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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 965 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 965

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the recognition 
        period for built-in gains for subchapter S corporations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2005

Mr. Smith (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the recognition 
        period for built-in gains for subchapter S corporations.

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

SECTION 1. REDUCED RECOGNITION PERIOD FOR BUILT-IN GAINS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (7) of section 1374(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definitions and special rules) is 
amended to read as follows:
            ``(7) Recognition period.--The term `recognition period' 
        means the 7-year period beginning with the 1st day of the 1st 
        taxable year for which the corporation was an S corporation. 
        For purposes of applying this section to any amount includible 
        in income by reason of distributions to shareholders pursuant 
        to section 593(e), the preceding sentence shall be applied 
        without regard to the duration of the recognition period in 
        effect on the date of such distribution.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) General rule.--The amendment made by this section shall 
        apply to any recognition period in effect on or after the date 
        of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Special application to existing periods exceeding 7 
        years.--Any recognition period in effect on the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, the length of which is greater than 7 
        years, shall end on such date.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.4
                      ADDENDUM TO THE MASTER AGREEMENT FOR
                      ------------------------------------
                              PURCHASE AND SALE OF
                              --------------------
                                 MORTGAGE LOANS
                                 --------------
                            (THIRD PARTY ORIGINATORS)
                            -------------------------

         This Addendum to the Master Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Mortgage
Loans dated June 9, 1999 ("The Agreement") by and between Westmark Mortgage
Corporation ("Seller") and EquiCredit Corporation of America ("Purchaser")
witnesseth:

         WHEREAS, Seller desires to sell Accounts to Purchaser which have been
originated in the name of, and funded by, a third party; ("Third Party Accounts"
and "Third Party Originator(s)," respectively) and Purchaser is willing, subject
to the additional terms of this addendum to purchase such Accounts. The parties
therefore agree:

         1. Seller will notify Purchaser of the name of any company which acted
as lender with respect to Third Party Accounts. The fact that an account is a
Third Party Account and the name of the lender shall be disclosed at the time
the loan is submitted for a price quotation. Purchaser may, but is not required
to, notify Seller of the names of Third Party Originators whose Accounts it will
refuse to purchase.

         2. Seller shall remain fully responsible for all obligations contained
in the Agreement. Seller shall not be excused from any obligation under that
agreement pertaining to the origination of the Account by reason of the fact
that the loan was originated by a Third Party Originator. No qualification as to
knowledge contained in and representation or warranty shall be effective if the
Third Party Originator has such knowledge, or with the exercise of due diligence
would be presumed to have such knowledge.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this addendum this 25th
day of June 1999.

EQUICREDIT CORPORATION OF AMERICA               WESTMARK MORTGAGE CORPORATION

By:                                             By:  /s/ Payton Story III
   ------------------------------                  -----------------------------

Title:                                          Title:  PRESIDENT/COO
      ---------------------------                     --------------------------

Witness:                                        Witness:

   ------------------------------              ---------------------------------
(November 21, 2013)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Zaorski, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 581]

Rose, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered November 23, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the first degree and assault in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the first degree and assault in the second degree in satisfaction of a five-count indictment with the understanding that he would be sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 15 years and five years of postrelease supervision. At sentencing, defendant sought to withdraw his plea based on, among other things, his claim that defense counsel coerced him into accepting it. After an extended colloquy with defendant and his counsel, County Court denied the motion and sentenced defendant pursuant to the agreement. Defendant now appeals.

We agree with defendant’s contention that he should have been assigned new counsel to pursue his motion to withdraw the guilty plea because his counsel was essentially called as a witness against him. While defense counsel is not required to support a pro se motion to withdraw a guilty plea, counsel “may not take a position . . . that is adverse to the defendant” *(People v Mitchell,*21 NY3d 964, 967 [2013]; *see People v McCray,*106 AD3d 1374, 1375 [2013]). Doing so creates an actual conflict of interest that requires the trial court to assign a new attorney to represent the defendant on the motion *(see People v Mitchell,*21 NY3d at 967).

