alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.612-1 Basis for allowance of cost depletion. ( a ) *In general.* The basis upon which the deduction for cost depletion under section 611 is to be allowed in respect of any mineral or timber property is the adjusted basis provided in section 1011 for the purpose of determining gain upon the sale or other disposition of such property except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. The adjusted basis of such property is the cost or other basis determined under section 1012, relating to the basis of property, adjusted as provided in section 1016, relating to adjustments to basis, and the regulations under such sections. In the case of the sale of a part of such property, the unrecovered basis thereof shall be allocated to the part sold and the part retained.
( b ) *Special rules.* ( 1 ) The basis for cost depletion of mineral or timber property does not include: ( i ) Amounts recoverable through depreciation deductions, through deferred expenses, and through deductions other than depletion, and
( ii ) The residual value of land and improvements at the end of operations In the case of any mineral property the basis for cost depletion does not include amounts representing the cost or value of land for purposes other than mineral production. Furthermore, in the case of certain mineral properties, such basis does not include exploration or development expenditures which are treated under section 615(b) or 616(b) as deferred expenses to be taken into account as deductions on a ratable basis as the units of minerals benefited thereby are produced and sold. However, there shall be included in the basis for cost depletion of oil and gas property the amounts of capitalized drilling and development costs which, as provided in § 1.612-4, are recoverable through depletion deductions. In the case of timber property, the basis for cost depletion does not include amounts representing the cost or value of land.
( 2 ) Where a taxpayer elects to treat the cutting of timber as a sale or exchange of such timber, the basis for cost depletion shall be the fair market value of such timber as of the first day of the taxable year in which such timber is cut and such value shall be considered for such taxable year and all subsequent taxable years as the cost of such timber for all purposes for which such cost is a necessary factor. See section 631(a).
( c ) *Cross references.* In cases where the valuation, revaluation, or mineral content of deposits is a factor, see paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) of § 1.611-2. In cases where the valuation, revaluation, or quantity of timber is a factor, see paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) of § 1.611-3. For definitions of the terms *property, fair market value, mineral enterprise, mineral deposit,* and *minerals,* see paragraph (d) of § 1.611-1. For rules with respect to treatment of depletion accounts on taxpayers' books, see paragraph (b) of § 1.611-2 in the case of mineral property, and paragraph (c) of § 1.611-3 in the case of timber property.
**Exhibit 10.2**

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

 

CORNERSTONE REALTY INCOME TRUST, INC.

 

1992 INCENTIVE PLAN 

 

AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2002

 

This FIRST AMENDMENT is dated as of May 25, 2004, to the Cornerstone Realty Income Trust, Inc. 1992 Incentive Plan amended and restated effective July 1, 2002 (the“Plan”) by Cornerstone Realty Income Trust, Inc. (the “Company”). 

 

The Company maintains the Plan. The Company’s Board of Directors has the authority under Plan Section 11 to amend the Plan and now wishes to do so. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows: 

 

I. Plan Section 11 is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety by the following: 

 

11. **Termination, Modification, Change.**If not sooner terminated by the Board, this Plan, as amended and restated,shall terminate at the close of business on July 1, 2012. No Incentive Awards shall be made under the Plan after its termination. The Board may terminate the Plan or may amend the Plan in such respects as it shall deem advisable; provided that, ifand to the extent required by Rule 16b-3, no change shall be made that increases the total number of shares of Company Stock reserved for issuance pursuant to Incentive Awards granted under the Plan (except pursuant to Section 12), materiallymodifies the requirements as to eligibility for participation in the Plan, or materially increases the benefits accruing to Participants under the Plan, unless such change is authorized by the shareholders of the Company. Notwithstanding theforegoing, the Board may unilaterally amend the Plan and Incentive Awards as it deems appropriate to ensure compliance with Rule 16b-3. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, a termination or amendment of the Plan shall not, without theconsent of the Participant, adversely affect the Participant’s rights under an Incentive Award previously granted to him. 

