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

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 7 (Thursday, January 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 1913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-209]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

Release of Waybill Data

    The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from Baker 
& Miller PLLC on behalf of the Kansas City Southern (WB595-5--1/3/2008) 
for permission to use certain data from the Board's 2006 Carload 
Waybill Sample. A copy of the requests may be obtained from the Office 
of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration.
    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics, 
Environmental Analysis, and Administration within 14 calendar days of 
the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are 
codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
    Contact: Mac Frampton, (202) 245-0317.

Anne K. Quinlan,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-209 Filed 1-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
```
. - 

OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS . 

AUSTIN 
t%matroln8 the 8bavo 06&e& portion of tb 8t8tate 

we mid ln 010 oplnfoa lb. O-2 y& A: 

If the Cam~lrslomrs~ Court deteminrs that t8a 

ut6bl.i.ebmat awl/or sgpo~t OS mxah pro 

P 

laotla unit ikia 

b.haU af pablh health ml unl~%ion thin tha oean~ tt 

10 mar opinion that it -would be mathorlmetl to expend fto#la 

fresths genrral tam? oftha scanty for tha purpoaa8~aat out 

ln for lettar.
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6899 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from engaging 

in transactions involving the exchange of Special Drawing Rights issued by the International Monetary Fund 

that are held by the Russian Federation or Belarus. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6899 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Russia and Belarus 

3 SDR Exchange Prohibition Act of 2022’’. 

4 SEC. 2. SPECIAL DRAWING RIGHTS EXCHANGE PROHIBI5 TION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury 

7 may not engage in any transaction involving the exchange 

8 of Special Drawing Rights issued by the International 

9 Monetary Fund that are held by the Russian Federation 

10 or Belarus. 

11 (b) ADVOCACY.—The Secretary of the Treasury 

12 shall— 

13 (1) vigorously advocate that the governments of 

14 the member countries of the International Monetary 

15 Fund, to the extent that the member countries issue 

16 freely usable currencies, prohibit transactions involv17 ing the exchange of Special Drawing Rights held by 

18 the Russian Federation or Belarus and 

19 (2) direct the United States Executive Director 

20 at each international financial institution (as defined 

21 in section 1701(c)(2) of the International Financial 

22 Institutions Act) to use the voice and vote of the 

23 United States to oppose the provision of financial 

24 assistance to the Russian Federation and Belarus, 

25 except to address basic human needs of the civilian 

26 population. 
3 

•HR 6899 EH

1 (c) TERMINATION.—The preceding provisions of this 

2 section shall have no force or effect on the earlier of— 

3 (1) the date that is 5 years after the date of the 

4 enactment of this Act; or 

5 (2) 30 days after the date that the President 

6 reports to the Congress that the governments of the 

7 Russian Federation and Belarus have ceased desta8 bilizing activities with respect to the sovereignty and 

9 territorial integrity of Ukraine. 

10 (d) WAIVER.—The President may waive the applica11 tion of this section if the President reports to the Congress 

12 that the waiver is in the national interest of the United 

13 States and includes an explanation of the reasons therefor. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 11, 2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6899 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from enRussian Federation or Belarus. national Monetary Fund that are held by the Special Drawing Rights issued by the Inter- gaging in transactions involving the exchange of
**Exhibit 33-B****Management’s Assertion of Compliance**Managementof the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (the “Company”) isresponsible for providing this platform-level assessment of compliance with the servicingcriteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and ExchangeCommission.Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable in regardsto the platform for the following period:Platform: publicly-issued *(i.e.,*transaction-level reporting initially required underthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed securities,automobile loan or lease-backed securities and student loan-backed securities issued on orafter January 1, 2006, for which the Company provides the following servicing functions (the“Platform”): **•** paying agent, securities administration and trustee; or  **•** securities administration and paying agent; or  **•** paying agent and trustee; or  **•** paying agent.Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), tothe extent required by the Item 1122(d) servicing criteria in regards to the activitiesperformed by the Company with respect to the Platform as to any transaction, excluding thefollowing servicing criteria: 1122(d)(l)(i), 1122(d)(l)(iii), 1122(d)(l)(iv),1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) through 1122(d)(4)(xiv),(the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”).Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006 (the “Period”).With respect to the Platform, the Company’s management provides the following assessment ofcompliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria: **•** The Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’scompliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.  **•** The Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable ServicingCriteria as of and for the Period. In making this assessment, management used thecriteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item1122 of Regulation AB.  **•** Based on such assessment, as of and for the Period, the Company has complied, inall material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect tomanagement’s assertion of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for thePeriod.         **CITIBANK, N.A.**                   By: /s/ Jeffrey Volk                 Jeffrey VoIk            Its:  Managing Director            Dated:    February 28, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 51 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 116
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 51

                          [Report No. 107-198]

Approving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment with respect to 
           the products of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 2001

Mr. Armey (for himself, Mr. Gephardt, and Mr. Crane) (all by request): 
 introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

                           September 5, 2001

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Approving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment with respect to 
           the products of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves the 
extension of nondiscriminatory treatment with respect to the products 
of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam transmitted by the President to 
the Congress on June 8, 2001.

