alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part VI - Reports Related to Service and Compensation 

Chapter 3: Form DC-1, Employer's Quarterly Report of Contributions Under RUIA

1

DC-1 Submissions 

Employers must submit Form DC-1, Employer's Quarterly Report of Contributions under the 

Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) and remit contributions (taxes) to the Bureau of 

Fiscal Operations (BFO) of the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB). Instructions for filing Form 

DC-1 are on the form. 

Pay.gov

Employers are encouraged to make their RUIA contributions using the Pay.gov system. 

RUIA Contribution Rates 

Each employer has an individual RUIA contribution rate that is "experience rated". That means 

that the employer's rate is based on the actual benefits paid to employees or former employees. An 

employer's RUIA contribution rate is established annually by the RRB. Notices are released to 

employers in October of each year to notify them of the contribution rate for the upcoming year. 

For example, notices that were released in October 2014 notified the employers of their 2015 

contribution rates. New employers or employers who do not know their contribution rate should 

contact:

Quality Reporting Service Center

Railroad Retirement Board 

844 North Rush Street - 7th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275

Phone: (312) 751-4992 

Fax: (312) 751-7123 

Email: QRSC@rrb.gov

Reconcile Compensation and Taxes 

The total creditable RUIA compensation reported on Form BA-3, Annual Report of Creditable 

Compensation, in a calendar year should be consistent with the total taxable RUIA compensation 

reported on Form DC-1 for the same year. Each employer should reconcile these amounts prior to 

filing the forms. The RRB will contact an employer about any discrepancies but the employer may 

be subject to penalties and interest at that point. 

Errors, Penalties and Interest 

If you discover errors affecting Form DC-1 after the form has been submitted to the RRB, make 

the applicable adjustment on the next DC-1 you file with the RRB. If the error also affects the tax 

liability for the previous calendar year, make the adjustment in your next tax deposit payment. 

Questions about the form and the payment of contributions should be directed to:
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part VI - Reports Related to Service and Compensation 

Chapter 3: Form DC-1, Employer's Quarterly Report of Contributions Under RUIA

2

Bureau of Fiscal Operations

Railroad Retirement Board 

844 North Rush Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275

Phone: (312) 751-4668 or 4593 

Email: BFO@rrb.gov

The penalty for late submission of Form DC-1 is 5 percent a month, up to a maximum of 25 

percent. 

The interest charge for delinquent remittance of contributions is 1 percent a month.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 741 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 741

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      December 5, 2019.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 
to revise the criteria for determining which States and political subdivisions 
are subject to section 4 of the Act, and for other purposes. All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the 
bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, 
as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without 
intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. 
Res. 326) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding United 
States efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a negotiated 
two-state solution. The amendments to the resolution and the preamble 
recommended by the Committee on Foreign Affairs now printed in the resolution, 
modified by the amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The 
resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. The previous question shall 
be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble, as amended, to adoption 
without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20D0038. JENNICE IRENE CARTER v. KENNETH ALEX SIMPSON.

Kenneth Alex Simpson filed in Clayton County Superior Court a petition to

register and enforce a child custody determination from the Family Court of the State

of New York. Jennice Irene Carter filed an objection to Simpson’s petition. The trial

court, pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-83, ordered Carter to comply with the New York

order awarding Simpson sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor child.

The court also ordered the partiesto appear for a hearing onCarter’s objection. Carter

has now filed an application for discretionary review of the trial court’s ruling. She

is, however, entitled to a direct appeal.

To determine whether a party may bring a direct appeal, we look to the “issue

raised on appeal.” See Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 46-47 (799 SE2d 160) (2017). 

Here, Carter argues, among other things, that the trial court erred in its ruling on

custody. Pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), “[a]ll judgments or orders in child

custody cases awarding, refusing to change, or modifying child custody” are directly

appealable. See OCGA § 19-9-41 (3) (defining “child custody determination” as “a

judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the legal custody, physical

custody, or visitation with respect to a child”). See also OCGA § 19-9-41 (4)

(defining “child custody proceeding” as “a proceeding in which legal custody,

physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child is an issue”); Taylor v. Curl, 298

Ga. App. 45, 45 (679 SE2d 80) (2009) (interlocutory orders involving child custody

are subject to direct appeal). Because the trial court’s order established custody over

the child, and Carter challengesthat ruling on appeal, she is entitled to a direct appeal

under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11).

