alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.274-14 Disallowance of deductions for certain transportation and commuting benefit expenditures. ( a ) *General rule.* Except as provided in this section, no deduction is allowed for any expense incurred for providing any transportation, or any payment or reimbursement, to an employee of the taxpayer in connection with travel between the employee's residence and place of employment. The disallowance is not subject to the exceptions provided in section 274(e). The disallowance applies regardless of whether the travel between the employee's residence and place of employment includes more than one mode of transportation, and regardless of whether the taxpayer provides, or pays or reimburses the employee for, all modes of transportation used during the trip. For example, the disallowance applies if an employee drives a personal vehicle to a location where a different mode of transportation is used to complete the trip to the place of employment, even though the taxpayer may not incur any expense for the portion of travel in the employee's personal vehicle. The rules in section 274(l) and this section do not apply to business expenses under section 162(a)(2) paid or incurred while traveling away from home. The rules in section 274(l) and this section also do not apply to any expenditure for any qualified transportation fringe (as defined in section 132(f)) provided to an employee of the taxpayer. All qualified transportation fringe expenses are required to be analyzed under section 274(a)(4) and § 1.274-13.
( b ) *Exception.* The disallowance for the deduction for expenses incurred for providing any transportation or commuting in paragraph (a) of this section does not apply if the transportation or commuting expense is necessary for ensuring the safety of the employee. The transportation or commuting expense is necessary for ensuring the safety of the employee if unsafe conditions, as described in § 1.61-21(k)(5), exist for the employee.
( c ) *Definitions.* The following definitions apply for purposes of this section: ( 1 ) *Employee.* The term *employee* means an employee of the taxpayer as defined in section 3121(d)(1) and (2) (that is, officers of a corporate taxpayer and employees of the taxpayer under the common law rules).
( 2 ) *Residence.* The term *residence* means a residence as defined in § 1.121-1(b)(1). An employee's residence is not limited to the employee's principal residence.
( 3 ) *Place of employment.* The term *place of employment* means the employee's regular or principal (if more than one regular) place of business. An employee's place of employment does not include temporary or occasional places of employment. An employee must have at least one regular or principal place of business.
( d ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to taxable years beginning on or after December 16, 2020.
[T.D. 9939, 85 FR 81408, Dec. 16, 2020]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OFTITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned President &Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies,that to their knowledge:

1)              the Company’s Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78*o*(d)); and

2)              theinformation contained in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/Martin J. Reid                            |   | /s/William J. Schmidt   |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
| Martin J. Reid                               |   | William J. Schmidt      |   |
| President & Chief Executive Officer |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                         |   |                    |   |
| Date: May 15, 2006                      |   | Date: May 15, 2006 |   |

 

----
March 12, 2015 

Mr. Ian Sebastian 

I Drone Your Home 

11771 Laurelwood Drive 

Studio City, CA 91604 

Dear Mr. Sebastian: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Cannot Process Your Request 

We entered your March 4, 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

0531), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before fina l disposition.

Before DEERWESTER , BURGTORF , and KIRKBY Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Richard D

. SCOTT Lance Corporal (E

- 3 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
No. 202200091

_________________________ Decided: 27 September 2022 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge :

Eric A. Catto Sentence adjudged 03 February 2022 by a general court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Paris Island , South Carolina, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for nineteen months , forfeiture of all pay and allowances , and a dishonorable discharge. For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Doug R. Ottenwess , JAGC, USNUnited States v. Scott , NMCCA No. 202200091 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________ PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant ’s substantial rights occurred. 1

T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON Clerk of Court

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-2-2004 

# U SA v . B e ntley P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1935

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Be n tley " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 631. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/631* The Ho nora ble A rthur L . Alarc ón, S enior J udg e, Un ited Sta tes C ourt o f A ppea ls

for the Nint

h Circuit , si tti ng by des ignati on. NOT PRE CEDENT IAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

____________ No. 03-1935

____________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. TYRONE B ENTLE Y, a/k/a TY RO NE HA RR IS Tyr on e B en tle y, Appellant

____________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. No. 97-cr -00445) Distric t Judg e: Th e H ono rable S tewa rt Da lzell

____________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

May 28, 2004 Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge , F IS HER a nd A LARCÓN, * Circu it Judges . (Fil ed June 2, 2004)

____________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

____________2

FIS HE R, Circu it Judge . Tyrone Bentleyclai ms, for t he firs t ti me on this appe al, that heshould not have rece ived a tw o-le vel u pw ard adju stm ent in his o ffe nse leve l pu rsua nt to U.S .S.G . § 3C 1.2. The stand ard o f revie w is p lain erro r. Fed . R. C rim. P. 5 2(b); United Stat es v. Torres , 209 F.3d 30 8, 313 (3d Cir. 2000 ). The gov ernme ntco nc ed es th at th e s en te nc in g e nhanc eme ntpur su an t to U. S. S. G. § 3C1.2 should not

have been appli ed in thi s case, as the def endant was fl eeing fr om armored car employees, not law enforcement officials. The governm ent agrees that t he erroneous application of § 3C1.2 warrants a rema nd to perm it resente ncing . We will the refor e vac ate the judg men t of sen tence in this case and re mand the matt er for resentenc ing.

________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      14,155,131
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,685,832
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,550
<INVENTORY>                                    974,409
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,203,863
<PP&E>                                      17,703,992
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,764,488
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,516,876
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,458,394
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,457
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,826,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,516,876
<SALES>                                      2,700,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,213,800
<CGS>                                        3,116,844
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,708,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,267,207
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             137,366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,762,234)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,256
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,763,490)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,763,490)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.33)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2015429EN.01002101.xml

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2015 — Portnov v Council

(Case T-290/14) (1)

1

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Proof that inclusion on the list is well-founded))

(2015/C 429/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Andriy Portnov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and J. P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1) and Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26), in so far as the applicant’s name was included on the list of persons, entities and bodies covered by those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far as they concern Andriy Portnov; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far as they concern Andriy Portnov;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those of Mr Portnov; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those of Mr Portnov;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.