 

II. This Amendment shall be effective as of May 25, 2004. 

 

III. In all respects not amended, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed. 

 

To record the adoption of the Amendment as set forth above, the Company has caused this document to be signed as of the 25th day of May, 2004.
§ 1.45L-3 Rules relating to the increased credit amount for prevailing wage. ( a ) *In general.* With respect to a qualified residence described in section 45L(a)(2)(B), the credit determined under section 45L(a)(2)(B)(i) is $2,500 and the credit determined under section 45L(a)(2)(B)(ii) is $5,000 if the qualified residence described in section 45L(a)(2)(B)— ( 1 ) Meets the requirements under section 45L(c)(1)(A) or 45L(c)(1)(B), as applicable;
( 2 ) Is constructed by an eligible contractor;
( 3 ) Is acquired by a person for use as a residence during the taxable year; and
( 4 ) Satisfies the prevailing wage requirements of section 45(b)(7) and § 1.45-7, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of § 1.45-12, with respect to the construction of the qualified residence before such residence is acquired by a person for use as a residence.
( b ) *Definitions* — ( 1 ) *Qualified residence.* For purposes of this section, a *qualified residence* means a qualified new energy efficient home as defined in section 45L(b)(2).
( 2 ) *Eligible contractor.* For purposes of this section, an *eligible contractor* means an eligible contractor as defined in section 45L(b)(1).
( c ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to any qualified new energy efficient home acquired for use as a residence in taxable years ending after June 25, 2024, and the construction of which begins after June 25, 2024. Taxpayers may apply this section to any qualified new energy efficient home acquired for use as a residence in taxable years ending on or before June 25, 2024, and any qualified new energy efficient home acquired for use as a residence in taxable years ending after June 25, 2024, the construction of which begins before June 25, 2024, provided that taxpayers follow this section in its entirety and in a consistent manner.
[T.D. 9998, 89 FR 53270, June 25, 2024]
EXHIBIT 32


               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 GUNDAKER/JORDAN AMERICAN HOLDINGS,
INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003, (the
"Report"), I, W. Neal Jordan, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial and
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:

1)  The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.


June 24, 2005



/s/ W. Neal Jordan
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial and
Accounting Officer
#### § 1.162-16 Cross reference.

For special rules relating to expenses in connection with subdividing real property for sale, see section 1237 and the regulations thereunder.
§ 1.1312-4 Double disallowance of a deduction or credit. ( a ) Paragraph (4) of section 1312 applies if the determination disallows a deduction or credit which should have been, but was not, allowed to the same taxpayer for another taxable year or to a related taxpayer for the same or another taxable year. This is one of the two circumstances in which the maintenance of an inconsistent position is not a requirement for an adjustment but the requirements in paragraph (b) of § 1.1311(b)-2 must be fulfilled (correction not barred at time of erroneous action).
( b ) The application of paragraph (a) of this section may be illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. The taxpayer, A, who computes his income by use of the accrual method of accounting, deducted in his return for the taxable year 1951 an item of expense which he paid in such year. At the time A filed his return for 1951, the statute of limitations for 1950 had not expired. Subsequently, the Commissioner asserted a deficiency for 1951 based on the position that the liability for such expense should have been accrued for the taxable year 1950. In 1955, after the period of limitations on refunds for 1950 had expired, there was a determination by the Tax Court disallowing such deduction for the taxable year 1951. A is entitled to an adjustment for the taxable year 1950. However, if such liability should have been accrued for the taxable year 1946 instead of 1950, A would not be entitled to an adjustment, if a credit or refund with respect to 1946 was already barred when he deducted such expense for the taxable year 1951.
Example 2. The taxpayer, B, in his return for 1951 claimed a deduction for a charitable contribution. The Commissioner asserted a deficiency for such year contending that 50 percent of the deduction should be disallowed, since the contribution was made from community property 50 percent of which was attributable to B's spouse. The deficiency is sustained by the Tax Court in 1956, subsequent to the period of limitations within which B's spouse could claim a refund with respect to 1951. An adjustment is permitted to B's spouse, a related taxpayer, since a refund attributable to a deduction by her of such contribution was not barred when B claimed the deduction.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12034, Nov. 26, 1960]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

IN RE: No. 08-18-00192-CV

§

LUIS FERNANDO AMAYA,

Relator.

§

§

§

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Luis Fernando Amaya, filed a mandamus petition against the Honorable Annabel 

Perez, Judge of the 41st District Court of El Paso County, Texas. Relator asks that we order 

Respondent to set aside her order granting a new trial for the real party in interest, Hernandez 

Reliable Roofing. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Generally, mandamus relief is appropriate only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or to 

compel the performance of a ministerial duty, and where the relator has no adequate remedy by 

appeal. In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011)(orig. proceeding); In re Prudential 

Insurance Company of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004)(orig. proceeding). The 

burden is on relator to show it is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Ford Motor Company, 165 

S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex. 2005)(orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 

1992)(orig. proceeding). Mandamus review is not available for an order that sets aside a default 

judgment when there has been no jury trial. See In re Diogu, No. 14-16-00373-CV, 2016 WL 
- 2 -

3131524, at *1 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] June 2, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re 

Abrokwa, No. 05-15-01239-CV, 2015 WL 6520083, at *1 (Tex.App.--Dallas Oct. 28, 2015, orig. 

proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Procesos Especializados en Metal, S.A. de C.V., No. 04-14-00543-

CV, 2014 WL 4347724, at *3 (Tex.App.--San Antonio Sept. 3, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. 

op.). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

November 19, 2018

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 26, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40476 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KEITH RAY TEAGLE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-5-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Keith Ray Teagle appeals the 120-month sentence he received after pleading guilty to possessing a firearm in interstate commerce after having been convicted of a felony. Teagle argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred byfailing to adequately articulate its reasons for imposing a nonGuidelines sentence. He also contends that his sentence was unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Teagle fails to demonstrate any error, plain or otherwise, with regard to the reasonableness of the non-Guidelines sentence imposed by theNo. 06-40476 -2- district court. See United States v. Jones , 444 F.3d 430, 434-36 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Smith , 440 F.3d 704, 707-10 (5th Cir. 2006). Teagle argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under § 922(g)(1) because there was no evidence that his possession of the firearms was in or affected interstate commerce. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Daugherty , 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied 122 S.Ct. 1113 (2002), but raises it for possible review by the United States Supreme Court. Also, for the first time on appeal, Teagle argues that the district court erred by applying the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Austin , 432 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. 2005), but raises it to preserve it for possible review with the United States Supreme
Court.
AFFIRMED.
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Helaine M. Kaplan,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the COMM2015-CCRE27 Mortgage Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Midland LoanServices, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, asOperating Advisor, KeyBank National Association, as Primary Servicer, BerkeleyPoint Capital LLC, as Primary Servicer, KeyBank National Association, asPrimary Servicer for the 11 Madison Avenue Mortgage Loan, KeyBank NationalAssociation, as Special Servicer for the 11 Madison Avenue Mortgage Loan,Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee for the 11 Madison AvenueMortgage Loan, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator for the 11 Madison Avenue Mortgage Loan, and Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian for the 11 Madison Avenue Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: July 20, 2018

 

 

/s/ Helaine M. Kaplan

 

 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
EXHIBIT 32.a



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, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive 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 result of operations of the Partnership.



|                |     |                            
|--------------- | --- | ---------------------------
|Date:           |     |                            
|August 16, 2010 | By: | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                |     |                            
|                |     | John P. Manning            
|                |     | Principal Executive 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.
## SERVED JULY26, 2012
., ···n •.**f··yl··~ r·~·r**  

# "'". ..... .

•!\ " 11 ;-P· I' l•·**~** ... : r\ 1 hr t+..¥**\,.~I** 

### ., ... '"...**')IDTA'l'l()'~! i/\f\J~JIJt**  1/, 1 h U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION',.,;<[f

## OPEfiATIONS OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC IN THE MATTER OF BRAILLE BATTERY, INC. FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BEASSIGNED] · (Civil PenaltyAction) FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0781 I

### I**·~**



### NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case.No. 2011S0700298) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other.communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAAHearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List.

Attachment - Service List**-~":c'>i'"** - SERVICE**LIST~** BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue; S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI 000 1 Charles Fletcher, Respondent's Counsel Gray-Robinson, P.A. 201 N. Franklin St., Suite 2200 Tampa, FL 33602 TEL: 813-273-5000 FAX: 813-273-5145 Gerald A. Ellis, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region

Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA. 30320 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223

ONE COPY , The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge Office of Hearings, M-20 U.S; Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536

.FDMS No. FAA-2012-0781 (Civil Penalty Actipn) .. ' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal A vinticm Adminislration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Builditig-suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. -2- -----------------
#### Ender v. United Cigar-Whelan Stores Corporation

*479
      *M. Kramer,*for plaintiff.

*J. P. Erwin*and *P. S. Beehtle,*for defendant.

June 2, 1953.

Bok, P. J.,

This is a petition for leave to file written interrogatories under Pa. R. C. P. 4005. No answer was filed.

Interrogatories 6 and 14 ask, among other things, by whom certain expenses were paid, if they were paid. If paid by an insurance company, the information would cause a mistrial. The relevance is questionable in any event. This part of these interrogatories is disapproved.

Interrogatory 7 asks, inter alia, what the reading of X-rays disclosed. Such reading is not a fact but an opinion: See Fetterolf et ux. v. Levick, etc., 80 D. *&*C. 523 (1952). This part of the interrogatory is disapproved.

Interrogatories 12 and 13 inquire about workmen’s compensation and unemployment compensation benefits. This is irrelevant and is disapproved: See Fetterolf case, supra.

The interrogatories and parts thereof not hereby disapproved are approved, and to that extent the petition is granted.