September 06, 2019
This Court will grant an otherwise timely discretionary application if the lower

court’s order is directly appealable and the applicant has not already filed a notice of

appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). Accordingly, this application is hereby GRANTED.

Carter shall have ten days from the date of this order to file a notice of appeal with

the trial court. If she has already filed a notice of appeal, she need not file a second

notice. The clerk of the trial court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the

record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/06/2019
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Buckeye GP Holdings L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert B. Wallace,Chief Financial Officer of MainLineManagement LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, to myknowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                        | MAINLINE MANAGEMENT LLC, as general partner of the  Partnership |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |                                                            |
| Date: November 6, 2006 | ROBERT B. WALLACE                                               |
|                   | Robert B. Wallace                                               |
|                   | *Chief Financial Officer*                                       |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Abigail Bridget W., an Infant. Janice Antoinette W., Appellant; Episcopal Social Services, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 882]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered on or about September 13, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother suffers from a mental illness, terminated her parental rights to the subject child, and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that respondent is mentally ill within the meaning of Social Services Law § 384-b (4) (c) and (6) (a) *(see Matter of Joyce T,*65 NY2d 39 [1985]; *Matter of Genesis S. [Irene Elizabeth S.*], 70 AD3d 570 [1st Dept 2010]). As a result of respondent’s illness, she is unable, at present and for the foreseeable future, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject child. The court properly relied upon the unrebutted court-appointed expert’s diagnosis and testimony as to the nature and severity of respondent’s mental illness, which was based, among other things, on her evaluation of respondent and her review of the *469relevant medical and foster care records *(see Matter of Mar De Luz R. [Luz R.],*95 AD3d 423 [1st Dept 2012]). Further, respondent’s testimony demonstrated, among other things, a lack of insight into her mental illness, as well as her compromised ability to care for the child. In addition, respondent was unable to establish compliance with prescribed medication needed to control her illness *(id.).*

The court correctly dispensed with a dispositional hearing, which was not required since this is a case of termination for mental illness *(see Matter of Joyce T.,*65 NY2d at 46-50; *Matter of Jeremiah M. [Sabrina Ann M.],*109 AD3d 736, 737 [1st Dept 2013]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, David Gorodyansky, the Chief Financial Officer of INTELLIGENT
BUYING. INC.  (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.
The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009
(the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 14th day of
August 2009.





/s/
      David GorodyanskyDavid
      GorodyanskyPrincipal  Financial
      Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Intelligent Buying, Inc. and will be retained by Intelligent Buying, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### E.C. Robinson, III, Appellant, v Friedman Management Corp. et al., Defendants. Slavin & Slavin, Esqs., Nonparty Respondent.

[854 NYS2d 68]

*437The court properly concluded that plaintiffs attorney was entitled to a charging lien, inasmuch as the termination of the representation did not result from attorney misconduct, discharge for cause, or unjustified abandonment by the attorney (see *Klein v Eubank,*87 NY2d 459, 464 [1996]). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, there was no need for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether counsel’s withdrawal was justifiable, where there is adequate evidence showing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship *(see Klagsbrun v Klagsbrun,*192 AD2d 306 [1993], *lv dismissed*82 NY2d 846 [1993]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1





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 Legacy Reserves LP (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Legacy Reserves GP, LLC (the "Company”), the general partner of the Partnership, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.

