alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 189 (Monday, September 29, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22823]



[[Page 56535]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-101258-08]
RIN 1545-BH66


Guidance Under Sections 642 and 643 (Income Ordering Rules); 
Hearing

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document cancels a public hearing on proposed rulemaking 
providing guidance under Internal Revenue Code section 642(c) with 
regard to the Federal tax consequences of an ordering provision in a 
trust, a will, or a provision of local law that attempts to determine 
the tax character of the amounts paid to a charitable beneficiary of 
the trust or estate. The proposed regulations also make conforming 
amendments to the regulations under section 643(a)(5). The proposed 
regulations affect estates, charitable lead trusts (CLTs) and other 
trusts making payments or permanently setting aside amounts for a 
charitable purpose.

DATES: The public hearing, originally scheduled for October 8, 2008, at 
10 a.m., is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Hurst of the Publications 
and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 
Counsel (Procedure and Administration), at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bdefd4ded5dccfd993fc93f5c8cfcec9fdd4cfceded2c8d3ced8d193c9cfd8dcce93dad2cb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7a59e949f968593d9b6d9bf82858483b79e85849498829984929bd98385929684d9909881">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  A notice of public hearing that appeared in 
the Federal Register on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 (73 FR 34670), 
announced that a public hearing was scheduled for October 8, 2008, at 
10 a.m., in the auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public 
hearing is under sections 642 and 643 of the Internal Revenue Code.
    The public comment period for these regulations expired on 
September 16, 2008. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the hearing 
were due on September 18, 2008. The notice of proposed rulemaking and 
notice of public hearing instructed those interested in testifying at 
the public hearing to submit an outline of the topics to be addressed. 
As of Monday, September 22, 2008, no one has requested to speak. 
Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for October 8, 2008, is 
cancelled.

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. E8-22823 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------
We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the Registration
Statements  on  Forms S-8 (Nos. 33-56590, 33-71700, as amended by Post-Effective
Amendments No. One and Two, and 33-77617) of Pizza Inn, Inc. of our report dated
August  6,  1999  relating  to  the financial statements and financial statement
schedule,  which  appears  in  this  Form  10-K.



PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS  LLP

Dallas,  TX
September  22,  1999
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Palompelli, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 704]

Appeal by the *558defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered October 14, 1999, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appellate review by either the general motion to dismiss *(see People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10; *People v Wells,*272 AD2d 562, *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245), or the posttrial motion to set aside the verdict *(see People v Betts,*292 AD2d 539, *lv denied*98 NY2d 649; *People v Adams,*281 AD2d 486, 487). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Ruiz,*211 AD2d 829, 830). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Under the circumstances, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### Conway, Jr., et al., Recrs., *v.*Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

(No. 24816

— Decided October 3, 1934.)

*595
      *Messrs. Martin S Corry,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. John W. Bricker,*attorney general, and *Mr. Donald G. Poiver,*for defendant in error.

This cause came on to be heard upon the motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the petition in error, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this court that said motion be, and the same is hereby, sustained on authority of *City of Dayton*v. *Public Utilities*Commission, 111 Ohio St., 476.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Matthias and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               Percentage
                                                               of Voting
                                                               Securities
                                                   State of    Owned By
                                                Incorporation  Registrant
                                                -------------  ----------
<S>                                             <C>            <C>

Compupower Corporation                              Delaware        100%

Value Line Securities, Inc.                         New York        100%

The Vanderbilt Advertising Agency, Inc.             New York        100%

Value Line Publishing, Inc.                         New York        100%

Value Line Distribution Center, Inc.                New Jersey      100%
</TABLE>

<PAGE>


VALUE LINE, INC.

SCHEDULE XIII - OTHER INVESTMENTS: 4/30/99

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Historical
Mutual Fund Investments                                          Cost          Market Value
                                                                 ----          ------------
<S>                                                          <C>              <C>


The Value Line Fund, Inc.                                    $  3,403,913      $  7,009,752
The Value Line Special Situations Fund, Inc.                    8,384,787        10,844,763
The Value Line Income Fund, Inc.                                2,381,816         3,430,800
Value Line Leveraged Growth Investors, Inc.                    18,026,204        39,206,707
Value Line U.S. Government Securities Fund, Inc.                6,844,624         6,872,862
Value Line Tax Exempt Fund, Inc.,  High Yield Portfolio         1,224,454         1,304,637
Value Line Convertible Fund, Inc.                                 974,675           974,316
Value Line Aggressive Income Trust                                827,343           859,672
Value Line  New York Tax Exempt Trust                           1,122,688         1,216,276
Value Line  Small Cap Growth Fund                              12,118,855        14,419,780
Value Line Asset Allocation Fund, Inc.                         40,143,839        60,330,236
Value Line US Multinational Company Fund                       11,952,837        22,121,268
                                                             ------------------------------
TOTAL                                                        $107,406,035      $168,591,069
                                                             ------------------------------
                                                             ------------------------------
</TABLE>
-~ -



