alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.643(a)-5 Tax-exempt interest. ( a ) There is included in distributable net income any tax-exempt interest excluded from gross income under section 103, reduced by disbursements allocable to such interest which would have been deductible under section 212 but for the provisions of section 265 (relating to disallowance of deductions allocable to tax-exempt income).
( b ) If the estate or trust is allowed a charitable contributions deduction under section 642(c), the amounts specified in paragraph (a) of this section and § 1.643(a)-6 are reduced by the portion deemed to be included in income paid, permanently set aside, or to be used for the purposes specified in section 642(c). If the governing instrument or local law specifically provides as to the source out of which amounts are paid, permanently set aside, or to be used for such charitable purposes, the specific provision controls for Federal tax purposes to the extent such provision has economic effect independent of income tax consequences. See § 1.652(b)-2(b). In the absence of such specific provisions in the governing instrument or local law, an amount to which section 642(c) applies is deemed to consist of the same proportion of each class of the items of income of the estate or trust as the total of each class bears to the total of all classes. For illustrations showing the determination of the character of an amount deductible under section 642(c), see *Examples 1* and *2* of § 1.662(b)-2 and § 1.662(c)-4(e).
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11814, Nov. 26, 1960; 25 FR 14021, Dec. 31, 1960, as amended by T.D. 9582, 77 FR 22485, Apr. 16, 2012]
Order entered March 11, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00470-CV

JOHN DOE I, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF JOHN DOE II, A MINOR,

Appellants

V.

RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND JIM PATTISON U.S.A., INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-07174

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ March 8, 2019 unopposed motion for leave to file an 

amended notice of appeal. We GRANT the motion. Appellants shall file, within five days of 

the date of this order, an amended notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment signed on 

February 26, 2019. 

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
#### § 1.643(b)-2 Dividends allocated to corpus.

Extraordinary dividends or taxable stock dividends which the fiduciary, acting in good faith, determines to be allocable to corpus under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law are not considered “income” for purposes of subpart A, B, C, or D, part I, subchapter J, chapter 1 of the Code. See section 643(a)(4), § 1.643(a)-4, § 1.643(d)-2, section 665(e), paragraph (b) of § 1.665(e)-1, and paragraph (b) of § 1.665(e)-1A for the treatment of such items in the computation of distributable net income.

[T.D. 7204, 37 FR 17134, Aug. 25, 1972]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 256 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 256

To authorize the use of funds available to the Committee on Energy and 
                   Natural Resources for consultants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 19 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

   Mr. Johnston (for himself and Mr. Wallop) submitted the following 
     resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize the use of funds available to the Committee on Energy and 
                   Natural Resources for consultants.

    Resolved, That section 9(c) of the Omnibus Committee Funding 
Resolution for 1993 and 1994 (S. Res. 71; 103d Congress, 1st Session) 
is amended by adding before the period the following: ``of which amount 
not to exceed $100,000 may be expended for the procurement of the 
services of individual consultants, or organizations thereof (as 
authorized by section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946, as amended)''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1.535-1 Definition. ( a ) The accumulated earnings tax is imposed by section 531 on the accumulated taxable income. Accumulated taxable income is the taxable income of the corporation with the adjustments prescribed by section 535(b) and § 1.535-2, minus the sum of the dividends paid deduction and the accumulated earnings credit. See section 561 and the regulations thereunder, relating to the definition of the deduction for dividends paid, and section 535(c) and § 1.535-3, relating to the accumulated earnings credit.
( b ) In the case of a foreign corporation, whether resident or nonresident, which files or causes to be filed a return, the accumulated taxable income shall be the taxable income from sources within the United States with the adjustments prescribed by section 535(b) and § 1.535-2 minus the sum of the dividends paid deduction and the accumulated earnings credit. In the case of a foreign corporation which files no return, the accumulated taxable income shall be the gross income from sources within the United States without allowance of any deductions (including the accumulated earnings credit).
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11737, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7244, 37 FR 28897, Dec. 30, 1972]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT WILLIAM P. TULENKO, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3781 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed December 19, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kimberly Fernandez, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Christine Trakas Thornhill, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. William P. Tulenko, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1997                    
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                            84,684
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                       48,980
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 198,701
<PP&E>                                           411,303
<DEPRECIATION>                                   129,824
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   519,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             80,994
<BONDS>                                          276,268
<COMMON>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     519,491
<SALES>                                          467,619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 467,619
<CGS>                                            344,978
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    421,549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   22,212
<INCOME-TAX>                                       8,817
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               13,395
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      13,395
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
        