Here, defendant claimed that defense counsel coerced him into entering the guilty plea by failing to communicate with him, telling him that he did not want to represent him and that he had to take the offer “or that’s it.” Defendant claimed that he was unprepared for any pretrial proceedings based on the lack of communication and felt that he had to take the plea to “get away” from counsel and avoid having to go to trial with *1055him. Defense counsel specifically refuted defendant’s assertions and, in response to County Court’s questioning, provided detailed information as to the discussions he had with defendant about the case and his options. In response, defendant claimed that counsel’s statements were untruthful. Given that defense counsel took a position adverse to defendant’s claim of coercion, County Court should have assigned new counsel to pursue defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea *(see People v Mitchell,*21 NY3d at 967; *People v McCray,*106 AD3d at 1375; *People v Williams,*35 AD3d 1085, 1087 [2006]; *compare People v Pimentel,*108 AD3d 861, 863 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1076 [2013]; *People v Hutchinson,*57 AD3d 1013, 1015 [2008], *lv denied*12 NY3d 817 [2009]). In light of our determination, defendant’s remaining contentions are academic.

Lahtinen, Garry and Egan Jr. JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; matter remitted to the County Court of Ulster County for assignment of new counsel and reconsideration of defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea; and, as so modified, affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 273 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 273

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require the designation of the federally occupied building located 
at McKinley Avenue and Third Street, S.W., Canton, Ohio, as the ``Ralph 
            Regula Federal Office Building and Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. RALPH REGULA FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING AND COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Administrator of General Services shall 
ensure that the federally occupied building located at McKinley Avenue 
and Third Street, S.W., Canton, Ohio, is known and designated as the 
``Ralph Regula Federal Office Building and Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--During the period in which the building referred 
to in subsection (a) is federally occupied, any reference in a law, 
map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States 
to that building shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ralph 
Regula Federal Office Building and Courthouse''.

            Passed the Senate January 15, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 273

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To require the designation of the federally occupied building located 
at McKinley Avenue and Third Street, S.W., Canton, Ohio, as the ``Ralph 
            Regula Federal Office Building and Courthouse''.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>
       
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                    <C>
<ARTICLE>                                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                                      46,300 
<SECURITIES>                                                15,900
<RECEIVABLES>                                              406,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 9,100
<INVENTORY>                                                522,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         1,362,000
<PP&E>                                                   6,022,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                           2,294,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           6,340,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      740,300
<BONDS>                                                  2,616,300
<COMMON>                                                   125,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                               1,798,100 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             6,340,900
<SALES>                                                    769,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           769,400
<CGS>                                                      558,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              602,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            10,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          47,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            109,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                                40,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         68,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                    7,500 
<NET-INCOME>                                                60,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 0.53    
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0.53
<FN>
<F1>
Earnings per share has been calculated in accordance with Statement of 
Financial Accounting Standard No. 128, "Earnings Per Share," and is, 
therefore, stated on a basic and diluted basis.
        

</TABLE>
#### Cecil Hall, Appellant, v United Founders, Ltd., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[977 NYS2d 239]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered January 14, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant United Founders, Ltd.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries he allegedly sustained in an attack by a dog being kept by the night watchman at a construction site. Defendant United Founders, a general contractor, was constructing buildings on two adjacent properties, and had hired the night watchman and given him permission to keep the dog at the premises. The dog apparently escaped from the premises, and it and another dog attacked plaintiff on a public sidewalk near the site.

The owner or a party in control of premises may be held liable for injuries resulting from a dog bite that occurred off the premises if it had knowledge of the vicious propensities of the dog and had control of the premises and the capability to remove or confine the animal *(see Joe v Orbit Indus.,*269 AD2d 121 [1st Dept 2000]; *Cronin v Chrosniak,*145 AD2d 905, 906 [4th Dept 1988]). Defendant established prima facie that it was unaware of the dog’s vicious propensities, through its owner’s testimony *531that he had never received any complaints about the dog and was not aware of any previous incidents involving the dog, and that the dog appeared friendly and well trained when he observed it. However, plaintiff raised an issue of fact through the testimony of a nonparty witness that he had seen the dog bite an electrician working at the construction site approximately one month before the subject incident occurred and was present when defendant’s foreman called the owner and told him what had happened *(see Champ-Doran v Lewis,*69 AD3d 1101 [3d Dept 2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2748 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2748

