code of 1986 (relating to W–2 wages) is amended 

4 by adding at the end the following new subpara5 graph: 

6 ‘‘(D) SPECIAL RULE FOR QUALIFIED

7 FILM.—In the case of a qualified film, such 

8 term shall include compensation for services 

9 performed in the United States by actors, pro10 duction personnel, directors, and producers.’’. 

11 (2) DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED FILM.—Para12 graph (6) of section 199(c) of such Code (relating 

13 to qualified film) is amended by adding at the end 

14 the following: ‘‘A qualified film shall include any 

15 copyrights, trademarks, or other intangibles with re16 spect to such film. The methods and means of dis17 tributing a qualified film shall not affect the avail18 ability of the deduction under this section.’’. 

19 (3) PARTNERSHIPS.—Subparagraph (A) of sec20 tion 199(d)(1) of such Code (relating to partner21 ships and S corporations) is amended by striking 

22 ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (ii), by striking the pe23 riod at the end of clause (iii) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, 

24 and by adding at the end the following new clause: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•S 3330 IS

1 ‘‘(iv) in the case of each partner of a 

2 partnership, or shareholder of an S cor3 poration, who owns (directly or indirectly) 

4 at least 20 percent of the capital interests 

5 in such partnership or of the stock of such 

6 S corporation— 

7 ‘‘(I) such partner or shareholder 

8 shall be treated as having engaged di9 rectly in any film produced by such 

10 partnership or S corporation, and 

11 ‘‘(II) such partnership or S cor12 poration shall be treated as having en13 gaged directly in any film produced by 

14 such partner or shareholder.’’. 

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

16 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

17 December 31, 2007. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Exhibit 10.11

SECOND AMENDMENT TO

EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, Andrew Batinovich (Employee) is currently employed by the Company as its President and Chief Executive Officer pursuant to an
executive employment agreement dated May 7, 2003, as amended (the Agreement); and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the
Company (the Board) has determined that a provision in the Agreement could adversely impact the benefits the Company intended to confer on Employee under the Agreement as a result of a change in control; and

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the Agreement must be amended to address this provision in order to effectuate the Companys intentions.

Accordingly, the parties agree as follows:



|1. | Part Three of the Agreement is amended by the addition of the following Section 10A:
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 10A: Acceleration of Vesting; Lapse of Restrictions. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10(c) above and regardless of whether
Executives employment terminates in a Qualifying Termination or otherwise, all stock options, restricted stock, and other equity awards held by Executive (including, without limitation, the restricted stock bonus awarded pursuant to the
Glenborough Realty Trust Incorporated Officers Restricted Stock Bonus Award Agreement) shall vest 100% and be fully exerciseable and all restrictions on any such awards shall fully lapse immediately prior to the effective date of
the Change in Control. To the extent that any such accelerated vesting would trigger Excise Tax (as defined in Section 13, below), Executive shall be entitled to receive a Gross-Up Payment as provided in Part Four of this Agreement.

Except as otherwise provided in this Second Amendment, the Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.



|                                       |  |                                    
|-------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|GLENBOROUGH REALTY TRUST INCORPORATED: |  | ANDREW BATINOVICH:                 
|                                       | 
|/s/ Patrick Foley                      |  | /s/ Andrew Batinovich              
|Patrick Foley                          |  | Andrew Batinovich                  
|Chairman, Compensation Committee       |  | President & Chief Executive Officer
|                                       | 
|Date: August 21, 2006                  |  | Date: August 21, 2006
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**_____________** No. 23 - 10140 **consolidated with** No. 23 - 10146

**_____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Santiago Salazar -**  **Ramirez,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC Nos. 3:22 - CR - 230 - 1, 3:22 - CR - 117 - 1

**______________________________** Before **Elrod, Oldham,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Santiago Salazar - Ramirez appeals his sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after being removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) , (b)(1) . He argues that because the indictment did not allege, and he did not admit as part of his guilty plea , that he sustained a qualifying conviction prior

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 21, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10140 Document: 00516903186 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/202323 - 10140 c/w No. 23 - 10146

2 to his removal, the district court erred by imposing a term of supervised release that exceeded one year. However, he concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez - Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and he raises this issue merely t o preserve it for further review. The Government has moved, with out opposition, for summary affirmance , or in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits. Because summary affirmance is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v . Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969) , the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is **DENIED** , and the district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED** . Case: 23-10140 Document: 00516903186 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
STATE of North Carolina v. Jane Brock WHALEY.