## THE momY GENERAL

OFTEXAS

ATTORNz5Y “PzNlinAL HonorableL. R. Thompson CountyAuditor Taylor County Abilene, Texas Dear Mr. Thompson: Opinion No. O-4872 Be: Can the same election supplies, ballots, and election judgesbe used to hold the General Election and the Special Election called to elect a State Senator for the General Election day? Your letter of September 21, 1942, stating that the Governor had called a special election tobe held on tie day of the Qeneral Election to elect a State Senator to suetieed Honorable John Lee Smith,has been given our aareful consideration.

In your letteryou ask the following questions: "1. Can the general election supplies serve for both the general eleotion and the special election for State Senator? “2. Can everythingappear on one ballot or must there be separateballots? R3. Can one set of judges and clerks serve forboth eleotions? "4. 

### Isone set of ballot boxes sufficient,or must therebe separate ballot boxes?"

We enclose a copy of our Opinion Ro. O-2853,written to Ron. A& Niller, CountyAttorney of %uton County, dated November 1, 1940, which we thinkwill answer each of the questionsyou ask. Without repeating the argument and authorities therein quoted, but based upon same, '18 answeryour four questions as follousr

1. In our opinion,you cannot use the General Election supplies for both the General Election and the Speoial Eleotion,because they are to separate and distinct elections.

2. You cannotplace on the offioialballot for the General Election the names of thosewho are running for State Senator. Itnill be neoessary to have a separateand distinotballot prepared for the SpecialElection.Honorable L. R. Thompson,page 2 (O-4872)

3. One set of judges and clerks can serve for holding both of the elections.

4. Itwill be necessary to have two sets of ballotboxes and the ballots, after beingvoted, should %s kept in separateboxes, bsoause theremight be a contest over either the Special Eleation or the General Election.

ATTORRBYGEREFUL OFTEXAS By /s/ Gee. II.Barcus

Geo. U.&ram Assistant

Enclosure APPROVED SEP 29, 1942 /S/ Gerald C. ?dann ATTORREYGFZERALOFTEX&S Approved Opinion Comittee &rBWB ChinnSn
#### Theodore Wenger, Appellant, v Broome County Government, Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 115]

Mercure, J.P.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), entered April 20, 2001, which affirmed a judgment of the City Court of the City of Binghamton in favor of defendant.

Plaintiff commenced this action in the City Court of the City of Binghamton, Broome County, to recover for damage to his automobile taillight, which he alleges was caused by one of defendant’s snowplows dining the early morning hours of February 2, 1999. On the trial of the action, plaintiff testified that at the time the damage was sustained, his automobile was parked in his driveway, situated approximately eight feet from the edge of the highway. Significantly, plaintiff acknowledged that he was in bed asleep when the damage was sustained and he merely assumed that it had been caused by a snowplow because approximately one to two inches of snow had fallen during the night, and when he went outside in the morning, he observed that the taillight was broken and his “car was splattered on the side and on the back” with snow, ice and sand. Even accepting the premise that the trial evidence permitted a finding that the damage to plaintiff’s vehicle was caused by snow, ice or an unknown foreign object propelled onto plaintiffs property by defendant’s snowplowing operation, the fact remains that the record contains no evidence to support a finding that defendant’s operators breached the standard of care prescribed in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) *(see, Riley v County of Broome,*95 NY2d 455).

*643Plaintiffs remaining contentions, including the claim that City Court prevented him from fully presenting his case, have been considered and found to be unavailing. Notably, it appears that any evidence plaintiff was prevented from presenting had no bearing on the issue of liability. Under the circumstances, we reject the contention that substantial justice was not done between the parties (UCCA 1807) and conclude that County Court did not err in affirming City Court’s judgment dismissing the claim.

Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rick Redman

v. Civil No. 07-cv-52-JL

City of Manchester, et al.