</TABLE>
§ 1.367(a)-6 Transfer of foreign branch with previously deducted losses. ( a ) through ( b ) ( 1 ) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.367(a)-6T(a) through (b)(1).
( b ) (2) *No active conduct exception.* The rules of this paragraph (b) apply regardless of whether any of the assets of the foreign branch satisfy the active trade or business exception of § 1.367(a)-2(a)(2).
( c ) ( 1 ) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.367(a)-6T(c)(1).
( 2 ) *Gain limitation.* The gain required to be recognized under paragraph (b)(1) of this section will not exceed the aggregate amount of gain realized on the transfer of all branch assets (without regard to the transfer of any assets on which loss is realized but not recognized).
( 3 ) [Reserved]
( 4 ) *Transfers of certain intangible property.* Gain realized on the transfer of intangible property (computed with reference to the fair market value of the intangible property as of the date of the transfer) that is an asset of a foreign branch is taken into account in computing the limitation on loss recapture under paragraph (c)(2) of this section. For rules relating to the crediting of gain recognized under this section against income deemed to arise by operation of section 367(d), see § 1.367(d)-1(g)(3).
( d ) through ( i ) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.367(a)-6T(d) through (i).
( j ) *Effective/applicability dates.* The rules of this section apply to transfers occurring on or after September 14, 2015, and to transfers occurring before September 14, 2015, resulting from entity classification elections made under § 301.7701-3 that are filed on or after September 14, 2015. For transfers occurring before this section is applicable, see § 1.367(a)-6T as contained in 26 CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2016.
[T.D. 9803, 81 FR 91028, Dec. 16, 2016]
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 **ANNUALSTATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Trust and ServicingAgreement dated as of October 1, 2015, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital IInc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Servicer andSpecial Servicer and U.S. Bank National Association, as CertificateAdministrator and Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2015-HAUL (the "Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.8 of the Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton,Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.      A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) , and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and 

 

2.      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer,has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 140 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 140

            To authorize the testimony of Senate employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 6 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

    Mr. Mitchell (for himself and Mr. Dole) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
            To authorize the testimony of Senate employees.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Dean, Cr. No. 92-0181, Independent 
        Counsel Arlin M. Adams has requested the trial testimony of Kenneth A. 
        McLean, a former Senate employee on the staff of the Committee on 
        Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial process, be taken from 
        such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with 
        the privileges of the Senate; and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2) (1988), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent committees, Members, officers and 
        employees of the Senate with respect to subpoenas or orders issued to 
        them in their official capacity: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Kenneth A. McLean, and any other present or former 
Senate employee whose testimony may be required, is authorized to 
testify in the trial of United States v. Deborah Dean, Cr. No. 92-0181 
(D.D.C.), except as to matters for which a privilege should be 
asserted.
    Sec. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to represent 
Kenneth A. McLean, and any other present or former Senate employee, in 
connection with the testimony authorized under section 1.

