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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 46

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to submit a study of tax depreciation 

recovery periods. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2003

Mr. COLLINS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to submit a study 

of tax depreciation recovery periods.

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

3 SECTION 1. STUDY OF DEPRECIATION RECOVERY PERIODS. 

4 The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary’s del5 egate shall conduct a study of the differences between the 

6 depreciation recovery periods used for computing taxable 

7 income or loss under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

8 and for computing net income or loss for financial state9 ment purposes. Such study shall include such rec10 ommendations as the Secretary may have for adjusting the 
2

•HR 46 IH 

1 recovery periods used for tax purposes to make them clos2 er to the periods used for financial statement purposes. 

3 The report of such study shall be submitted to Congress 

4 not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 

5 this Act.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 72173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28651]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration 
Board (Board).

DATES: Date and Time: The regular meeting of the Board will be held at 
the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on 
December 11, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board 
concludes its business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm 
Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090. Submit attendance requests via email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3066594359445f4262554145554344707673711e575f46"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1147786278657e6343746064746265515752503f767e67">[email protected]</span></a>. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further 
information about attendance requests.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be 
open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed 
to the public. Please send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c294abb1abb6adb090a7b3b7a7b1b682848183eca5adb4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94c2fde7fde0fbe6c6f1e5e1f1e7e0d4d2d7d5baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a> at least 
24 hours before the meeting. In your email include: Name, postal 
address, entity you are representing (if applicable), and telephone 
number. You will receive an email confirmation from us. Please be 
prepared to show a photo identification when you arrive. If you need 
assistance for accessibility reasons, or if you have any questions, 
contact Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration 
Board, at (703) 883-4009. The matters to be considered at the meeting 
are:

Open Session

A. Approval of Minutes

<bullet> November 13, 2014

B. New Business

<bullet> Organization, Mergers, Consolidations and Charter Amendments 
of Banks or Associations--Proposed Rule

C. Reports

<bullet> Quarterly Report on Economic Conditions and Fcs Conditions
<bullet> Semi-Annual Report on Office of Examination Operations

Closed Session*

Reports

<bullet> Office of Examination Supervisory and Oversight Activities 
Report

* Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9).

    Dated: December 2, 2014.
Dale L. Aultman,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-28651 Filed 12-3-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,900)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,900)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
11179.

#### McDonald *v.*Citizens Bank of Ludowici.

Decided August 13, 1920.

Complaint; from Liberty superior court — Judge Sheppard. October 25, 1919.

*A. S. Way,*for plaintiff in error.

*Seabrook & Kennedy, W. C. Hodges,*contra.

Jenkins, P. J.

1. If A, a married woman, with the knowledge and at the suggestion of B, signs a note as principal in favor of C, but without any consideration flowing to her, and with the understanding that B will indorse the note, it is competent for the married woman, in a contest relating solely to an adjudication of the relative rights of herself and B, to show this state of facts by parol, and to have her liability to an innocent purchaser of the note adjudged to be secondary to that of B. *National Bcmh of Tifton*v. *Smith,*142 *Ga.*663 (1) (83 S. E. 526, L. R. A. 1915B).

2. The evidence authorized the jury to find that the original transaction, of which the note sued on was a renewal, was in accordance with the foregoing statement.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 10.27


 


MISONIX, INC.


1938 New Highway


Farmingdale, NY 11735


 


	 	May 22, 2015


Mr. Michael A. McManus, Jr.


100 White Plains Road


Bronxville, NY 10708


 


Dear Mr. McManus:


 


Reference is hereby made to the (i) Letter Agreement, dated
as of July 1, 2012, by and between MISONIX, INC. (the “Company”) and Michael A. McManus, Jr. with respect to options
to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $.01 per share (“Common Stock”), granted to you by
the Company pursuant to the Company’s (x) 2005 Employee Equity Incentive Plan and (y) 2009 Employee Equity Incentive Plan
(the “2005/2009 Letter”); and (ii) Letter Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2012, by and between the Company and Michael
A. McManus, Jr. with respect to options to purchase shares of Common Stock granted to you by the Company pursuant to the Company’s
(x) 1998 Employee Stock Option Plan and (y) 2001 Employee Stock Option Plan (the “1998/2001 Letter” and with the 2005/2009
Letter, the “Letter Agreements”).


 


The Company and you are today entering into a new employment
agreement (the “New Employment Agreement”). Each of the Letter Agreements makes reference to the Employment Agreement,
dated September 11, 2012 and effective as of July 1, 2012 (a “Prior Employment Agreement”). The Compensation Committee
of the Board of Directors of the Company has determined that the terms and conditions of the Letter Agreements should continue
to apply to the Company and you during the term of the New Employment Agreement. Accordingly, all references in the Letter Agreements
to a Prior Employment Agreement shall be deemed to be references to the New Employment Agreement.


