alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Employer’s Annual Information Return of OMB No. 1545-0714

Tip Income and Allocated Tips Form 8027

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service

For Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see page 4 of the separate instructions.

Type of establishment (check

only one box) Name of establishment

Use IRS label.

Make any 

necessary

changes. 

Otherwise,

please type or

print.

1 Evening meals only

Evening and other

meals

Number and street (See instructions.) Employer identification number 2

Meals other than

evening meals

City or town, state, and ZIP code 3

4 Alcoholic beverages

Establishment number

(See instructions.)

Employer’s name

Number and street (P.O. box, if applicable.)

City, state, and ZIP code (If a foreign address, see instructions.)

Check the box only if applicable: Final Return Amended Return

1 Total charged tips for calendar year 2000 1

2 Total charge receipts (other than nonallocable receipts) showing charged tips 2

3 Total amount of service charges of less than 10% paid as wages to employees 3

4a Total tips reported by indirectly tipped employees 4a

b Total tips reported by directly tipped employees 4b

c Total tips reported (Add lines 4a and 4b.) 4c

5 Gross receipts from food or beverage operations (other than nonallocable receipts) 5

6

6 Multiply line 5 by 8% (.08) or the lower rate shown here  granted by the

IRS. Attach a copy of the IRS determination letter to this return

7 Allocation of tips. If line 6 is more than line 4c, enter the excess here 7

This amount must be allocated as tips to tipped employees working in this establishment.

Check the box below that shows the method used for the allocation. (Show the portion, if

any, attributable to each employee in box 8 of the employee’s Form W-2.)

a Allocation based on hours-worked method (See instructions for restriction.)

b Allocation based on gross receipts method

c Allocation based on good-faith agreement (Attach copy of agreement.)

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief,

it is true, correct, and complete.

Signature  Title  Date 

Cat. No. 49989U Form 8027 (2000)

Note: If you checked line 7a, enter the average number of employee hours worked

per business day during the payroll period. (See instructions. )

Apt. or suite no.

Note: If you have allocated tips using other than the calendar year (semimonthly, biweekly,

quarterly, etc. ), put an “X” on line 6 and enter the amount of allocated tips from your records

on line 7.

8 Enter the total number of directly tipped employees at this establishment during 2000 

Note: Complete the Employer’s Optional Worksheet for Tipped Employees on page 4 of

the instructions to determine potential unreported tips of your employees.

 See separate instructions.

2000
FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 31, 2019 

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

RELEASES A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR FUND MANAGERS 

Washington, D.C. -- The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) 

announced that it has released a request for proposal for the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) 

Fixed Income Index Investment Fund (F Fund), Common Stock Index Investment Fund 

(C Fund), Small Capitalization Stock Index Investment Fund (S Fund), and International 

Stock Index Investment Fund (I Fund). The FRTIB will select two managers who will 

each manage assets for all four Funds. The contract with each manager will be for a twoyear term, with four two-year options. The FRTIB expects to award the contracts by 

December 2019. 

The F Fund is a bond index fund that tracks the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate 

Bond Index. This broad index includes U.S. Government, Agency, mortgage-backed,

asset-backed, corporate, and foreign government (issued in the U.S.) sectors of the U.S. 

bond market. As of April 2019, the F Fund held $29.5 billion in assets. 

The C Fund is a stock index fund that tracks the Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) 

Index, a broad market index made up of stocks of 500 large to medium-sized U.S. 

companies. As of April 2019, the C Fund held $206.4 billion in assets. 

The S Fund is a stock index fund that tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Completion Total Stock 

Market Index, a broad market index made up of stocks of U.S. companies not included in 

the S&P 500 Index. As of April 2019, the S Fund held $72.2 billion in assets. 

The I Fund is a stock index fund that tracks the MSCI EAFE (Europe, Australasia, Far 

East) Index, a broad market index made up of the equity markets of the developed world 

outside of the United States and Canada. As of April 2019, the I Fund held $49.8 billion 

in assets. 

BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. (BlackRock), a firm selected through full 

and open competitions, is the current manager for these assets. 

 

The TSP is a retirement savings plan for Federal employees; 

it is similar to the 401(k) plans offered by many private 

employers. As of April 2019, TSP assets totaled 
2

approximately $590.8 billion, and retirement savings 

accounts were being maintained for more than 5.6 million 

TSP participants. Participants include Federal civilian 

employees in all branches of Government, employees of the 

U.S. Postal Service, and members of the uniformed services. 