/s/ Cary D. Brown/s/ Steven H. PruettCary D. BrownSteven H. PruettChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the BoardPresident, Chief Financial Officer and SecretaryMay 6, 2011May 6, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as part of the Report.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                     26,804,700
<SECURITIES>                                1,928,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           28,739,600
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      31,542,400
<BONDS>                                    13,434,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                (2,903,700)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               28,743,300
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           18,231,000
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,784,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              198,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1,567,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            13,941,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        13,941,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               13,941,600
<EPS-BASIC>                                     16.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   16.53



</TABLE>
#### Esurance, as Subrogee of Chris Zimman, Respondent, v Louis Provenzano, Inc., Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 770]

On the issue of standing, while the record establishes that Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (EISI) paid the insured his loss caused by the theft of his car from defendant’s parking garage, the precise relationship between Argonaut Insurance Company, the insurer that issued the policy, Esurance, the named plaintiff, and EISI remains unclear, raising issues of fact as to plaintiff’s entitlement to equitable subrogation. On the merits, issues of fact preclude summary judgment in defendant’s favor, including defendant’s attendant’s credibility concerning *378the precautions he took before leaving the garage unattended, the adequacy of those precautions to protect against theft, and, particularly in view of defendant’s advertising of itself as a facility with 24-hour security, the foreseeability of the theft *(cf. Danielenko v Kinney Rent A Car,*57 NY2d 198, 204 [1982]). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley and Acosta, JJ. *(See*2007 NY Slip Op 31802(U).]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-21030 Conference Calendar

JOE H. MACK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE SCOTT, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, F. FIGUEROA; M. BROCK; L. ARNOLD; JAMES HOSEA, Captain; B.M. VINCENT; DR. DAVID LE; NURSE ALLEN; MS. RICHARD; MR. J. ENSON; MS. LOVELADY; RICHARD THALER, Warden; TIMOTHY SIMMONS, Warden; ROBERT CHANCE, Warden; TIMOTHY MASSEY, Captain; HIRSCH, Lieutenant; DRAKE, Sergeant; STIGERS, Correctional Officer; DENNIS, Correctional Officer; PARNELL, Correctional Officer; DEAN, Sergeant; MILLER, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CV-2550

- - - - - - - - - - August 23, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Joe Henry Mack, Texas prisoner # 671331, appeals the dismissal of his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The district court, sua sponte, dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because Mack failed to allege a conspiracy. See Newberry v. East Texas State Univ. ,No. 00-21030 - 2 - 161 F. 3d 276, 281 (5th Cir 1998). Mack did not establish a claim under § 1985(3) as he did not allege a race-based conspiracy and could not have alleged a viable conspiracy claim had he been given the opportunity to amend his complaint.
Bazrowx v. Scott , 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998); Jones v. Greninger , 188 F.3d 322, 327 (5th Cir. 1999). Mack has at least two verified strikes against him. Mack v. Mohr , No. 98-40375 (5th Cir. Feb. 9, 1999)(unpublished). Mack has acquired another strike as a result of the district court’s dismissal of the instant complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which we now AFFIRM. Mack may no longer proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). AFFIRMED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.
[985 NE2d 136, 961 NYS2d 372]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Abreu, Appellant.

Decided February 14, 2013

*1041APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation,*New York City *(David J. Klem*of counsel), for appellant.

*Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney,*New York City *(Timothy C. Stone*of counsel), for respondent.

*1042OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant Carlos Abreu completed the offense of second-degree weapon possession, with the requisite intent, before committing the act constituting first-degree felony murder. Accordingly, the sentences for those crimes could be run consecutively *(see People v Salcedo,*92 NY2d 1019, 1020-1021 [1998]). Additionally, the alleged evidentiary errors could not have affected the verdict in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt and, thus, any such error would be harmless.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur; Judge Rivera taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.
July 16, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DERRICK LEDON RAY, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00347-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcripts of the record of the court below, and 

having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment 

requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable 

of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is REFORMED to reflect 

appellant’s pleas of “not true” and the trial court’s findings of “true” with respect 

to the first and second enhancement paragraphs. 

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as REFORMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
@conference{1216331,
  author = {Christian Schwenzer and Raik Hesse and Roman Glaznev and Valeri I. Babushok and Gregory T. Linteris and Heinz Pitsch and Joachim Beeckmann},
  title = {Simultaneous Particle Image Velocimetry and Schlieren Measurements of Slow-burning Flames},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-25 04:09:00},
  publisher = {Proceedings of the European Combustion Meeting 2023, Rouen, FR},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936617},
  language = {en},
}