No. 440PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Phillip T. Jackson, Marion, Robert B. Long, Jr., Asheville, Eric M. Lieberman, for Jane Brock Whaley.

Elizabeth L. McKay, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 21st day of August 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of May 2007."
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 18


Standard Automotive Corporation
321 Valley Road
Hillsborough, NJ  08844

Re: Form 10-K Report for the year ended March 31, 2001

Gentlemen/Ladies:

This letter is written to meet the requirements of Regulation S-K calling for a
letter from a registrant's independent accountants whenever there has been a
change in accounting principle or practice.

Prior to January 1, 2001, Standard Automotive Corporation (the "Company")
recognized revenue on sales of truck chassis manufactured by an operating entity
in the Truck Body/Trailer Division using the "bill and hold" method of
accounting. This method was employed because, based on the customer's request,
the Company manufactured and segregated truck chassis for delivery based on the
customers predetermined needs. The Company believes these arrangements met all
of the requirements of Staff Accounting Bulletin 101, Revenue Recognition in
Financial Statements ("SAB 101") regarding "bill and hold" sales. In the fourth
quarter of fiscal 2001, the Company changed it's accounting policy for revenue
recognition with respect to these sales to record revenue after receipt of the
chassis by the customer. The Company believes the administrative effort to
maintain the former policy was too burdensome and not cost effective for the
Company or its customers. Accordingly the Company will recognize revenue on
these types of sales when the customer takes physical possession of the chassis.

A complete coordinated set of financial and reporting standards for determining
the preferability of accounting principles among acceptable alternative
principles has not been established by the accounting profession. Thus, we
cannot make an objective determination of whether the change in accounting
described in the preceding paragraph is to a preferable method. However, we have
reviewed the pertinent factors, including those relating to financial reporting,
in this particular case on a subjective basis, and our opinion stated below is
based on our determination made in this manner.

We are of the opinion that the Company's change in method of accounting is to an
acceptable alternative method of accounting, which, based upon the reasons
stated for the change and our discussions with you, is also preferable under the
circumstances in this particular case. In arriving at this opinion, we have
relied on the business judgment and business planning of your management.

Very truly yours,


Arthur Andersen LLP
#### Nancy N. Miklos, Appellant-Respondent, v Joseph Miklos, Respondent-Appellant. Schlissel, Ostrow, Karabatos, Poepplein, Cender & Fisher, PLLC, Now Known as Schlissel, Ostrow, Karabatos, Poepplein & Fisher, PLLC, Nonparty Appellant-Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 561]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered July 3, 2002, the plaintiff former wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), entered January 10, 2003, which, inter alia, granted those branches of her motion which were for an award of an attorney’s fee and expert fees only to the extent of directing the defendant former husband to pay her counsel an attorney’s fee in the sum of $87,500, payable in four annual installments each in the sum of $21,875, and to pay her experts 60% of their fees, and the defendant former husband cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same order as granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for an award of an attorney’s fee and expert fees and awarded compound interest of 1.5% per month on any untimely installment payments of the attorney’s fee, and nonparty Schlissel, Ostrow, Karabatos, Poepplein, Gender & Fisher, PLLC, now known as Schlissel, Ostrow, Karabatos, Poepplein & Fisher, PLLC, the attorneys for the plaintiff, separately cross-appeals from stated portions of the same order which, inter alia, directed the defendant to pay it the sum of only $87,500 as an attorney’s fee in four installments.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof awarding compound interest of 1.5% per month on any untimely installment payments of the attorney’s fee; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

An award of a reasonable attorney’s fee is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court *(see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]; *Morrissey v Morrissey,*259 AD2d 472, 473 [1999]). Contrary to the contentions of the parties, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the defendant to pay a portion of the plaintiff s attorney’s fee and expert fees *(see Klisivitch v Klisivitch,*291 AD2d 433 [2002]; *Mitzner v Mitzner,*271 AD2d 513 [2000]; *Tayar v Tayar,*250 AD2d 757, 758 [1998]; *Feeney v Feeney,*241 AD2d *354510 [1997]; *Reehill v Reehill,*181 AD2d 725, 726 [1992]). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was properly permitted to pay the attorney’s fee in installments *(see Romano v Romano,*139 AD2d 979, 980 [1987]; *Allen v Allen,*77 AD2d 558, 559 [1980]).

