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

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 25319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10975]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) Program Availability of 
Application Packages; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to a notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to a notice of the Tax 
Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) Program Availability of Application 
Packages, which was published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, 
April 28, 2010 (75 FR 22437). This notice provides notice of the 
availability of application packages for the 2011 Tax Counseling for 
the Elderly (TCE) Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Grant Program Office at (404) 338-
7894 (not a toll free number) or by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Authority for the 2011 Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) Program 
for tax return preparation is contained in Section 163 of the Revenue 
Act of 1978, Public Law 95-600, (92 Stat. 12810), November 6, 1978. 
Regulations were published in the Federal Register at 44 FR 72113 on 
December 13, 1979. Section 163 gives the IRS authority to enter into 
cooperative agreements with private or public non-profit agencies or 
organizations to establish a network of trained volunteers to provide 
free tax information and return preparation assistance to elderly 
individuals. Elderly individuals are defined as individuals age 60 and 
over at the close of their taxable year. Because applications are being 
solicited before the FY 2011 budget has been approved, cooperative 
agreements will be entered into subject to appropriation of funds.

Need for Correction

    As published, the notice of the Tax Counseling for the Elderly 
(TCE) Program contains an error which may prove to be misleading and is 
in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the Tax Counseling for the Elderly 
(TCE) Program, which was the subject of FR Doc. 2010-9772, is corrected 
as follows:
    On page 22437, column 3, under the caption DATES: The language 
``Application packages are available from the IRS at this time. The 
deadline for submitting an application to the IRS for the Tax 
Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) Program is July 9, 2010.'' is 
corrected to read ``Application packages are available from the IRS 
beginning June 1, 2010. The deadline for submitting an application to 
the IRS for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) Program is July 9, 
2010.'' .

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2010-10975 Filed 5-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```
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
                 ___________________________________________


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, filed pursuant to
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of NBC
Capital Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Lewis F. Mallory, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
    Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Lewis F. Mallory, Jr.
                                          __________________________________
                                  Name:   Lewis F. Mallory, Jr.
                                  Title:  Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                          Executive Officer
                                  Date:   August 11, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to NBC Capital Corporation and will be retained by NBC Capital
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2031

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit the issuance

of a certificate for subminimum wages for individuals with impaired

vision or blindness.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 3, 2000

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

the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit

the issuance of a certificate for subminimum wages for

individuals with impaired vision or blindness.

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

3 SECTION 1. EMPLOYEES WITH IMPAIRED VISION OR BLIND4 NESS.

5 Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of

6 1938 (29 U.S.C. 214(c)) is amended—

7 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4),

8 and (5) as paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6), respec9 tively; and
2

•S 2031 IS

1 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol2 lowing:

3 ‘‘(2) The Secretary shall not issue a certificate under

4 paragraph (1) to authorize the payment of wages under

5 subparagraph (A) of such paragraph to any individual by

6 reason of such individual’s impaired vision or blindness.

7 For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘impaired vision

8 or blindness’ means—

9 ‘‘(A) any limitation in visual acuity or visual

10 field, including blindness; or

11 ‘‘(B) blindness as determined by visual acuity

12 which is no better than 20/200 in the better eye with

13 corrected lenses or visual acuity which, if better than

14 20/200, is accompanied by a limit to the field of vi15 sion in the better eye to such a degree that its

16 widest diameter subtends an angle of no greater

17 than 20 degrees.’’.

Æ
NAMES OF PARTIES IN PROCESS AND PROCEEDINGS.

#### W. M. Hoyt and C. Watrous, former partners under the firm name of Hoyt & Co., v. Jacob Williams, J. S. Benedict and I. N. Martin.

*In the District Court of Lincoin County.*

*

Note —Afterwards, in the same case, a similar motion to quash the summons — , upon legal showing — was heard and determined by tlie same Judge, who denied the motion, maintaining that all. such questions must properly be raised by answer. '

Motion to set aside the summons in said action as to defendants J. S. Benedict and I. N. Martin for irregularity in this, that the Christian names of each of the plaintiffs, and of the said Benedict and Martin, are not given in said summons.