1

---
PUBLIC LAW 115–27—APR. 19, 2017 131 STAT. 131 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S.J. Res. 30: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017): 

Mar. 27, considered and passed Senate. 

Apr. 6, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–27 

115th Congress 

Joint Resolution 

Providing for the reappointment of Steve Case as a citizen regent of the Board 

of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), 

the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 

in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by reason 

of the expiration of the term of Steve Case of Virginia on April 

25, 2017, is filled by the reappointment of the incumbent. The 

reappointment is for a term of 6 years, beginning on the later 

of April 26, 2017, or the date of the enactment of this joint resolution. 

Approved April 19, 2017. 

Effective date. 

Apr. 19, 2017 

[S.J. Res. 30] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
EX-10.41



 





EXHIBIT 10.41




AMENDMENT NO. 3

TO THE

NACCO INDUSTRIES, INC.

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ EQUITY PLAN




     NACCO Industries, Inc. hereby adopts this Amendment No. 3 to the NACCO Industries, Inc.
Non-Employee Directors’ Equity Compensation Plan (the “Plan”). The provisions of this Amendment
shall be effective December 1, 2006.



Section 1




     Section 3.1(c) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“(c) Retainer. Promptly following each Quarter Date (and, in any event, no later than two
and one-half months after each such Quarter Date), the Company shall issue to each Director (or to
a trust for the benefit of a Director, or such Director’s spouse, children or grandchildren, if so
directed by the Director) (i) a number of whole Shares equal to the Required Amount earned for
services rendered to the Company by such Director for the calendar quarter ending on such Quarter
Date divided by the Average Share Price and (ii) a number of whole Voluntary Shares equal to such
Director’s Voluntary Amount for such calendar quarter divided by the Average Share Price. To the
extent that the application of the foregoing formulas would result in fractional Shares or
fractional Voluntary Shares, no fractional shares of Class A Common Stock shall be issued by the
Company pursuant to this Plan, but instead, such amount shall be paid to the Director in cash at
the same time the Shares and Voluntary Shares are issued to the Director. Shares and Voluntary
Shares shall be fully paid, nonassessable shares of Class A Common Stock. Shares shall be subject
to the restrictions set forth in this Plan, whereas Voluntary Shares shall not be so restricted.
Shares and Voluntary Shares may be shares of original issuance or treasury shares or a combination
of the foregoing. The Company shall pay any and all fees and commissions incurred in connection
with the purchase by the Company of shares of Class A Common Stock which are to be Shares or
Voluntary Shares and the transfer to Directors of Shares or Voluntary Shares.”




Section 2




     The second sentence of Section 3.2(b) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:



     “All securities received by a Director with respect to Shares in connection with any
Extraordinary Event shall be deemed to be shares for purposes of this Plan and shall be restricted
pursuant to the terms of this Plan to the same extent and for the same period as if such securities
were the original Shares with respect to which they were issued, unless the Board of Directors of
the Company, in its sole and absolute discretion, eliminates such restrictions or accelerates the
time at which such restrictions on transfer shall lapse.”
# C_2017014EN.01000402.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2016 — Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Seven Towns Ltd

(Case C-30/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Union trade mark - Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity))

(2017/C 014/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Ruhl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents), Seven Towns Ltd (represented by: K. Szamosi and M. Borbás, ügyvédek)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 November 2014, Simba Toys v OHIM — Seven Towns (Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure) (T-450/09, EU:T:2014:983); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 November 2014, Simba Toys v OHIM — Seven Towns (Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure) (T-450/09, EU:T:2014:983);

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 September 2009 (Case R 1526/2008-2) relating to cancellation proceedings between Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG and Seven Towns Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 September 2009 (Case R 1526/2008-2) relating to cancellation proceedings between Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG and Seven Towns Ltd;

| 3. | Orders Seven Towns Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG relating both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-450/09 and to the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Seven Towns Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG relating both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-450/09 and to the appeal.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0526

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

THOMAS WILLIAM PRICE,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Appellant Thomas Price, by counsel, has filed a second motion for a 60-day 

extension of time within which to file the reply brief. 

On August 11, 2020, the Court granted a 60-day motion for extension and included 

no further extensions would be granted in the Order. Without reference to the first 

extension, counsel has now moved for a second 60-day extension.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that motion is DENEID. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 7 2020

10/07/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0526
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 80

IN THE HOUSE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 20, 1993

Referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate the week of April 17–24, 1994, as ‘‘Nancy

Moore Thurmond National Organ and Tissue Donor

Awareness Week’’.

Whereas Nancy Moore Thurmond was suddenly taken from

us in the prime of her life;

Whereas in an attempt to honor those causes for which

Nancy Moore Thurmond was associated, namely the

championing of children’s causes;

Whereas a new patient is added to the national patient waiting list for an organ transplant every 20 minutes;

Whereas thousands of lives are saved or significantly improved annually by organ and tissue transplantation; and

Whereas increasing the number of organs which can be transplanted as well as tissues would save American taxpayers

millions of dollars: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•SJ 80 RFH

1 That the week of April 17–24, 1994, is designated ‘‘Nancy

2 Moore Thurmond National Organ and Tissue Donor

3 Awareness Week’’ and the President is authorized and re4 quested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people

5 of the United States to observe such week with appro6 priate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

Passed the Senate April 19, 1993.

Attest: WALTER J. STEWART,

Secretary.