However, we find that Supreme Court improperly awarded compound interest of 1.5% per month, which is at least twice the statutory rate of 9% per annum, on any untimely installment payments *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 244; *Verdrager v Verdrager,*230 AD2d 786 [1996]; *Manno v Manno,*224 AD2d 395, 400 [1996]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            5240
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      580
<ALLOWANCES>                                        58
<INVENTORY>                                        417
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6284
<PP&E>                                             426
<DEPRECIATION>                                     145
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              713
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          8799
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3026)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6582
<SALES>                                           4080
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4142
<CGS>                                             1836
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2390
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1397
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    34
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  74
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    355
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                355
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       355
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
In the Matter of Samantha D. FARLOW, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 25, 2006.

ORDER

Respondent pled guilty to one count of accommodation distribution of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D) and § 841(b)(4) and one count of possession of methylenedioxymethamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as MDMA or "ecstasy," in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a).

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel petitions the Court to place respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 17, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, and to appoint an attorney to protect respondent's clients' interests pursuant to Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent's license to practice law in this state is suspended until further order of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael P. Horger, Esquire, is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent's client files, trust account(s), *76escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office account(s) respondent may maintain. Mr. Horger shall take action as required by Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to protect the interests of respondent's clients. Mr. Horger may make disbursements from respondent's trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office account(s) respondent may maintain that are necessary to effectuate this appointment.

This Order, when served on any bank or other financial institution maintaining trust, escrow and/or operating accounts of respondent, shall serve as an injunction to prevent respondent from making withdrawals from the account(s) and shall further serve as notice to the bank or other financial institution that Michael P. Horger, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court.

Finally, this Order, when served on any office of the United States Postal Service, shall serve as notice that Michael P. Horger, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court and has the authority to receive respondent's mail and the authority to direct that respondent's mail be delivered to Mr. Horger's office.

This appointment shall be for a period of no longer than nine months unless request is made to this Court for an extension.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

```
/s/ *Jean H. Toal,* C.J. FOR THE COURT
```
# Commission Implementing Decision of 28 April 2014 on the recognition of the legal and supervisory framework of Argentina as            equivalent to the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit rating            agencies (Text with EEA relevance) (2014/246/EU) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision

# of 28 April 2014

# on the recognition of the legal and supervisory framework of Argentina as equivalent to the requirements of Regulation (EC)                        No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit rating agencies                     

# (Text with EEA relevance)

# (2014/246/EU) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1282 of 29 July 2019 repealing Implementing Decision 2014/246/EU on the recognition                                 of the legal and supervisory framework of Argentina as equivalent to the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the                                 European Parliament and of the Council on credit rating agencies (Text with EEA relevance.).
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**Certificationby the Chief Financial Officer**

**Relatingto a Periodic Report Containing Financial Statements**

 

I, Deborah S. Maddocks, Vice President - Finance, of PAULA Financial, aDelaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify that:

 

(1)                                  TheCompany’s periodic report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,2004 (the “Form 10-QSB”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(2)                                  Thefinancial statements and disclosures contained in the Form 10-QSB fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

*                                         *                                         *

 

 
| VICE PRESIDENT - FINANCE              |   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                  |   |   |
|                                  |   |   |
| /s/ Deborah S. Maddocks               |   |   |   |
| Deborah S. Maddocks                   |   |   |
|                                  |   |   |
| Date:  August 13, 2004 |   |   |
|                                       |        |        |  |

 

----
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 Veterans Affairs

          - 38 CFR Part 36 
          - RIN 2900-AK76 

# AGENCY:

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a proposed rule in the                         **Federal Register**                         on October 11, 2001 (66 FR 51893) to amend its loan guaranty regulations that set forth underwriting standards for VA guaranteed loans. We had proposed to require first-time homebuyers to complete homeownership counseling and to add a compensating factor for certain veterans who do not fully meet VA's underwriting standards. However, the proposed rule and comments have been superseded by recently-adopted requirements established by the Department of Defense mandating such counseling for all enlistees and by VA's decision to provide a link to the Government National Mortgage                               ( print page 4802)                            Association (Ginnie Mae's) Homeownership Information Center, which provides a wide array of information for homebuyers pertaining to the homebuying process, mortgage affordability, loan calculators, credit counseling, etc. Accordingly, this document hereby withdraws the proposed rule.                     

# DATES:

The proposed rule is withdrawn as of January 31, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

R.D. Finneran, Assistant Director for Loan Policy and Valuation (262), Loan Guaranty Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 (202) 273-7368. 

Approved: December 17, 2004. 

Anthony J. Principi, 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 05-1712 Filed 1-28-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P