alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T.C. Memo. 1998-48

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

JUDITH WEINGARTH FOX, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 16226-96. Filed February 9, 1998.
Judith Weingarth Fox, pro se. Michael D. Baker , for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
FOLEY, Judge : Respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income taxes:
Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 1987 $14,493 $3,623 $783- 2 -

1988 50,029 12,507 3,198 1989 1,163 291 -- 1990 34,767 8,692 2,290 After concessions by the parties, the only remaining issues are whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax set forth below: Additions to Tax Year Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 1987 $1,150 $280 1988 611 157 1990 1,186 -- At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Section 6651(a) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a tax return in a timely manner. Petitioner's tax returns for 1987, 1988, and 1990 were due on April 15, 1988, 1989, and 1991, respectively. Petitioner, however, did not file such returns until October 10, 1997. Petitioner has failed to establish that her tardiness was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Sec. 6651(a); United States v. Boyle , 469 U.S. 241 (1985); Welch v. Helvering , 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Accordingly, petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a) additions to tax.- 3 -

Section 6654 imposes an addition to tax for failure to make estimated tax payments. Petitioner did not remit estimated tax payments for the years in issue. In addition, she has failed to establish that she falls within any of the exceptions to section 6654. Therefore, petitioner is liable for the section 6654 additions to tax. All other arguments raised by the parties are either moot or without merit. To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered pursuant to Rule 155
.
# C_2010317EN.01000101.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/1

---

2010/C 317/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 301, 6.11.2010

OJ C 301, 6.11.2010

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 288, 23.10.2010

OJ C 274, 9.10.2010

OJ C 260, 25.9.2010

OJ C 246, 11.9.2010

OJ C 234, 28.8.2010

OJ C 221, 14.8.2010

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
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.                  

###### Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

# Time and Date:

 9 a.m. (Eastern Time) May 19, 2008. 

# Place:

 4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.

# Status: 

Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the public. 

# Matters to be Considered: 

## Parts Open to the Public 

1. Approval of the minutes of the April 21, 2008 Board member meeting. 

2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director. 

a. Monthly Participant Activity Report.

b. Monthly Investment Performance Report. 

c. Legislative Report. 

3. Mid-year budget review. 

## Parts Closed to the Public 

4. Personnel. 

# Contact Person for More Information:

 Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640. 

Dated: May 8, 2008. 

Thomas K. Emswiler, 

Secretary, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. 

[FR Doc. 08-1253 Filed 5-8-08; 3:26 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MARCHELLO JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv216-SPM/WCS

EDWIN BUSS, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Marchello Jackson’s November 16,

2011 letter, which has been treated as an appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 72(a), of the magistrate judge’s October 27, 2011 ruling.

Plaintiff complains that the ruling “impinges on [his] fundamental rights to .

. . ‘private contract’, ‘to redress for grievances”; without ‘a trial by jury.’” Doc. 15. 

Plaintiff also complains that “the Court’s offer of full payment of $350.xx for

simply reading a complaint violates international law.” Doc. 15.

The magistrate judge’s ruling does not violate Plaintiff’s rights or the law. 

As explained in the ruling, Plaintiff may pursue his case if he files an amended

complaint. If Plaintiff chooses not to do so, his case will be dismissed in

accordance with his request for voluntary dismissal. The magistrate judge

Case 4:11-cv-00216-SPM-WCS Document 19 Filed 12/29/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

advised Plaintiff that he is responsible for payment of the filing fee even if he

voluntarily dismisses his case. This is correct since 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)

requires a prisoner bringing a civil action to pay the full amount of the filing fee. 

The prisoner is responsible for the fee the moment he brings a civil action to the

court. Williams v. Roberts, 116 F.3d 1126, 1128 (5th Cir. 1997). There is no

right to a refund if the case is dismissed, even on jurisdictional grounds. Id.

The magistrate judge’s ruling is supported by the record and is neither

clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The October 27, 2011 ruling of the magistrate judge (doc. 15) is

affirmed.

