alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Albert L. and Rita F. LaFONTAINE, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.

No. 75-1740.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 30, 1976.

Decided April 7, 1976.

Albert L. LaFontaine, pro se.

Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Michael L. Paup and Ann Belanger Durney, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., on brief for appellee and appendix.

Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court is before a screening panel of this Court pursuant to Eighth Circuit Court Rule 6. We affirm the decision of the Tax Court.1
      *See*Eighth Circuit Court Rule 9.

Albert L. LaFontaine, the taxpayer, is a certified member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and Chief of the Grand Council of Confederated Nations. He and his wife, Rita F. LaFontaine, filed a joint federal income tax return for 1971, reporting $9,060.56 of income. The income was derived exclusively from wages earned by the taxpayer from his employment as a machinist for Burlington Northern, Inc. The taxpayer calculated the tax due as zero because Indians are not, in his opinion subject to taxation. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue asserted a deficiency of $1,104, which the Tax Court upheld.

The Supreme Court has stated the applicable law:

> Indians are citizens and * * * in ordinary affairs of life, not governed by treaties or remedial legislation, they are subject to the payment of income taxes as are other citizens.

*Squire v. Capoeman,*351 U.S. 1, 6, 76 S.Ct. 611, 615, 100 L.Ed. 883, 888 (1956).

*See also Choteau v. Burnet,*283 U.S. 691, 51 S.Ct. 598, 75 L.Ed. 1353 (1931); *Holt v. C.I.R.,*364 F.2d 38 (8th Cir. 1966), *cert. denied,*386 U.S. 931, 87 S.Ct. 952, 17 L.Ed.2d 805 (1967); *C.I.R. v. Walker,*326 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 1964).

Although the taxpayer has cited more than thirty treaties, he has failed to point to any provision in any of the treaties which exempts his wages from federal income taxation because he is an Indian. The Tax Court was also unable to find any exempting provision. As the taxpayer has failed to demonstrate his right to an exemption, the decision of the Tax Court is affirmed.

. The opinion of the Tax Court is unofficially reported at 1975 P-H Memo T.C. fi 75,165.
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

** **

**RESTATED OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, certify that:

1.         I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of the periodcovered by this report on Form 10–K of Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, WMALT Series 2006-5 Trust (the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);

2.         Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a  materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.         Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10–D for theperiod covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.         Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestationreports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Greenpoint MortgageCompany.

 

 

Date:  As of March 15,2007

|   |   | /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann                                                                        |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  ThomasG. Lehmann                                                                 |
|   |   | Title:   President and Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor |
Hearn Service Amendment














April 30, 2014




Stephen Patrick Hearn
51 Lime Street
London EC3M 7DQ




Dear Steve,




In consideration for your continued employment by Willis Limited, your Contract of Employment, dated October 16, 2012 (your “Contract of Employment”), is amended by deleting the paragraph entitled “Termination After a Change in Control” in its entirety and replacing it with the following paragraphs:
In the event of a Change in Control (as defined below) and a termination of your employment (other than by reason of your death or Disability) by the Company and its affiliates without Cause or by your voluntary resignation for Good Reason, in each case before the second anniversary of the date of such Change in Control, you shall be entitled to (a) the termination payments and benefits pursuant to paragraph (d) of the immediately preceding section of this Contract of Employment except the stated percentages at the beginning of subparagraph (d)(i) of such section shall be “200%” in place of “150%” and (b) all employment or service-based vesting requirements applicable to your outstanding stock options, restricted stock units and other equity-based awards shall be waived as of the date of your termination of employment.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if it is reasonably determined by Willis that any payments or benefits that are to be paid or provided to you or for your benefit in connection with a change of control (within the meaning of Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code) (the “Payments”) would be subject to the excise tax imposed under section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Excise Tax”), then such Payments shall be reduced by the smallest amount necessary in order for no portion of the Payments to be subject to the Excise Tax; provided that, no reduction in the Payments shall be made if the After Tax Amount of the Payments payable to you without such reduction would exceed the After Tax Amount of the reduced Payments payable to you.  For purposes of the foregoing, the “After Tax Amount” of your Payments shall mean the amount of the Payments that you would retain after payment of all taxes (including without limitation any federal, state or local income taxes, the Excise Tax, and employment taxes) imposed with respect to such Payments.  The payment reduction shall be implemented by (i) first reducing any cash severance payments, and (ii) then reducing all other payments and benefits, in each case, with amounts having later payment dates being reduced first.
Except as set forth above, your Contract of Employment will remain in full force and effect.  Please acknowledge this change to your Contract of Employment by signing and dating this letter agreement as indicated below.