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 
 employer wage credit for employees who are active duty members of the 
                          uniformed services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 6, 2009

Mr. Kerry (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Ms. Landrieu) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 
 employer wage credit for employees who are active duty members of the 
                          uniformed services.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business and Military Family 
Assistance Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. EMPLOYER WAGE CREDIT FOR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ACTIVE DUTY MEMBERS 
              OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45P of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and 
inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to payments made after December 31, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:33 a.m. on Friday, May 29, 2009, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's corporate, supervisory, and resolution activities.

In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, seconded by Director Thomas J. Curry (Appointive), concurred in by Director John C. Dugan (Comptroller of the Currency), Director John E. Bowman (Acting Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), and Chairman Sheila C. Bair, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B)).

The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Dated: May 29, 2009.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9-12909 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### Nelson Martino, Respondent, v Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Appellant.

[965 NYS2d 86]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered February 23, 2012, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint alleging wrongful termination, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. terminated plaintiff from his position as a “project specialist” based on a conviction, and a subsequent arrest, for driving while intoxicated, unrelated to his job duties. Elaintiff alleges that his termination violated Correction Law article 23-A (Correction Law §§ 750-755), which prohibits “unfair discrimination” in the employment of persons “previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses” *(see*Correction Law § 752). He contends that Correction Law § 752 protects current employees against adverse actions by employers based on convictions and arrests incurred while they are employed with the employers.

However, Correction Law § 751 specifically states that “[t]he provisions of this article shall apply ... to any . . . employment held by any person whose conviction of one or more criminal offenses . . . *preceded such employment”*(emphasis added; *see also*L 2007, ch 284; Senate Introducer Mem in Support, Bill Jacket, L 2007, ch 284). Because plaintiffs conviction, and an additional subsequent arrest, occurred when he was already employed by Consolidated Edison, they do not provide a basis for a claim under Correction Law article 23-A.

Elaintiff s reliance on *Matter of Association of Surrogates & Supreme Ct. Reporters Within City of N.Y. v State of N.Y. Unified Ct. Sys.*(48 AD3d 228 [1st Dept 2008]) is unavailing, as the issue of whether Correction Law article 23-A protects employees from adverse actions based on convictions and arrests incurred during employment was neither briefed nor presented to this Court for adjudication in that case *(see Wellbilt Equip. Corp. v Fireman,*275 AD2d 162, 168 [1st Dept 2000]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Saxe, Román and Feinman, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11786]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13464-000]


Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

May 13, 2009.
    On May 5, 2009, Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC filed an 
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Wills Creek Hydroelectric 
Project, to be located on the Wills Creek, in Coshocton County, Ohio.
    The proposed Pleasant Hill Hydroelectric Project would be located 
at: (1) The existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1,950-foot-long, 87-
foot-high Wills Creek Dam; and (2) an existing 11,450-acre reservoir 
having a normal water surface elevation of 742 feet mean sea level.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse 
containing a single turbine generating unit with an installed capacity 
of 1.5 megawatts; (2) a new 100-foot-long, 96-inch-diameter penstock; 
(3) a new switchyard; (4) a new 1-mile-long, 15-kilovolt transmission 
line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The Wills Creek Project would 
have an estimated average annual generation of 9.2 gigawatt-hours, 
which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Anthony J. Marra Jr., President, Hydro 
Energy Technologies, LLC, 31300 Solon Rd. Suite 12, Solon, OH 44139, 
(440) 498-1000.
    FERC Contact: John Ramer, (202) 502-8969.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Website 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Website located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13464) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-11786 Filed 5-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### State v. Larry

Case below: Forsyth County

No. 189A95-4

Defs PWC to Review the Order of Forsyth County Superior Court

Denied 11/08/07