alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.165-2 Obsolescence of nondepreciable property. ( a ) *Allowance of deduction.* A loss incurred in a business or in a transaction entered into for profit and arising from the sudden termination of the usefulness in such business or transaction of any nondepreciable property, in a case where such business or transaction is discontinued or where such property is permanently discarded from use therein, shall be allowed as a deduction under section 165(a) for the taxable year in which the loss is actually sustained. For this purpose, the taxable year in which the loss is sustained is not necessarily the taxable year in which the overt act of abandonment, or the loss of title to the property, occurs.
( b ) *Exceptions.* This section does not apply to losses sustained upon the sale or exchange of property, losses sustained upon the obsolescence or worthlessness of depreciable property, casualty losses, or losses reflected in inventories required to be taken under section 471. The limitations contained in sections 1211 and 1212 upon losses from the sale or exchange of capital assets do not apply to losses allowable under this section.
( c ) *Cross references.* For the allowance under section 165(a) of losses arising from the permanent withdrawal of depreciable property from use in the trade or business or in the production of income, see § 1.167(a)-8, § 1.168(i)-1, or § 1.168(i)-8, as applicable. For provisions respecting the obsolescence of depreciable property for which depreciation is determined under section 167 (but not under section 168, section 1400I, section 1400L(c), section 168 prior to its amendment by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514 (100 Stat. 2121 (1986)), or under an additional first year depreciation deduction provision of the Internal Revenue Code (for example, section 168(k) through (n), 1400L(b), or 1400N(d))), see § 1.167(a)-9. For the allowance of casualty losses, see § 1.165-7.
( d ) *Effective/applicability date* — ( 1 ) *In general.* This section applies to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section, § 1.165-2 as contained in 26 CFR part 1 edition revised as of April 1, 2011, applies to taxable years beginning before January 1, 2014.
( 2 ) *Early application of § 1.165-2(c) .* A taxpayer may choose to apply paragraph (c) of this section to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2012.
( 3 ) *Optional application of TD 9564.* A taxpayer may choose to apply § 1.165-2T as contained in TD 9564 (76 FR 81060) December 27, 2011, to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2012, and before January 1, 2014.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11402, Nov. 26, 1960; 25 FR 14021, Dec. 21, 1960, as amended by T.D. 9564, 76 FR 81084, Dec. 27, 2011; T.D. 9636, 78 FR 57706, Sept. 19, 2013; T.D. 9689, 79 FR 48667, Aug. 18, 2014]
# AVS

Quality Management System Title: Domestic NewAction Worksheet with S8 QPM# AIR-ANM-030-F7 Date: December 17, 2008 Revision 1 

# Record ofContacts FDMS Docket No. F

# AA_,jp_'_O-:-_O_"_L/_b

__ With whom outside theFAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Persof! Contacted Date Boeing 

### Dan Shonka 3/13/2003 ATA 

### Joe White 4/1 0/2009

UNCONTROLLED COpy WHEN DOWNLOADED Check the Master list to Verify That This isthe :Correcl Revision Before Use
Slip Op. 99-115

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 

BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

___________________________________

:

SKF USA INC., SKF FRANCE S.A. :

and SARMA, :

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. : Consol. Court No.

: 97-01-00054

THE UNITED STATES, :

:

Defendant, :

:

THE TORRINGTON COMPANY, :

:

Defendant-Intervenor. :

___________________________________:

JUDGMENT

This Court having received and reviewed the United States

Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s

(“Commerce”) Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court

Remand, SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 23 CIT __, Slip Op. 99-56

(June 29, 1999) (“Remand Results”), and Commerce having complied

with the Court’s remand, and no responses to the Remand Results

having been submitted by the parties, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Remand Results filed by Commerce on September

10, 1999 are affirmed in their entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, this

case is dismissed.

______________________________

NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

 SENIOR JUDGE

Dated: October 28, 1999

New York, New York
<page>  EXHIBIT 32.02



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 Dean Witter Principal
Plus Fund L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Perry,
Chief Financial Officer, Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 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.









By:  	/s/Kevin Perry

Name:		  Kevin Perry
Title:	  Chief Financial Officer

Date:		  November 15, 2004
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1287

CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, Petitioner,

versus MARGARET EARL, Surviving spouse of Willard Earl, deceased; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (04-0380-BLA)
Submitted: October 31, 2005 Decided: December 5, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Steele Mattingly, Ashley Marie Harman, JACKSON KELLY, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Margaret Earl, Rachel, West Virginia, Respondent Pro Se; Christian P. Barber, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Helen Hart Cox, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Washington, D.C., for Respondent DOWCP.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Consolidation Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of black lung disability and survivor’s benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Board. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Earl , No. 04-0380- BLA (BRB Jan. 18, 2005). We grant Consolidation Coal’s motion to strike the addendum to respondent’s informal reply brief and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 884.4260 Hygroscopic Laminaria cervical dilator. ( a ) *Identification.* A hygroscopic *Laminaria* cervical dilator is a device designed to dilate (stretch open) the cervical os by cervical insertion of a conical and expansible material made from the root of a seaweed (*Laminaria* digitata or *Laminaria* japonica). The device is used to induce abortion.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1769