Sincerely yours, 




/s/ Dominic Casserley
Name: Dominic Casserley
Title: Group CEO




Signed and Acknowledged:




/s/ Stephen Patrick Hearn
Stephen Patrick Hearn
Date: May 6, 2014
#### MURPHY v. B. MUTTI, Inc., et al.

No. 16775.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 18, 1937.

Jas. G. Schillin, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Maurice R. Woulfe, of New Orleans, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This matter comes before us on motion to dismiss the appeal on the allegation of mover that “exhibits filed in evidence in the lower court by mover have not been made a part of the transcript.” In answer to the motion to dismiss the appeal appellant states “that the record filed herein is completely indexed and that all exhibits both on the part of appellant and appellee, are a part of the record and complete therein,” and, “although three exhibits are not contained in the record in this court, they are properly indexed and made part hereof,” and “that it is the custom to send for said exhibits * * * on the day the said matter is fixed for argument before this honorable court.”

Inasmuch as mover does not specifically indicate which exhibits are not contained nor referred to in the record, and inasmuch as the record does contain some exhibits, we are unable to say what exhibits mover has reference to as having been omitted from the transcript. See Boland Machine & Mfg. Co., Inc.; v. Lionel F. Favret et al. (La.App.) 176 So. 401, this day decided.

Under the circumstances the motion to dismiss will be overruled.

Motion to dismiss overruled.
189 La. 877

#### HULETT v. GILBERT.

No. 34770.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 2, 1938.

Louis H. Yarrut and Sydney J. Par-longue, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Joseph Rosenberg, of New Orleans, for appellee.

ROGERS, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment awarding her alimony at the rate of $75 a month contemporaneously with a judgment of separation from bed and board.

The parties have been married for eighteen years. This is plaintiff’s second marriage. By her first marriage she has a daughter who is employed as a stenographer in the city of Washington. There is no issue of her second marriage.

Defendant is the office manager of the Jones & Laughlin Steel' Corporation, in the city of New Orleans. At the time suit was brought his salary w;as $316 a month. At the time of the hearing, his salary had been increased to $335 a month. But since the appeal was taken his salary has been decreased to $280 a month.

A rule by defendant to have the alimony reduced from $75 to $50 a month, because of the reduction in his salary, was denied by the trial judge. By agreement of counsel the proceedings on this rule were made a part of this record to be considered herein, without the necessity of another appeal.

Plaintiff contends that in view of the social circle in which she moves and the poor state of her health, $75 a month is not sufficient for her needs and is not proportionate to the defendant’s income. Hence, plaintiff contends that the alimony award should be increased 'to an amount equal to one-third of defendant’s monthly salary.

Defendant, on his part, contends that he is considerably in debt for loans obtained from various parties on which he is making regular monthly payments; • that he is under certain expenses incidental to his employment. and also other expenses and obligations, ■ which reduce his gross income considerably ; and, in addition thereto, that he is the sole support of his aged mother and contributes monthly towards her maintenance. Defendant further contends that the condition of plaintiff’s health is not *432such as to require her to visit her physician more than once a month for observation at a nominal cost.

The amount to be awarded as alimony pendente lite is largely within the discretion of the trial judge. When exercised fairly and without abuse it will not be ordinarily interfered with on appeal.

After considering the evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the trial judge fixed the alimony demanded by plaintiff at $75 a month. In doing so, he obviously considered that the amount awarded was sufficient for plaintiff’s support and was proportionate to defendant’s, means. In this we do not find that he acted unfairly or that he abused his discretion. Hence, we see no reason to disturb his judgment.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

O’NIELL, C. J., does not take part.
#### In the Matter of Philip Kohnberg et al., Petitioners, against Harris H. Murdock et al., Constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, Respondents, and Morton Pickman et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

December 28, 1956.

*878
      *Robert S. Dillworth*for petitioners.

*Peter Campbell Brown, Corporation Counsel (Joseph M. Callahan*and *Elias Low*of counsel), for respondents.

*Murray Stockman*and *Jacob I. Isaacs*for intervenorsrespondents.

David Kusnetz, J.

This is an application by respondents to vacate an order of certiorari and to dismiss the petition.