                                 <all>
```
§ 1.57-0 Scope. For purposes of the minimum tax for tax preferences (subtitle A, chapter I, part VI), the items of tax preference are: ( a ) Excess investment interest,
( b ) The excess of accelerated depreciation on section 1250 property over straight line depreciation,
( c ) The excess of accelerated depreciation on section 1245 property subject to a net lease over straight line depreciation,
( d ) The excess of the amortization deduction for certified pollution control facilities over the depreciation otherwise allowable,
( e ) The excess of the amortization deduction for railroad rolling stock over the depreciation otherwise allowable,
( f ) The excess of the fair market value of a share of stock received pursuant to a qualified or restricted stock option over the exercise price,
( g ) The excess of the addition to the reserve for losses on bad debts of financial institutions over the amount which have been allowable based on actual experience,
( h ) The excess of the percentage depletion deduction over the adjusted basis of the property, and
( i ) The capital gains deduction allowable under section 1202 or an equivalent amount in the case of corporations.
Accelerated depreciation on section 1245 property subject to a net lease and excess investment interest are not items of tax preference in the case of a corporation, other than a personal holding company (as defined in section 542) and an electing small business corporation (as defined in section 1371(b)). In addition, excess investment interest is an item of tax preference only for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1972. Rules for the determination of the items of tax preference are contained in §§ 1.57-1 through 1.57-5. Generally, in the case of a nonresident alien or foreign corporation, the application of §§ 1.57-1 through 1.57-5 will be limited to cases in which the taxpayer has income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States. Special rules for the treatment of items of tax preference in the case of certain entities and the treatment of items of tax preference relating to income from sources outside the United States are provided in section 58 and in §§ 1.58-1 through 1.58-8. [T.D. 7564, 43 FR 40470, Sept. 12, 1978]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Dean Witter Principal Plus Fund L.P. and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       4,252,927
<SECURITIES>                                37,857,317
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,894,358<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,894,358<F2>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,237,393<F3>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,181,482
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                118,194<F4>
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            118,194<F4>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   118,194<F4>
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash, securities and receivables, total assets include
net unrealized gain on open contracts of $491,262, net option premiums of
$(213,500) and unrealized loss on Zero-Coupon U.S. Treasury Securities of
$513,763.
<F2>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $1,145,822, accrued
brokerage fees of $140,830, accrued administrative expenses of
$159,109, and accrued management fees of $35,207.
<F3>Total revenue includes realized trading revenue of $(592,674), net
change in unrealized of $110,526, interest income of $796,790 and
change in valuation of Yield Pool of $922,751.
<F4>Income-Pretax, Income Continuing and Net Income includes minority
interest in income of $(62,283).
</FN>


</TABLE>
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10406

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDRES PEREZ,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:94-CR-101-A(1)

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 18, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andres Perez objects to the district court's three-level

increase in his offense level for being a manager or supervisor

in the offense, stating that without the unreliable evidence of

his co-defendant Magdalina Garcia, there was no evidence to

support the district court's finding regarding his role in the

offense.
No. 95-10406

-2-

This court disturbs a district court's determination

regarding a defendant's role in a criminal activity only if it is

clearly erroneous. United States v. Barreto, 871 F.2d 511, 512

(5th Cir. 1989). 

The testimony at the sentencing hearing revealed that Perez

had discussed the different brands of cocaine and the possibility

of making large cocaine purchases. The presentence report (PSR)

also reported that co-defendant Rene Morelos-Rocha told agents

that Perez paid him for storing cocaine and that Agent DeLaFlor

believed that Perez directed Morelos-Rocha and another defendant. 

Perez does not demonstrate that this evidence was materially

untrue. United States v. Santiago, 993 F.2d 504, 506-07 (5th

Cir. 1993). Even considering any unreliability of Garcia's

statements regarding Perez's involvement, the district court had

sufficient evidence to find that Perez was a manager or

supervisor. The district court did not clearly err in its

finding.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF

ALBERT J. WOOD

PETITION OF: DAVID WOOD

:

:

:

:

:

No. 402 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
131 STAT. 88 PUBLIC LAW 115–22—APR. 3, 2017 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S.J. Res. 34: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017): 

Mar. 22, 23, considered and passed Senate. 

Mar. 28, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–22 

115th Congress 

Joint Resolution 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States 

Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating 

to ‘‘Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services’’. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 

disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications 

Commission relating to ‘‘Protecting the Privacy of Customers of 

Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services’’ (81 Fed. Reg. 

87274 (December 2, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force 

or effect. 

Approved April 3, 2017. 

Apr. 3, 2017 

[S.J. Res. 34] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
----

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Roquette Frères v Commission

(Case T-322/01) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Sodium gluconate - Article 81 EC - Fine - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Leniency notice - Equal treatment Principle ne bis in idem)

(2006/C 294/84)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Roquette Frères, SA (Lestrem, France) (represented by: O. Prost, D. Voillemot and A. Choffel, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially, A. Bouquet, W. Wils and A. Whelan, and subsequently A. Bouquet, W. Wils and A. Whelan, Agents, assisted by A. Condomines and J. Liygonie, lawyers)

Re:

First, an application for annulment of Articles 1 and 3 of Decision C(2002) 2931 final of 2 October 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/E-1/36.756 — Sodium gluconate), in that it sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant; second, an application for a reduction in the amount of the find; and, third, an application for repayment to the applicant of the amounts unlawfully received.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 68, 16.3.02.

----