 O R D E R

The defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. no. 8) is

GRANTED IN PART. As the plaintiff assents to summary judgment on

Counts 1 and 2, summary judgment is granted in favor of the

defendants on Counts 1 and 2. As the defendants have not

responded to the plaintiff’s request that Count 3, alleging

claims under state law, be deferred in favor of adjudication in

state court, that request is granted as well. The court declines

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count 3, and the

complaint, comprised now of Count 3 only, is referred to the

Superior Court for the Northern District of Hillsborough County.

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: June 12, 2008

cc: Lawrence A. Vogelman, Esq.

Robert J. Meagher, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00052-JL Document 12 Filed 06/12/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

USA

 v. Case No. 08-mc-79-SM

Elias E. Ashooh

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated December 15, 2008, no objection having been filed. 

The taxpayer, Elias E. Ashooh, is ordered to obey the summons and appear

on February 2, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. at 1000 Elm Street, Suite 900, Manchester, New

Hampshire, before Diane M. Saylor, to give testimony and produce all books and

records in his possession or control required and called for by the terms of the

summons of March 20, 2008. 

It is further ordered that the government be awarded its costs. 

SO ORDERED.

January 6, 2009 /s/Steven J. McAuliffe 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Gretchen Leah Witt, AUSA

Elias E. Ashooh

Case 1:08-mc-00079-SM Document 6 Filed 01/06/09 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenny O’Connor, Also Known as Nicholas Kenny, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 444]

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), both rendered March 13, 2000, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 1939/99, and burglary in the second degree under Indictment No. 2056/99, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Prudenti, P.J., O’Brien, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.
IV 

House Calendar No. 184 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 955 

[Report No. 110–522] 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 

consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2008 

Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with 

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported 

from the Committee on Rules. 

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the 

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to 

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported on the legislative day of Thursday, February 7, 

6 2008, relating to a bill to provide economic stimulus. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 184 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 955 

[Report No. 110

–522] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 

tions reported from the Committee on Rules. with respect to consideration of certain resoluFEBRUARY 6, 2008 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
J.

good cause and actual prejudice. See MRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3). Moreover, because the State specifically pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the rebuttable presumption of prejudice. MRS 34.800(2). Relying in part on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), appellant argued that he had good cause because he was not appointed counsel in the first post-conviction proceedings. We conclude that this argument lacked merit. The appointment of counsel was discretionary in the first post-conviction proceedings, see NRS 34.750(1), and appellant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion or provide an explanation for why he could not raise this claim earlier. Further, this court has recently held that Martinez does not apply to Nevada's statutory post-conviction procedures. See Brown v. McDaniel, Nev. , P.3d(Adv. Op. No. 60, August 7, 2014). Thus, the failure to appoint postconviction counsel and the decision in Martinez would not provide good cause for this late and successive petition. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this petition as procedurally barred, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.



# / 1..toewte, J. Hardesty

J.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947Acc: Hon. Abbi Silver, District Judge Joe Piceno Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A 

### e
Exhibit 32.01

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 of Westside Energy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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.



|                   |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Douglas G. Manner  
|                   |  |  |  | Douglas G. Manner,     
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
[744 NYS2d 183]

#### In the Matter of Michael H. Sussman, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Second Department,

June 10, 2002

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Gary L. Casella,*White Plains *(Gloria A. Bunze*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Michael H. Sussman,*Goshen, respondent pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was served with a petition containing *140multiple charges of professional misconduct. In his answer, he largely admitted the major allegations contained in the petition. After a hearing, the Special Referee sustained all of the charges. The petitioner now moves to confirm Special Referee’s report. The respondent opposes the petitioner’s motion.

Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, including the respondent’s admissions, all of the charges are sustained.

In determining the appropriate measure of discipline to impose, the respondent asks the Court to consider his professional background as a civil rights attorney, as well as his community service activities. He also asks the Court to consider that he did not convert client funds or use them for his own benefit, that his clients received all of the funds to which they were entitled, and that he now has remedied and corrected his prior practices. The respondent asks the Court to balance the good he has done as an attorney against his technical violations of the Disciplinary Rules.

Under the totality of the circumstances, the respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.

Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Santucci, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the petitioner’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent, Michael H. Sussman, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, commencing July 10, 2002, and continuing until the further order of this Court, with leave to the respondent to apply for reinstatement no sooner than six months prior to the expiration of the said period of one year upon furnishing satisfactory proof that during the said period he (a) refrained from practicing or attempting to practice law, (b) has fully complied with this order and with the terms and provisions of the written rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 691.10), and (c) has otherwise properly conducted himself; and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension and until further order of this Court, the respondent, Michael H. Sussman, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to an*141other an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.