The motion is solely founded on an alleged copy of the summons, indorsed by the sheriff that “ this summons came to my hand this 18th day of February, 1878, and is a true copy of the original.” There is no return of any service upon anybody. There is no affidavit of service upon which to support the motion or ground an order.

It is only from the time of the service of the summons, that the court is deemed to have acquired jurisdiction. Neither the court nor the judge has control of the proceedings until *506legal service be' shown'. There is no legal proof even, that the alleged summons before me is a true copy. The sheriff’s cer-t t-ificate is not competent. If the summons has been served on? J. S. Benedict and I. N. Martin, why should they not adopt; the usual course by making affidavits of the fact and disclose ing their own Christian names, and by stating what protection, of their rights they seek ?

. But the same irregularity of the plaintiffs thus sought to. be remedied, the attorneys for this motion have likewise fallen-into. They appear specially for J. S. Benedict and L N.Martin. Asserting a rule, they violate it themselves. If it is, essential that in all legal process and proceedings, the full, true names of all.the.parti.es should be given, how can these, defendants, in invoking the principle, escape from its force- and ignore its applicability as to themselves.

. There is a further motion for an order to show cause, at; chambers, why proceedings should not be stayed until the, hearing and decision of the first motion at the nest October, term. There'is nothing before me to support either motion, except as above stated. These papers are clearly insufficient, and there should be a proper affidavit. When the matter is legally presented, it will be time enough to consider what i.s a; suitable remedy. Motions dehied.

Peter C. Shannon, Judge.*
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2040

To exclude the receipts and disbursements of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund from the budget of the United States Government, and for

other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 8, 2000

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

jointly pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, to the Committees on

the Budget and Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be discharged

A BILL

To exclude the receipts and disbursements of the Abandoned

Mine Reclamation Fund from the budget of the United

States Government, 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. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND.

4 (a) EXCLUSION FROM BUDGET.—Notwithstanding

5 any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements

6 of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund shall not be

7 counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or def8 icit or surplus for purposes of—
2

•S 2040 IS

1 (1) the budget of the United States Govern2 ment as submitted by the President;

3 (2) the congressional budget; or

4 (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Def5 icit Control Act of 1985.

6 (b) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Section 401(d) of the

7 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30

8 U.S.C. 1231(d)) is amended to read as follows:

9 ‘‘(d) All amounts in the fund at the end of any fiscal

10 year shall be immediately available for obligation or ex11 penditure, without further appropriation, for the purposes

12 of this title at the commencement of the next fiscal year.’’.

Æ
Applied Signal Technology, Inc.
  Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 
  18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
  As Adopted Pursuant to
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Report of Applied Signal Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Doyle, 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 Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|/s/ James E. Doyle
        James E. Doyle
        Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | September 7, 2010
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FLORIDA EAST COAST INDUSTRIES FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          13,588
<SECURITIES>                                    57,412
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,694
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,403
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,202
<PP&E>                                       1,069,552
<DEPRECIATION>                                (288,138)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 921,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,621
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,256
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   921,120
<SALES>                                          1,349
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,154
<CGS>                                              415
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,915
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,249
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,406
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,843
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,843
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30


</TABLE>
#### GRUELLE, Appellant, *v.*J. I. CASE THRESHING MACHINE CO., Respondent.

(No. 3,461.)

(Submitted January 9, 1915.

Decided January 23, 1915.)

[146 Pac. 277.]

*Master and Servant*— Liability *for Wages*— Evidence—Insuffi*ciency*— New *Trial.*

1. *Held,*in an action to recover for labor done, that a new trial was properly granted defendant, where the evidence failed to disclose ' that he was the person at whose instance the services were performed by plaintiff.

[As to contracts for permanent employment, see note in 51 Am. St. Rep. 301.]

*Appeal from District Court, Teton County; H. FI. Ewing, Judge.*

Aotion by Samuel Gruelle against the J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company. From an order granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Mr. David J. By an,*for Appellant, submitted a brief.