 


Except with respect to the foregoing change, the Letter Agreements
shall remain in full force and effect.


 


Kindly evidence your agreement with the foregoing by signing
where indicated below and returning the signed copy of this letter to the undersigned.


 


	 	Sincerely yours,
	 	 
	 	MISONIX, INC.
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Richard A. Zaremba
	 	 	Name:  	Richard A. Zaremba
	 	 	Title:	Senior Vice President and
	 	 	 	Chief Financial Officer
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO AS OF	 	 	 
	THE DATE FIRST SET FORTH ABOVE:	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Michael A. McManus, Jr.	 	 	 
	Michael A. McManus, Jr.
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of

Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York:

 

We have made a review, in accordance with the standards of the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interimfinancial information of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York for thethree-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, as indicated inour report dated August 6, 2007; because we did not perform an audit, weexpressed no opinion on that information.

 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included inyour Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, isincorporated by reference in the following Registration Statements:

 
| **Form S-3 Registration Statement Nos.** | ** ** | **Form N-4 Registration Statement Nos.** |
|------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------|
| 333-58512                           |       | 033-65381                                |
| 333-100029                               |       | 333-68344                                |
|                                     |       | 333-81970                                |
|                                     |       | 333-94785                                |

 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of theRegistration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a reportprepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11of that Act.

 

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

August 6, 2007

 

E-2

----
EXHIBIT 23.1
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Forms S-8 No. 333-41542 and No. 333-72036) pertaining to the 1999Equity Participation Plan of Golden Telecom, Inc. and in the Post EffectiveAmendment No. 1 (Form S-3 No 333-39260) to Registration Statement on Form S-1 ofGolden Telecom, Inc. and the in related Prospectus of our reports dated March11, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule ofGolden Telecom, Inc., and Golden Telecom, Inc. management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Golden Telecom,Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2004.
/s/ Ernst & Young (CIS) Limited
Moscow, Russia
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALFONSO BLACKMON, a/k/a, :

YAHYA R. EL’AMIN, a/k/a, 

JOHN THOMPKINS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0316-BH-D

SHERIFF JIMMY JOHNSON, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issue

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this

court. It is ORDERED that defendants Allen Perdue, Jonathan Armstrong, Frank Burt, Jr.,

George Price, Mary Frances Stewart, Charles A. Browdy, and Joe T. Faust be DISMISSED

from this action with prejudice, prior to service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i), as the claims against them are frivolous; that, based on the abstention

principles of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), the claims for

injunctive and declaratory relief be DISMISSED; and that the damages claims be STAYED

until the criminal proceedings against plaintiff are concluded. It is further ORDERED that

plaintiff advise the court on June 1, 2006 of the status of the criminal proceedings against him;

Case 1:05-cv-00316-CG-B Document 14 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 2
the failure to advise the court will result in the dismissal of this action for failure to obey the

court’s order. 

DONE this 29th day of March, 2006.

 

s/ W. B. Hand

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00316-CG-B Document 14 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2
NVLAP LAB BULLETIN NUMBER: LB-132-2020 PAGE 1 of 1

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National 

Institute of Standards and Technology National

Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

ISSUE DATE:

September 8, 2020

LAB BULLETIN

NUMBER: LB-132-2020

LAP: ALL

SUBJECT: Implementing Cause Analysis for the Non-Conformity Response submission 

through the NVLAP Interactive Web System (NIWS)

The purpose of this bulletin is to notify laboratories of a change being made to the submission 

information for a laboratory responding to any nonconformities cited during an assessment.

ISO/IEC 17011:2017, Section 7.6.8 requires “the conformity assessment body to provide an 

analysis of the extent and cause (e.g. root cause analysis) of the nonconformities and to describe 

within a defined time the specific actions taken or planned to be taken to resolve the 

nonconformities.”

Pursuant to this requirement, NVLAP has updated the nonconformity response submission in the 

NIWS to include a field for Cause Analysis information. This field is currently visible to all 

laboratories with open nonconformities in the NIWS.

For any assessment performed after October 5, 2020, the Cause Analysis information will be 

required to be provided for an initial response to a nonconformity.

The information will be verified upon review of the nonconformity responses, and should this 

information not be included with the submission, the program manager will request submission of 

this information to complete the resolution and closure of the nonconformity.

NOTE: If a laboratory is in the process of resolving cited nonconformities AND the laboratory 

had previously provided a response for those nonconformities before October 5, 2020, submission 

of the Cause Analysis information is not required at this time. 

