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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 316 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 5, 2012 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

For the relief of Esther Karinge. 

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


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 
2 

HR 316 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ESTHER 

2 KARINGE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

4 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

5 Act, Esther Karinge shall be eligible for issuance of an 

6 immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 

7 alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon fil8 ing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 

9 section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to 

10 lawful permanent resident. 

11 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Esther Karinge 

12 enters the United States before the filing deadline speci13 fied in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have en14 tered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, 

15 be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of 

16 the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 

17 enactment of this Act. 

18 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

19 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap20 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica21 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

22 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

23 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

24 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res25 idence to Esther Karinge, the Secretary of State shall in26 struct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 
3 

HR 316 RFS 

1 or next following fiscal year, the total number of immi2 grant visas that are made available to natives of the coun3 try of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the Immi4 gration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total 

5 number of immigrant visas that are made available to na6 tives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 

7 202(e) of such Act. 

8 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

9 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

10 parents, brothers, and sisters of Esther Karinge shall not, 

11 by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, privi12 lege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 

2012. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with
```

[United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book), 1996]
[Independent Agencies and Government Corporations]
[National Archives and Records Administration]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

The Plum Book (United States Government Policy
        and Supporting Positions): 1996 EditionBRANCH: EXECUTIVE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATIONLocationPosition TitleName of IncumbentPay PlanType of Appt.Level Grade or PayTenureExpires**OFFICE OF THE ARCHIVIST OF 
              THE U.S.**Washington, DCArchivist of the United StatesJohn W. CarlinEXPASIII..................Washington, DCGeneral CounselElizabeth A. PughESCA............................Washington, DCDirector, Information Security Oversight OfficeSteven GarfinkelESCA............................Washington, DCPresidential DiaristEllen M. MccathranGSSC13..................**POLICY AND IRM SERVICES**College Park, MDSpecial Assistant to the Asst Archivist for Policy & IRM ServicesClaudine J. WeiherESCA............................**OFFICE OF PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES**Simi Valley, CADirector, Ronald Reagan LibraryMark A. HuntESNA............................Boston, MADirector, John F. Kennedy LibraryBradley S. GerrattESNA............................Ann Arbor, MIDirector, Gerald Ford LibraryRichard N. SmithESNA............................
```
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45464-45465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20900]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0679]


Safety Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation; change of enforcement 
date.

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

SUMMARY: On August 7, 2017, the Coast Guard provided notice in the 
Federal Register that the agency would enforce

[[Page 45465]]

the North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, NJ, safety zone from 9:00 p.m. 
through 11:59 p.m. on October 10, 2017. The purpose of this document is 
to announce a change in the enforcement date. The zone will be enforced 
on October 7, 2017, instead of October 10, 2017.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced from 9 p.m. 
to 11:59 p.m. on October 7, 2017, for the safety zone listed as (a.)11 
in the Table to Sec.  165.506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this 
notice of enforcement, you may call or email MST2 Amanda Boone, Sector 
Delaware Bay Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 
215-271-4889, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eeaf838f808a8fc0a0c0ac8181808baebbbdada9c0838782"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a5e4c8c4cbc1c48beb8be7cacacbc0e5f0f6e6e28bc8ccc9">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Please refer to the notice of enforcement 
published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2017 (82 FR 36688), FR 
Doc. 2017-16506.

    Dated: September 22, 2017.
Scott E. Anderson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2017-20900 Filed 9-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-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
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          48,980
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,422
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,328
<INVENTORY>                                     66,279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               229,302
<PP&E>                                         854,124
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,907
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,961,159
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          138,157
<BONDS>                                      1,028,190
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,005,798
<OTHER-SE>                                   (194,616)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,961,159
<SALES>                                        202,567
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               202,567
<CGS>                                           39,582
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  179,326
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,399
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,855
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,013)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,539
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,552)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (5,523)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,075)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

#### Siler v. Bell

April 23, 1986

Case No. (Chancery) CH-7862

By JUDGE H. CALVIN SPAIN

This matter came on April 21 to be heard upon the Exceptions filed to the Commissioner’s Report by the plaintiff in the above-styled matter.

The Court has reviewed the file in detail, the exhibits filed with the Commissioner, the transcript of the hearing before the Commissioner, and the Commissioner’s Report. Additionally, the Court has reviewed the case citations that have been presented and the arguments of counsel from the 21st.

The instant case involves the use of a power of attorney by a cousin of the plaintiff in managing the financial affairs of the plaintiff over a particular time period. The defendant, who was the fiduciary, failed to file an accounting or otherwise provide an accounting for the benefit of the plaintiff, with respect to the expenditures of funds that came into his hands.

After demand, partial accounting was pieced together by the defendant and provided to the plaintiff. This action was filed as a result of the overall management of the plaintiff’s financial affairs for a full and complete accounting.

The Commissioner made certain recommendations with respect to an amount that should be awarded as a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant. Certain other amounts were not recommended by the defendant due *320to "My fear that the plaintiff possible (sic) has suffered a loss of memory as to her instructions to the defendant."

The law is not helpful with respect to the nature of the accounting which must be rendered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to a full accounting and the burden is upon the defendant to show that he has properly managed the assets in his hands. There does not appear to be any outright requirement that the proof be in writing with respect to authorization to expend funds, but common sense would dictate that where an elderly individual is involved and certain presumptions of fraud may arise, then, oral authorizations clearly are not prudent on the part of a fiduciary. This is particularly so, where, as in this case, $18,000 was paid to the fiduciary and/or his immediate family.