                                                 Union Calendar No. 116

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 51

                          [Report No. 107-198]

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Approving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment with respect to 
           the products of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 5, 2001

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
#### The State, ex rel. Holliday, *v.*Wetherald, Mayor.

(No. 24629

Decided March 7, 1934.)

*Mr. John G. Bassett,*for relator.

*Messrs. Graham S Graham,*for respondent.

This cause came on to he heard upon the pleadings, the evidence and the arguments of counsel. Upon consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged that a writ of prohibition be denied, and that the action be, and the same hereby is, dismissed at the costs of the relator, upon the authority of *Silliman*v. *Court of Common Pleas of Williams County,*126 Ohio St., 338.

*Writ denied.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.
#### Konstantinos Kaltsas et al., Appellants, v Henry S. Holender et al., Respondents.

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), which, after a nonjury trial, *inter alia,*dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the defendants, the record reveals that in October 1986 the plaintiffs inspected the defendants’ home and at that time agreed to purchase it for $265,000, after being shown a survey and certificate of occupancy for the premises as a two-family dwelling. Although the defendants had previously altered the premises by removing the upstairs dwelling unit, the defendants testified that the plaintiffs inspected the altered *358portion of the house, and were informed that the premises could be converted to a two-family dwelling in light of the certificate of occupancy. Thereafter, the plaintiffs executed a contract of sale under which the defendants were to convey a "legal two family dwelling” to be accepted by the purchaser "as is”. Subsequently, when an appraiser’s report disclosed that the house did not contain two separate units, the plaintiffs refused to attend the closing, contending that the defendants could not convey title to a "legal” two-family home in accord with the contract, since the premises had been altered. The Supreme Court declined to credit the plaintiffs’ assertion that they had never inspected the altered upstairs portion of the home, and construed the contract as requiring the defendants to convey the premises "as is”, i.e., as it existed at the time of the plaintiffs’ inspection. The court concluded that by improperly demanding removal of the alterations, the plaintiffs were in breach of the contract. We agree.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the parties’ contract —which specified that the premises were to be purchased "as is”—did not obligate the defendants to convey a dwelling containing two separately constructed units. The Supreme Court, crediting the defendants’ account of relevant events, properly concluded that the plaintiffs had inspected the premises, that they were aware that it had been altered and did not contain two separate units, and that they nevertheless agreed to purchase the property "as is”, after inspecting the certificate of occupancy. Since the record establishes that the defendants were always in a position to convey the property in conformity with the terms of the contract, the plaintiffs’ demand that the defendants restore the previously altered portions of the premises as a prerequisite to the closing of title, constituted a breach of the contract. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Rubin and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF

TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rewards Network Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, George S. Wiedemann, President and Chief Executive 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:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



May 10, 2004



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|                                                         
|/s/ George S. Wiedemann                                  
|                                                         
|George S. Wiedemann President and Chief Executive Officer
| **Note 10. Segment and Geographic Information (Detail)** | 3 Months Ended |
|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| Number of Reportable Segments                            | 1              |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Number of segments reported by the entity. A reportable segment is a component of an entity for which there is an accounting requirement to report separate financial information on that component in the entity's financial statements.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_NumberOfReportableSegments**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:integerItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


                     PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  For the Three
                                                   Months Ended         For the Years Ended
                                                    March 31,               December 31,
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------
                                                  2006   2005    2005   2004    2003     2002    2001
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------
                                                                (Millions, except ratios)
<S>                                               <C>    <C>     <C>    <C>     <C>      <C>     <C>
Earnings as Defined in Regulation S-K (A):

Pre-tax Income from Continuing Operations          $143  $204    $583   $592    $376     $320    $324
Fixed Charges                                        85    84     342    362     390      408     461
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------
Earnings                                           $228  $288    $925   $954    $766     $728    $785
                                                  ======================================================

Fixed Charges as Defined in Regulation S-K (B)


Interest Expense                                    $85   $84    $342   $362    $390     $406    $458
Interest Factor in Rentals                           --    --      --     --      --        2       3
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------
Total Fixed Charges                                 $85   $84    $342   $362    $390     $408    $461
                                                  ======================================================

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                 2.68  3.43    2.70   2.64    1.96     1.78    1.70
                                                  ======================================================
</TABLE>


(A)   The term "earnings" shall be defined as pretax income from continuing
      operations. Add to pretax income the amount of fixed charges adjusted to
      exclude the amount of any interest capitalized during the period.