2. Plaintiff shall have up to and including January 9, 2012 to file an

amended complaint. If nothing is received from Plaintiff, then his case will be

dismissed based on his previously filed notice of voluntary dismissal. Either way,

Plaintiff is responsible for paying the balance of the filing fee.

3. This case is referred to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of December, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 4:11cv216-SPM/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00216-SPM-WCS Document 19 Filed 12/29/11 Page 2 of 2
#### John DOE and Richard H. Foster, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Michael E. Wald and David L. Frey, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 76-2894.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 18, 1978.

Richard H. Foster (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Ronald W. Stovitz (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Before MERRILL and TANG, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR, District Judge.*

*

 For the District of Idaho, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from the judgment of the district court dismissing this action to en*26join disciplinary proceedings of the State Bar of California against appellant John Doe. Appellants contend that the disciplinary proceedings violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

After a careful review of the record and the briefs of counsel, it is our opinion that the trial judge correctly concluded that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interfere with disciplinary proceedings of the State Bar of California for the reasons stated in his opinion. *Doe v. State Bar of California,*415 F.Supp. 308 (N.D.Cal.1976). *See also MacKay v. Nesbett,*412 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1969), *cert. denied*396 U.S. 960, 90 S.Ct. 435, 24 L.Ed.2d 425 (1969).

Affirmed.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50211

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAUL ESPINOZA-MONDRAGON,

also known as Jose Espinoza-Portillo,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(DR-94-CR-35-2 & DR-96-CV-74)

April 27, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raul Espinoza-Mondragon (“Espinoza”), a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s denial of hismotion to vacate,set aside, or correctsentence pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Espinoza contends that the district court erred in failing to
1 Bonvillian v. Blackburn, 780 F.2d 1248 (5th Cir. 1986); Blackledge v. Allison, 431

U.S. 63 (1977) (declarations under oath in open court are entitled to strong presumption of

veracity).

2 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985).

2

hold an evidentiary hearing to address his affidavits, which allegedly support his

claim that his guilty plea to drug-trafficking offenses was invalid because his

attorney performed ineffectively. The affidavits state only that Espinoza does not

speak or read English, a fact that the court must have been aware of when it

accepted his guilty plea; an interpreter then was present for Espinoza. The

affidavits contribute nothing relevant to Espinoza’s substantive claim. The

transcript of the rearraignment shows that Espinoza voluntarily and knowingly

entered his guilty plea.1 Espinoza’s conclusional claims that his attorney’s

ineffective assistance caused him to enter his guilty plea are devoid of merit.2

Espinoza’s request for the appointment of counsel for appeal is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
#### Sir WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael L. BRAMER; Jay C. Angelino; City of Dallas Police Dept., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 98-10254.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 1999.

William Todd Hughey, Law Offices of William T. Hughey, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Tafia R. Randolph, Mark E. Goldstueker, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

*634Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We treat the petition for Rehearing En Banc on behalf of Michael Bramer as a Petition for Panel Rehearing and make the following clarification to the opinion.

In his petition for rehearing en banc, Bramer calls attention to our finding that he acted with malice in choking Williams. Bramer argues that a finding of malice is incompatible with Fourth Amendment analysis as “subjective motivations of the individual officers ... [have] no bearing on whether a particular seizure is ‘unreasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment.” *Graham v. Connor,*490 U.S. 386, 397, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989).

We should make clear that we did not find that Officer Bramer choked Williams out of malice. For that matter, we did not find that Officer Bramer even choked Williams. Instead, we merely noted that, because the appeal came to us on a ruling for summary judgment, we had to assume for purposes of the appeal that the facts adequately alleged by Williams were true.

On rehearing, Bramer is quite correct that his subjective intent is irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis. When, however, we stated that, based on the allegations before us, we had to conclude that the second choking was motivated solely by malice, we meant to call attention not to his subjective intent but instead the absence of any valid reason for him to continue physical contact with Williams. Based on the procedural posture of the appeal, we had to assume that Bramer, after conducting a search of Williams and while detaining him in his official capacity, choked him for no apparent law enforcement related purpose. Regardless of whether that conduct is motivated by malice or some other sentiment, it is sufficient to permit Williams to allege a Fourth Amendment violation in this instance.