Additionally, the Court has reviewed the evidence with respect to the withdrawal of certain funds after notification of the revocation of the power of attorney and with respect to the credit sought for use of funds from a First and Merchants Bank Account, which said account was not admitted to be an asset by the fiduciary, yet, was discovered by the plaintiff’s counsel in the discovery process.

From all of the facts, evidence, and legal authority, the Court finds that the Commissioner should be sustained with respect to his recommendation that a judgment be entered against the defendant for $42,613.32, and further, that the additional sums of $3,307.92, $3,161.36 and $33,000.00 should be entered as a part of the said judgment for a total sum of $82,082.60. Interest should run from October 26, 1984.
ex10_12.htm









Exhibit 10.12


 


AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO THE HENRY SCHEIN, INC. SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2008







WHEREAS, Henry Schein, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Henry Schein, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2008 (the “Plan”);







WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company or an authorized committee may amend the Plan;







WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee is authorized to amend the Plan; and







WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee wishes to amend the Plan to provide that contributions shall be made on a quarterly basis.







NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective as of January 1, 2009 as follows:







1.             Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended such that the second and third sentences thereof are replaced with the following:







“A contribution will be made with respect a calendar quarter on behalf of a Participant if such Participant was employed on the last day of such calendar quarter.  A Participant’s Deferral Account shall be credited on the September 30th immediately following the Plan Year during which the applicable calendar quarter occurs with respect to which the contribution is earned (or at least annually as of any date determined by the Committee in its sole discretion).”







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been executed December 15, 2009.


 



	  	
HENRY SCHEIN, INC.


	  	  	 
	  	
By:

	/s/ Michael S. Ettinger
	  	  	 
	  	
Title: 

	Senior Vice President, General Counsel
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

To Partners of

TEPPCO Partners, L.P.:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-110207) on Form S-3, the registration statement (No. 33-81976) on Form S-3, and the registration statement (No. 333-82892) on Form S-8 of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. of our reports dated February 28, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, partners’ capital and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, and  management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, which appear in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of TEPPCO Partners, L.P.

 

Our report dated February 28, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 and the related consolidated statements of income, partners’ capital and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, contains a separate paragraph that states that as discussed in Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements, TEPPCO Partners, L.P. has restated its consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, partners’ capital and comprehensive income and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003.

 
|   | KPMG LLP |
|--------|----------|

 

 

Houston, Texas

February 28, 2006

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           1,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (42)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,438
<PP&E>                                           2,740
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,059)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,833
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,977
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           181
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,833
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,882
<CGS>                                           22,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,423
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (96)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,896)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,896)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,896)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   ($0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   ($0.22)
        

</TABLE>
----

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

|   | b) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods covered by the  Report. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| February 14,      2008 | /s/ Roy      Swan |
|------------------------|-------------------|
| Dated                  | Roy      Swan     |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         215,440
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  360,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,499)
<INVENTORY>                                     12,543
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,745,680
<PP&E>                                       2,444,683
<DEPRECIATION>                               (432,509)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,895,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,897,944
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  6,904,002
<COMMON>                                        13,356
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,890,350)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,895,112
<SALES>                                      1,161,337
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,161,337
<CGS>                                        1,760,434
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,760,434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,717,864
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,487,517
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (18,804,478)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (18,804,478)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (18,804,478)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.59)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES v. PARK et al.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

December 5, 1896.)

No. 1,766.

Customs Duties — Deficiency in Quantity.

A 'report by the assistant appraiser that, upon examination of certain imported merchandise, he found a deficiency in the quantity called for by the invoice, is proper and sufficient evidence on which to base an allowance for such deficiency in estimating the duties.

This was an appeal by the government from a decision of the board of general appraisers which reversed the decision of the collector of the port of New York, refusing to make an allowance for an alleged deficiency in a quantity of cigars imported by Park & Tilford, and ordered a reliquidation. The vessel’s manifest, the bill of lading, invoice, and entry called for “8 cases, 31,000 cigars.” The assistant appraiser, who examined the goods, returned on the invoice: “In case No. 3,991 I find 1,100 cigars short, as noted. Case not full; in bad condition.” The collector, however, on the *609ground that no satisfactory proof of short shipment, or of having been lost or destroyed by accident during the voyage, bad been furnished, as required by article 922, Treasury Regulations of 1892, refused to make any allowance for the deficiency, and assessed duty on the full amount of the invoice. The importers protested, claiming an allowance under Rev. St. § 2921.

James T. Van Rensselaer, Asst. IT. S. Atty.

W. Wickham Smith, for defendants.

WHEELER, District Judge.

The packages all came, hut the examiner reported, and the appraiser returned, that the number of cigars called for by the invoice was 1,100 short. From this the board of general appraisers found that the number was so in fact short, and that the amount of duties should be lessened accordingly. The protest raised this question of shortage; and it was one affecting the amount of duties, on which an appeal lies to that board under section 14 of the customs administrative act (26 Stat. 137). The principal question made is as to whether there is any evidence to support this finding; and Merwin v. Magone, 17 C. C. A. 361, 70 Fed. 776, is relied upon to show that there was not. In that case the question was whether there was any evidence to support a finding the other way, and not whether there was any evidence of shortage. Here, the examiner and appraiser were government officials, charged to ascertain and report about this, and their report showed that, on opening the packages, a deficiency was “found on examination hv the appraisers.” This was not only some evidence, hut was the statutory evidence, on which an allowance is required to “he made in estimating the duties.” Rev. St. § 2921; Robertson v. Bradbury, 132 U. S. 491, 500, 10 Sup. Ct. 158. No further proof could be necessary, for the merchandise must have been in the custody of customs officials from the time of entry, which would show that what was examined was what was imported, and that none was lost after importation, and before examination. The statute seems to he based upon this presumption. Decision of general appraisers affirmed.