Additional information can be found at www.tsp.gov. 

MEDIA CONTACT:

Kim Weaver 

202-942-1641

(end)
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2232-413 South Carolina]

An environmental assessment (EA) is available for public review. The EA analyzes the environmental impacts of Duke Energy Corporation's (Duke) application to grant a non-project use of project land to City of York (York) to install a pipeline and intake, for raw water withdraw in Lake Wylie, a reservoir for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project. Duke's proposed grant would also allow York to withdraw up to 6 million gallons of water per day from Lake Wylie. The Catawba-Wateree Project is on the Catawba River in Lancaster, York, and Fairfield Counties, South Carolina, and Gaston, Lincoln, and Burke Counties, North Carolina.

                    The EA was written by staff in the Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In the EA, Commission staff conclude that approving Duke's application to grant the use would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Copies of the EA can be viewed on the web at                     *www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm.*                     Call (202) 208-2222 for assistance. Copies are also available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371.                

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-4203  Filed 2-20-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Diann IACOBUCCI; Daniel Burgers, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for CitiGroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-WFHE4, Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-WFHE4, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-11356

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 8, 2014.

Mark A. Swaim, Swaim Law Office, Irving, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Thomas A. Connop, Esq., Daron L. Janis, Esq., Locke Lord, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This appeal arises in the context of a foreclosure that prompted Plaintiffs-Appellants Iacobucci and Burgers (“Plaintiffs”) to sue Defendants-Appellees (“Defendants”) in state court. After *258Defendants removed that suit to the district court, they filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, relying principally on the Texas four-year limitations period for constitutional claims of the nature asserted by Plaintiffs under § 50(a)(6)(B) of Article XVI of the Texas Constitution.

In its carefully crafted Memorandum Opinion and Order of November 13, 2013, the district court patiently reviewed the law applicable to the facts asserted by Plaintiffs and concluded that their state constitutional claims are time barred and that they cannot maintain any of their ancillary claims, e.g., breach of contract, Texas Debt Collection Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation. For essentially the same reasons cogently explained in its Order, the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ action is, in all respects,

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *258published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### MELVIN C. WASHINGTON *v.*JOHN BLACKMORE ET AL.

*Melvin C. Washington,*pro se, in support of the petition.

*Irena J. Urbaniak,*city attorney, in opposition.

Decided April 14, 2010

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 119 Conn. App. 218 (AC 30684), is denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7347

ALEXANDER OTIS MATTHEWS,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY JOSEPH SULLIVAN; LIAM O’GRADY, U.S. District Court 

Judge; ROGER W. TITUS, U.S. District Court Judge,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (8:14-cv-00500-FPS)

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Matthews appeals the district court’s orders

denying relief on his complaint and amended complaint filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

and denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.* We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Matthews v. Sullivan, No. 8:14-cv-00500-FPS (D. Md. May 23 & 

Aug. 13, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * In his motion for reconsideration and on appeal, Matthews 

asserts that the court should have considered some of his claims 

as common law professional malpractice, negligence, and gross 

negligence claims.
#### In the Matter of: Earl JONES, Debtor, Earl Jones, Appellant, v. Karl T. Anderson; et al., Appellees.

No. 07-55021.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.*

Filed Jan. 23, 2009.

Earl Jones, Perris, CA, pro se.

*123Thomas J. Polis, Esq., Polis & Associates, Irvine, CA, for Appellees.

Steve Odell Jones, Perris, CA, pro se.

Keith Alexander Jones, Perris, CA, pro se.

Adele Jones Dingle, Perris, CA, pro se.

Daniel Edward Jones, Perris, CA, pro se.

Evan Jones, Perris, CA, pro se.

Robert Earl Jones, Perris, CA, pro se.

Billie Joyce Jones, Perris, CA, pro se.

UST/Riverside, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Riverside, CA, pro se.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Earl Jones appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders concluding that adversary proceedings against Jones and others to avoid the postpetition recordation of deeds of trust were core matters. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review BAP decisions de novo and apply the same standard that the BAP uses to review bankruptcy court decisions. *Arrow Elecs., Inc. v. Justus (In re Kaypro),*218 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir.2000). The BAP reviews de novo the bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction. *Vylene Enters., Inc. v. Naugles, Inc. (In re Vylene Enters., Inc.),*90 F.3d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

The BAP properly concluded that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enter final orders and judgments in the adversary proceedings because the proceedings were core matters. *See*28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), (H), and (K) (defining core matters to include those that determine the validity, extent, or priority of liens; that determine, avoid or recover fraudulent conveyances; and actions to turn over property to the estate).