In all other respects, the Petition for Panel Rehearing is DENIED. No member of the panel nor judge in regular active service of the court having requested that the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc (Fed.R.App.P. and 5th Cir.R. 35) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Real Goods Solar, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Erik Zech, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 9, 2009



/s/ Erik ZechErik ZechChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2  Section 1350 Certification  I, Jamie Horner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Pacific Edge Publishing, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Pacific Edge Publishing, Inc.  May 13, 2008 By: /s/ Jamie Horner Jamie Horner, Secretary/Treasurer  Principal Financial Officer,  Director  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pacific Edge Publishing, Inc. and will be retained by Pacific Edge  Publishing, Inc. and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1
 Exhibit 21.1



                           Significant Subsidiaries of
                            Balanced Care Corporation

                       BCC Development and Management Co.
                           BCC Investment Corporation
                     BCC at Hermitage Park Care Center, Inc.
                        BCC at Lebanon Care Center, Inc.
                         BCC at Lebanon Park Manor, Inc.
                      BCC at Nevada Park Care Center, Inc.
                   BCC at Nevada Park Terrace Apartments, Inc.
                          BCC at Nixa Park Center, Inc.
                        BCC at Republic Park Center, Inc.
                      BCC at Springfield Care Center, Inc.
                            BCC at Kingston II, Inc.
                              BCC at Kingston, Inc.
                              BCC at Blakely, Inc.
                             BCC at Bloomsburg, Inc.
                          Balanced Care at Butler, Inc.
                             BCC at Mid-Valley, Inc.
                           BCC at State College, Inc.
                    BCC at Mt. Vernon Park Care Center, Inc.
                  BCC at Mt. Vernon Park Care Center West, Inc.
                             Dixon Management, Inc.
                          BCC at Mt. Royal Pines, Inc.
                       Balanced Care at North Ridge, Inc.
                             BCC at Darlington, Inc.
                       Balanced Care at Eyers Grove, Inc.
                        Balanced Care at Saxonburg, Inc.
                         Balanced Care at Stafford, Inc.
                      Balanced Care at Bloomsburg II, Inc.
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

**CERTIFICATION**

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), the undersigned, Kevan D. Bloomgren, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 

 

| (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ Kevan D. Bloomgren   |
|------------------------------------|

Kevan D. Bloomgren

Chief Financial Officer

September 24, 2007

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 249 (Monday, December 31, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74272-74273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6240]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 
Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Withdrawal of Panel Review

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade

[[Page 74273]]

Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: On December 20, 2007, a Notice of Withdrawal of Request for 
Panel Review of the Changed Circumstances Review and the Complaint 
regarding Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico was filed on 
behalf of Holcim Apasco, S.A. de C.V. and Cementos Apasco, S.A. de C.V. 
(Secretariat File No. USA-MEX-2007-1904-02).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Withdrawal of the Request for Panel Review and 
the Complaint, the panel review is terminated as of December 20, 2007. 
A panel has not been appointed to this panel review. Pursuant to Rule 
71(2) of the Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel 
Review, this panel review is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States 
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, 
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade 
Agreement (``Agreement'') establishes a mechanism to replace domestic 
judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and 
countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with 
review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel 
Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national 
courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine 
whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of 
the country that made the determination.
    Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on 
January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of 
Canada and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for 
Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (``Rules''). These Rules were 
published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). 
The panel review in this matter was requested and terminated pursuant 
to these Rules.

    Dated: December 20, 2007.
Caratina L. Alston,
United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 07-6240 Filed 12-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-M
# C_2011026EN.01000201.xml

| 28.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5942 — Lloyds TSB Bank/Svenska Handelsbanken/Dyson Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 26/03

On 18 November 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5942. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5942. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---