(B)   Fixed Charges represent (a) interest, whether expensed or capitalized, (b)
      amortization of debt discount, premium and expense and (c) an estimate of
      interest implicit in rentals.
#### CONVENT et al. v. LAMA.

No. 16407.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 23, 1937.

Johnston Armstrong, of New Orleans, for appellants.

O. H. Dabezies, of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

As stated in our original opinion, the only issue in this case is the prescription of one year which has been pleaded by defendant’s counsel. According to plaintiff, the accident, which forms the basis of this suit, happened on June 13, 1934, and according to defendant on April 28, 1934. Since the suit was filed on May 7, 1935, the prescription of one year would have accrued if the date of the accident as given by defendant be correct.

On the trial of the case .Mr. Scivique, the rental agent of defendant, testified that he had called upon the plaintiff on April 28, 1934, in an effort to collect some overdue rent and that on that occasion plaintiff told him of her accident. He stated that he had made a note of this at the time in a book which he carried called his “repair book.” He was asked to produce this book and agreed to do so, but, for some reason (in our original opinion we said it was due to oversight) the book was not produced. Counsel for plaintiff criticizes this statement and contends that the proper significance to be attached to this incident is that since the book was not produced it could not be.

A number of prescriptions issued by Dr. Mims, who treated plaintiff, were produced by the druggist, Paul A. Landix, who filled them. Some of these prescriptions were filled shortly after April 28th, and some shortly after the later date, June 13th. Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to prove by Landix that the prescriptions bearing the earlier dates were not intended to allay pain but were given for indigestion and a cold. Upon objection of defendant’s counsel, the testimony was excluded. It is contended that the court should take judicial cognizance of the fact that the ingredients mentioned in these earlier prescriptions such as seidlitz powders and *554sodium bicarbonate could not have been intended to relieve any condition caused by the accident.' In this we do not- agree.

However, after a reconsideration of the matter, we have concluded to remand the case for the purpose of permitting the “repair book” to be introduced in evidence and for the further purpose of having the physician who issued the prescriptions explain their purpose. If the prescriptions which were issued just after April 28th were for an ailment having no connection with the accident, as counsel for plaintiff insists, and the prescriptions issued after June 13th were designed to alleviate plaintiff's suffering caused by the accident, plaintiff’s case may appear in a more favorable light. Similarly the production of the repair book might favorably affect defendant’s contention.

For the reasons assigned, our former decree is recalled and set aside and it is now ordered that this case be remanded to the first city court of New Orleans for further proceedings according to law and not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.

Original decree recalled, reversed and remanded.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000316 31-AUG-2017 09:42 AM
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20943]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open meeting of the Small Business/Self Employed--Taxpayer Burden 
Reduction Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/
Self Employed--Taxpayer Burden Reduction Issue Committee will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, 
ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, October 9, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisa Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(718) 488-3557.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self 
Employed--Taxpayer Burden Reduction Issue Committee will be held 
Thursday, October 9, 2008, at 2 p.m. Eastern Time via a telephone 
conference call. You can submit written comments to the panel by faxing 
to (718) 488-2062, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 10 Metro Tech 
Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY, 11201, or you can contact us 
at http://www.improveirs.org. Public comments will also be welcome 
during the meeting. Please contact Marisa Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(718) 488-3557 for additional information.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS Issues.

    Dated: August 29, 2008.
Roy L. Block,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E8-20943 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P