MEIBY LISBETH DUBON HERNANDEZ , Petitioner ,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : May 30 , 2024 Decided: June 3, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Ivan Yacub, YACUB LAW OFFICES, LLC, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Micah Engler, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEP ARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1769 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Meiby Lisbeth Dubon Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ order denying Dubon Hernandez’s motion to reopen her removal proceedings. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse
of discretion. Lawrence v. Lynch , 826 F.3d 198, 203 (4th Cir. 20 16 ) ; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2( a ) , (c)

. The “denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed with extreme deference, given that motions to reopen are disfavored because every delay works to the advantage of the deportable [noncitizen] who wishes merely to remain in the United States.” Sadhvani v.
Holder , 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the Board’s order, in conjunction with the administrative record and relevant authorities, and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in holding that Dubon Hernandez failed to substantially comply with the third requirement i dentified
in In re Lozada , 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988), and denying the motion on this basis, see Barry v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 741, 745

- 47 (4th Cir. 2006) (discussing Lozada requirements and explaining that this court will “only review the merits of t he [Board’s] denial of a motion to reopen on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel where the [noncitizen] has complied with” those requirements). Nor do we discern any abuse of
discretion in the Board’s additional finding that Dubon Hernandez did not demonstrate prejudice flowing from her former attorney’s alleged ineffective representation. See In re Melgar , 28 I. & N. Dec. 169, 171 (B.I.A. 2020) (discussing prejudice requirement for reopening based on an attorney’s alleged ineffective represent ation). USCA4 Appeal: 23-1769 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 Accordingly , we deny the petition for review. See In re Dubon Hernandez (B.I.A. July 10, 2023). 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.
PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1769 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
# C_2019082EN.01002302.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Deutsche Umwelthilfe v Commission

(Case T-498/14) (1)

((Access to documents - Documents related to correspondence between the European Commission and car manufacturers concerning refrigerant R1234yf used in motor vehicles - Documents not included - New plea put forward in the course of the proceedings - Inadmissibility - Measure of inquiry ordering the production of the contested documents in accordance with Article 104 of the Rules of Procedure - Derogation to the principle of adversarial proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Public interest in disclosure - Balance - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 6(1) - Overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the environmental information or relating to emissions into the environment - General proposition - Partial refusal to grant access - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 82/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV (Radolfzell, Germany) (represented by: R. Klinger and R. Geulen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and J. Vondung, then F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Krämer, acting as Agents, in cooperation initially with R. van der Hout and A. Köhler, then R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision GESTDEM 2014/547 of 2 June 2014, confirming the refusal to grant access to all the documents related to correspondence between the European Commission, on the one hand, and the undertakings Honeywell et DuPont or car manufacturers, on the other hand, during the period from September 2011 until April 2012 and from September 2012 until the end of January 2014, concerning refrigerant R1234yf used in motor vehicles.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment in part of Commission Decision GESTDEM 2014/547 of 2 June 2014, in so far as it concerns the initially redacted parts of document No 34 which, subsequently, were made public; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment in part of Commission Decision GESTDEM 2014/547 of 2 June 2014, in so far as it concerns the initially redacted parts of document No 34 which, subsequently, were made public;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

---
# C_2015026EN.01003502.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/35

---

Order of the Judge hearing the Application for Interim Measures of 27 October 2014 — Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net v Commission

(Case T-703/14 R)

((Interim proceedings - Grant agreements - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Debit note addressed to a contracting party - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Case not suitable for the adoption of interim relief))

(2015/C 026/45)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net AEVE (Kaisariani, Greece) (represented by: K. Damis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the suspension of operation of a debit note addressed to the applicant within the framework of a grant agreement and of any other relevant act.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application for interim measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application for interim measures;

| 2. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Reserves the costs.

---
39338.

#### THOMAS v. THE STATE.

Frankum, Judge.

The defendant was convicted of an assault with intent to commit murder under an indictment charging that he did “. . . with a certain automobile, the same being a weapon, likely to produce death, . . . unlawfully and with malice aforethought, make an assault upon one Wray King, and . . . did, unlawfully and with malice aforethought, *775drive at and towards said Wray King, with the intent, then and there, unlawfully, and with malice aforethought, to kill and murder said Wray King. . .” The conviction of the defendant was not authorized by the evidence. Therefore, the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.

Decided April 18, 1962.

*Casey Thigpen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter C. McMillan, Jr., Solicitor-General,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
Order entered October 9, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01305-CV

DEEN T. WILLIAMSON, Appellant

V.

CRAIG HOWARD, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-03662-B

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s September 26, 2013 “motion for review of the trial 

court sustaining appellant’s affidavit of indigence” and her September 30, 2013 motion to correct 

the title of the September 26, 2013 motion and “amended motion requesting the Fifth Court of 

Appeals review the trial court’s sustaining the contest against appellant’s affidavit of indigence.” 