Starting January 1, 2021, all initial nonconformity responses submitted will require submission of 

the Cause Analysis information. At that time, the NIWS will not permit a laboratory to submit the 

responses if the Cause Analysis information is not included for each response.

If you have any questions, please contact your program manager.
. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, #258485, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0590-WS-C

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT : 

OF CORRECTIONS,

:

Defendant.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to

the issues raised, and there having been no objections raised, the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated January 6, 2010 and made pursuant 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that

plaintiff’s existing claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and his motions

to amend (Docs. 9 & 10) are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion

for a preliminary injunction (Doc.11) be and is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff may file a new

complaint that names or properly identifies those suable entities that he claims are

responsible for the injuries suffered if said complaint is filed within sixty (60) days of the

entry of this Order.

DONE this 3rd day of February, 2010.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00590-WS-C Document 17 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Kelley Sutton *v.*Willis Hancock.

Mortgaged Chattels — Removal—Attachment.

The removal, concealment or sale of mortgaged chattels gives the mortgagee a right of attachment only when the removal, sale or concealment endangers his ultimate security. He is not entitled to an attachment when enough property remains to amply secure him.

• APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

February 12, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

It is not every removal, concealment, or sale of a part of mortgaged property that will authorize the mortgagee to sue out an attachment against such property. It is only “for the security of his rights,” Sec. 273, Civil Code, that the mortgagee may attach, and unless there is danger that so much of the mortgaged property will be removed, sold, or concealed as to endanger the ultimate security of the mortgage debt, he is not justifiable in suing out an attachment.

It does not appear in this case that the property not removed was *360not amply sufficient to secure the appellant’s debt, and for that reason, if for no other, the court properly discharged the attachment.

*S. S. Sizemore, for appellant.*

*H. T. Turner, for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
#### James Deaner *v.*Francis Storme.

Judgment — Separate Causes of Action.

The rendition of judgment on an amended petition in less than twenty days after the service of process is erroneous, but can only be corrected by motion in the court below.

Separate Causes of Action.

If two notes that are liens on land are both due, they may be declared on in one petition, but they constitute different causes of action

APPEAL FROM LARUE CIRCUIT COURT.

September 18, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

The rendition of the judgment on the amended petition in less-than twenty days from the service of the summons, although erroneous, was but a clerical misprision, and can only be corrected by motion in the court below. Civ. Code, § 578.

*57
      *Read & Twyman, for appellant.*

*W. H. Chelf, for appellee.*

Although both notes are liens upon the land, they constitute separate and distinct promises to pay. If both had been due, they both might have been declared on in the original petition, but still they constitute different causes of action.

It is made clear from the proof that no such contract as is set up in defendant’s answer was made between the parties. The judgment is *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         162,722
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,971
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,010)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,879
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               181,601
<PP&E>                                          91,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                (29,289)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 366,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,125
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           241
<OTHER-SE>                                     288,311
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   366,624
<SALES>                                          3,302
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,931
<CGS>                                            2,449
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,516
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                88,967
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,288
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (39,631)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,823
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (46,454)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (46,454)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.38)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of the President and Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Whitehall Limited, Inc.
(the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ Ronald Mustari
|Ronald Mustari    
|September 1, 2006
11757.

#### Starke *v.*The State.

Decided November 9, 1920.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Houston county — Judge Eiley. July 12, 1920.

The accusation • charged Leon Starke with having stolen from E. S. Braswell’s storehousé a bolt of homespun cloth. Braswell testified, that at a certain time he had three bolts of yellow homespun in front of his store, that one of them was stolen, and he had never seen it since, and that its value was $20 to $22. Ed Dawson testified: “ One night, about the time this homespun was stolen, the defendant, Leon Starke, came to Eogers Brown’s store where I was, and called me out and asked me if I wanted to buy a bolt of yellow homespun. I asked him what he wanted for it, and he said $8. I told him I did not have the money. He did not have homespun or any kind, of cloth with him. I never did see him with any cloth.” The police officer who arrested the defendant testified that Ed Dawson said that the defendant had a bolt of homespun with him when he offered to sell the homespun; *767but tbe officer, when recalled, testified that he did not remember whether Dawson said that the defendant had any cloth with him or not. The defendant, in his statement at the trial, denied that he had stolen the homespun. He said that he knew nothing about it and had. never spoken to Lawson about selling him homespun. There was no additional testimony. It was contended on-the part of the defendant that the conviction was unauthorized because the evidence failed to show that he ever had the homespun in his possession or was in- any way connected with the theft.

*766Broyles, C. J.

The record in this case contains no evidence authorizing the defendant’s conviction, and the court erred in ■ overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*

*767
      *Emmett Houser,*for plaintiff in error.

*Robert E. Brown, solicitor,*contra.