Jones did not appeal the bankruptcy court’s judgment in the adversary proceedings and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider any contentions concerning its merits. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a).

Jones’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid-
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 Interlink Global Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Anastasios N. Kyriakides, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and
Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and b) The information contained in this
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ Anastasios N. Kyriakides
                                        Anastasios N. Kyriakides
                                        Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
                                        Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
                                        December 20, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4272]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6942-3]


Southern Asbestos Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency is proposing 
to enter into a settlement with David J. Frazier pursuant to 122(h) of 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act of 1980, as amended, regarding the Southern Asbestos Superfund Site 
located in Bennettsville, Marlboro County, South Carolina. EPA will 
consider public comments on the proposed settlement for thirty (30) 
days. EPA may withdraw from or modify the proposed settlement should 
such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate the 
proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. Copies of 
the proposed settlement are available from:
    Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. EPA, Region 4 (WMD-CPSB), Sam Nunn 
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303 
(404) 562-8887.
    Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor within thirty 
(30) calendar days of the date of this publication.

    Dated: January 26, 2001.
James T. Miller,
Acting Chief, CERCLA Program Services Branch, Waste Management 
Division.
[FR Doc. 01-4272 Filed 2-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2470

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Arkansas. * Jeremy Thomas Estes, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 3, 2011 Filed: February 8, 2011

___________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. A jury found Jeremy Thomas Estes guilty of six counts of receiving child pornography (Counts 1–6) and one count of possessing computer equipment containing child pornography (Count 7), 18 U.S .C. § 2252(a)(2), (a)(4)(B), (b). At sentencing, Estes stipulated that he had vi olated the terms of his supervised release from a 2003 conviction. The District Court 1 sentenced him within the advisory Guidelines range to concurrent prison terms of 262 months on Counts 1–6, 240 months on Count 7, and 18 months on the supervised-release revocation; a life term-2- of supervised release; and a fine of $20,000. On appeal, Estes’ s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she seeks to withdraw, challenges the sentence as unr easonable, and—citing United States v. Burkholder , 590 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2010)—argues that the District Court erred in allowing victim impact statements to be attached to the presentence report.

We conclude that the District Court t ook into account all the relevant sentencing factors, committed no procedural error, and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. SeeUnited States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing factors that demonstrate pro cedural error); United States v. Watson , 480 F.3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir.) (explaining how a di strict court may abuse its discretion so that it imposes an unreasonable sentence), cert. denied , 552 U.S. 927 (2007); see also United States v. Barnett , 574 F.3d 600, 603–04 (8th Cir.) (holding that concurrent 240-month prison sentences for one count of receiving and one count of possessing child pornography were not unreasonable), cert. denied , 130 S. Ct. 766 (2009). Further, we are not persuaded that Burkholder requires detachment of victim statements from the pr esentence report, see590 F.3d at 1074–77, and we conclude that the District Court’s decision on this issue was not erroneous. Having reviewed the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

______________________________
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1777

To suspend until January 1, 1995, the duty on 1,8-Dichloroanthraquinone.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 21, 1993

Mr. COBLE (for himself and Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend until January 1, 1995, the duty on 1,8-

Dichloroanthraquinone.

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

3 SECTION 1. 1,8-DICHLOROANTHRAQUINONE.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new subheading:

‘‘ 9902.31.12 1,8-

Dichloroanthraquinone (provided for in subheading

2914.70.20) ...... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/94 ’’.
2

•HR 1777 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 The amendment made by section 1 applies with re3 spect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for

4 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of

5 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 24, 2014

d0917

Order 

Clerk

September 24, 2014

148855

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148855

COA: 312474

Oakland CC: 2011-239290-FC

MEGAEL T.J. CLEMONS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 21, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          52,085  
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,033,825   
<ALLOWANCES>                                    62,825
<INVENTORY>                                  4,148,138 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,612,627
<PP&E>                                         493,276
<DEPRECIATION>                                 270,905
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,917,802
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,790,372
<BONDS>                                        466,440
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       591,353
<OTHER-SE>                                     606,353
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,917,802 
<SALES>                                      7,258,175
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,258,175
<CGS>                                        5,105,162
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,397,868
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               184,232
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             142,269
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (323,925)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (323,925)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        



</TABLE>