The Court GRANTS the motions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(j)(4). We ORDER Lanetta J. 

Williams, Official Court Reporter of the County Court at Law No. 2 of Dallas County, Texas, to 

file the court reporter’s record in this case within thirty days of the date of this order, without 

requiring prepayment of costs. We ORDER the Dallas County Clerk to file the clerk’s record in 

this case within thirty days of the date of this order, without requiring prepayment of costs.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### § 1.312-2 Distribution of inventory assets.

Section 312(b) provides for the increase and the decrease of the earnings and profits of a corporation which distributes, with respect to its stock, inventory assets as defined in section 312(b)(2), where the fair market value of such assets exceeds their adjusted basis. The rules provided in section 312(b) (relating to distributions of certain inventory assets) shall be applicable without regard to the method used in computing inventories for the purpose of the computation of taxable income. Section 312(b) does not apply to distributions described in section 312(e).
#### § 1.42-2 [Reserved]
Honeywell ProprietaryHoneywell.com1EPA 02122014Specific Propellant ApplicationsApplicationCurrentPropellantHFO-1234zeFeasibilityHFO-1234zeCommercializedCommentsDefenseHFC-134a,N2, HCCommercial launch within 1-2 yearsElectronics FreezerSprayHFC-134a Commercially LaunchedTissue/BiologicalSpecimen Freeze SpraysHFC-134a Commercially LaunchedDefense Spray with N2:http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Technology-Stream-Solution-1-0-Ounce/dp/B0058ERLKA/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404414784&sr=8-1-fkmr2&keywords=mace+or+pepper+spray+propellantsElectronics Freezer Sprays with HFO-1234ze:http://www.techspray.com/p-158-eco-freezer.aspxhttp://www.grainger.com/product/TECHSPRAY-Eco-Freezer22HU67?s_pp=false&picUrl=//static.grainger.com/rp/s/is/image/Grainger/22HU67_AW01?$smthumb$http://www.chemtronics.com/p-858-arctic-storm.aspxTissue/Biological Specimen Freeze Spray:http://www.miller-stephenson.com/assets/1/Store%20Item/MS-242L,%20242L-AS.pdfHoneywell ProprietaryHoneywell.com2EPA 02122014Propellant ApplicationsApplicationCurrentPropellantHFO-1234zeFeasibilityHFO-1234zeCommercializedCommentsDusters HFC-134a, HFC-152a MS-222L1; TS-1580-10S2; Falcon“Dust-Off”; Chemtronics “Typhoon”Tire Inflators HFC-134a1 customer with shelf-ready product;2 customers in evaluationCleaners/Defluxers HFC-134a,152a / HC3 MS-H0805A1; MS-H1212A1Personal Care HFC-152a / HCHair Spray, Deodorant, Dry Shampoocurrently in customer evaluationPet Care – Trainers HFC-134a Products available in EUNovelty HFC-134a Products available in EUBug Freezer HFC-134a Products available in JapanSpray Adhesives HCCurrently in customer evaluationPharma/Medical OTC HFC-134a 1 customer launch; 1 productcurrently in customer evaluationSmoke Detector Testing HFC-134a / HC HSI PurCheckTM launched1Miller Stephenson2Techspray3Hydrocarbons – Propane/ButaneHoneywell ProprietaryHoneywell.com3EPA 02122014Launched Products - Information•Miller Stephenson (Duster): Aero Duster 222L, other HFO-1234ze based products–http://www.miller-stephenson.com/low-global-warming-products/–http://www.miller-stephenson.com/assets/1/Store%20Item/MS-222L.pdf•Techspray Eco-Duster (Duster):–http://www.newark.com/techspray/1580-10s/eco-duster-spray-bottle-253ml/dp/88T4950–http://www.stanleysupplyservices.com/techspray-renew-1580-10s-eco-duster-10oz/p/477-260–http://www.techni-tool.com/754CH1580•Falcon Eco-Duster (Duster):–http://www.amazon.com/industrial-scientific/dp/B009L9A2X6•ITW Chemtronics Typhoon Blast (Duster):–http://www.chemtronics.com/products/product.asp?id=598–http://www.chemtronics.com/products/product.asp?id=594–http://www.sears.com/itw-chemtronics-typhoon-blast-trade-all-way-duster-8/p-SPM7566442410?prdNo=8–http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CAJB2GA•Pet Safe (Pet Training Product):–http://intl.petsafe.net/intl/ch/products/bark-control/spray•Fumakilla (Bug Freezer):–http://www.fumakilla.co.jp/•MTi Mining Products (Mining Safety Product):–http://www.zero.mtigroup.com.au/
EXHIBIT 32.b



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 American Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and 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.



|                |     |                            
|--------------- | --- | ---------------------------
|Date:           |     |                            
|August 19, 2004 | By: | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                |     |                            
|                |     | Marc N. Teal               
|                |     | Principal Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.