On July *24,*1956, the Board of Standards and Appeals made a decision and determination by which the intervening respondents were granted a variance for a term of 15 years, permitting the erection' and use of premises as a gasoline service station. The decision of the Board of Standards and Appeals was published in its official bulletin on July 31, 1956, and became available to the public on August 13, 1956. The order of certiorari, which is herein sought to be vacated, was granted on September 17, 1956, the day on which it was presented to this court.

Subdivision a of section 668e-1.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York provides that an order of certiorari in a proceeding such as this “ must be presented to a justice of the supreme court or at a special term of the supreme court within thirty days after the filing of the decision in the office of the board, or its publication in the bulletin.” As indicated above, the order was presented to a Justice of the Supreme Court on the 35th day from the date when the decision of the Board of Standards and Appeals was published in the bulletin.

Under the circumstances, the motion is granted, the order of certiorari is vacated and the petition dismissed.

Submit order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER>      1
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               72,843
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        83,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                          41,088
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    207,823
<PP&E>                                            4,545,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4,471,548
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      282,423
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,317,285
<BONDS>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                            159,720
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,194,582)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        282,423
<SALES>                                             579,103
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    602,540
<CGS>                                               390,375
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       390,375
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    194,290
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   34,704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (14,616)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (14,616)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (14,616)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.01)


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that the planning meeting of the Vermont Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at the Vermont Law School, Fiske Courtroom, Oakes Hall, 164 Chelsea Street, South Royalton, Vermont. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the racial profiling report and to plan future activities.

                    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by October 16, 2008. The address is the Eastern Regional Office, 624 9th Street, NW., Suite 740, Washington, DC 20425. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or who desire additional information should contact Alfreda Greene, Secretary, at 202-376-7533 or by e-mail to:                     *agreene@usccr.gov*.                

Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meetings and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meetings.

                    Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,                     *http://www.usccr.gov*, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address.                

The meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

      ( print page 50760)    
Dated in Washington, DC, August 25, 2008.

Christopher Byrnes,

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. E8-19995 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
Affirmed and Memorandum and Concurring Opinion s filed March 10
, 20 20

.

In t he



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 18

- 00339

- CR

JOHN ROBERT

- JAMES KANE , Appellant

v

.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 149th District Court Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 82739

- CR

CONCURRING OPINION

I believe the trial court erred in admitting the following hearsay testimony of

Sockwell : “She told me that the night before, they had been up basically all night

lo ng. Her and J.J. were fighting.” I also agree this error was harmless.

/s/ Charles A. Spain
Justice

Panel consists of Justices Wise

, Zimmerer , and Spain

.
Do Not Publish

— T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).
<PAGE> 


                                                          
                                                                 Exhibit 11
                              J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC.
                            and Consolidated Subsidiaries

                      Computation of Net Income Per Common Share  
                  _________________________________________________
                  (Amounts in millions except per common share data)





                                                   26 Weeks Ended         
                                  _____________________________________________
                                      August 1, 1998           July 26, 1997 
                                  ______________________   ____________________
                                   Shares         Income    Shares      Income 
                                  _________     ________   _______    _________

     Basic
     -----

     Net income                                  $   201                $   229
     Dividend on Series B ESOP
       convertible preferred stock
       (after-tax)                                   (18)                   (20)
                                                 _______                _______
     Adjusted net income                             183                    209

     Weighted average number of
       shares outstanding             252.9                244.5            
                                      _____      _______   _____        _______
                                      252.9      $   183   244.5        $   209
                                      =====      =======   =====        =======


     Net income per common share                 $  0.73                $  0.85
                                                 =======                =======




     Diluted
     -------

     Net income                                  $   201                $   229
     Tax benefit differential on ESOP
       dividend assuming stock is
       fully converted                                -                      -
     Assumed additional contribution
       to ESOP if preferred stock is
       fully converted                                (1)                    (2)
                                                 -------                ------- 
     Adjusted net income                             200                    227

     Weighted average number of
       shares outstanding (basic)     252.9                244.5
     Common stock equivalents:
       Stock options and other
       dilutive effect                  2.3                  2.2               
     Convertible preferred stock       17.0                 18.6     
                                      _____      _______   _____        _______
                                      272.2      $   200   265.3        $   227
                                      =====      =======   =====        =======


     Net income per common share                 $  0.72                $  0.85 
                                                 =======                =======