*Mr. W. E. O’Leary*and *Mr. Phil. I. Cole,*for Respondent, submitted a brief; *Mr. O’Leary*argued the cause orally.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BRANTLY

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action originated in the justice’s court of Conrad township, Teton county. It was brought to recover the sum of $54, alleged to be due the plaintiff for labor performed by him for the defendant in the operation of a threshing outfit during the month of October, 1912, and the sum of $75, alleged to be due upon a claim for like services performed for the defendant by one Edwards and assigned by him to the plaintiff. The justice awarded plaintiff judgment for $100, and the defendant appealed to the district court. A trial in that court resulted in *215a verdict for plaintiff for tbe full amount of both claims. The cause is before this court on plaintiff’s appeal from a general order granting defendant’s motion for a new trial.

It is apparent from the record that the district court granted the order solely on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. [1] A careful reading of the evidence has convinced us, not merely that the court was justified in granting the order, but that it would have committed error in refusing to do so. The theory of plaintiff was that the defendant was the owner of the threshing machine, and that the persons in charge of it, and at whose instance the services were performed, were defendant’s agents. It appears, however, that the only connection defendant sustained to it was that it held a chattel mortgage upon it to secure the purchase price due from one La Breche, who had theretofore purchased it from the defendant, and that it was being operated solely for his benefit. Incidentally it appears that on October 25 the defendant took possession of the machine and. thereafter became responsible for the wages of the employees; but it does not appear that any part of plaintiff’s claim accrued after that date. Therefore the evidence does not fix liability upon the defendant for any portion of either of the claims.

The order is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*

Me. Justice SaNnee and Mb. 'Justice Holloway concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           6,225
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              68
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     83,068
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          34,691
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            33,638
<LOANS>                                        133,872
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,583
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 263,413
<DEPOSITS>                                     201,815
<SHORT-TERM>                                    24,866
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,434
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,523
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,775
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 263,413
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,763
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,978
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     1
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,742
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,080
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,431
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,311
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       45
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,029
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,465
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       984
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.85
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                        154
<LOANS-PAST>                                       783
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  4,677
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,502
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       24
<RECOVERIES>                                        60
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,583
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,583
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3

                                   ASSIGNMENT

THE UNDERSIGNED, having been granted a transferable option (the "Option") to
acquire for US$8,000,000 and 20% undiluted capital equity of the corporation,
the exclusive right to the products developed by DSI Datotech Systems Inc. for
the Banking and Financial Transaction market segment (all pursuant to a
Financial Consulting Agreement dated February 28th, 2000 and attached hereto as
Schedule "A" ) IN CONSIDERATION OF one dollar and other good and valuable
consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged.

HEREBY ASSIGNS to Biometrics Security Inc., the said Option.

DATED IN Barbados this 1st August 2000.


/s/ Ian Phillips
-------------------------
GRT International Limited
Director

Notice of the Assignment herein contained is acknowledged this 1st day of
August, 2000.

DSI Datotech Systems Inc.

Per:


/s/ Edward C. Pardiak
-------------------------
Authorized Signatory
Exhibit 10.13
                              INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT


     INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT, dated as of the 8th day of January, 2001,
between Carnival Corporation, a Panamanian corporation (the "Company"),
and Arnold W. Donald (the "Director").

     The Company, in order to induce the Director to serve the Company's
board of directors, wishes to indemnify the Director against certain
expenses and liabilities.

     Accordingly, the parties agree as follows:

     In the event that the Director is made a party or is threatened to be
made a party to any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or
proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative, by
reason of the fact that he is or was director of the Company, the Company
shall indemnify the Director against expenses (including attorneys' fees),
judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably
incurred by him in connection with such action, suit or proceeding to the
fullest extent and in the manner set forth in and permitted by the General
Corporation Law of the Republic of Panama and any other applicable law, as
from time to time in effect.  Such right of indemnification shall not be
deemed exclusive of any other rights to which such director or officer may
be entitled apart from the foregoing provisions.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement, or caused
this Agreement to be executed by a duly authorized officer, as of the date
first above written.


                                 CARNIVAL CORPORATION


                                By: /s/Howard S. Frank
                                    Howard S. Frank, Vice Chairman
                                    and Chief Operating Officer



                                By: /s/Arnold W. Donald
                                    Arnold W. Donald