alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.992-4 Coordination with personal holding company provisions in case of certain produced film rents. ( a ) *In general.* Section 992(d)(2) provides that a personal holding company is not eligible to be treated as a DISC. Section 543(a)(5)(B) provides that, for purposes of section 543, the term “produced film rents” means payments received with respect to an interest in a film for the use of, or the right to use, such film, but only to the extent that such interest was acquired before substantial completion of production of such film. Under section 992(e), if such produced film rents are included in the ordinary gross income (as defined in section 543(b)(1)) of a qualified subsidiary for a taxable year of such subsidiary, and such interest was acquired by such subsidiary from its parent, such interest is deemed (for purposes of the application of sections 541, 543(b)(1), and 992(d)(2), and § 1.992-1(f) for such taxable year) to have been acquired by such subsidiary at the time such interest was acquired by such parent. Thus, for example, if a parent acquires an interest in a film before it is substantially completed, then substantially completes such film prior to transferring an interest in such motion picture to a qualified subsidiary, the qualified subsidiary is considered as having acquired such interest prior to substantial completion of such motion picture for purposes of determining whether payments from the rental of such motion picture will be classified as produced film rents of such subsidiary. The provisions of section 992(e) and this section are not applicable in determining whether payments received with respect to an interest in a film are included in the ordinary gross income of a parent or a qualified subsidiary. Thus, even though a qualified subsidiary is treated pursuant to this section as having acquired an interest in a film at the time such interest was acquired by such subsidiary's parent, payments received by such parent with respect to such interest prior to the transfer of such interest to such subsidiary are includible in the ordinary gross income of such parent and not includible in the ordinary gross income of such subsidiary.
( b ) *Definitions* — ( 1 ) *Qualified subsidiary.* For purposes of this section, a corporation is a qualified subsidiary for a taxable year if— ( i ) Such corporation was established for the purpose of becoming a DISC,
( ii ) Such corporation would qualify (or be treated) as a DISC for such taxable year if it is not a personal holding company, and
( iii ) On every day of such taxable year on which shares of such corporation are outstanding, at least 80 percent of such shares are held directly by a second corporation.
( 2 ) *Parent.* For purposes of this section, the term “parent” means a second corporation referred to in subparagraph (1)(iii) of this paragraph.
[T.D. 7323, 39 FR 34409, Sept. 25, 1974]
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of Owl Rock Capital Corporation II (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

 

1) the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

2) the information contained in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

| Date: February 27, 2019 |   | By:    | /s/ Alan Kirshenbaum                           |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                    |   |   | Alan Kirshenbaum                                    |
|                    |   |   | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-16-00319-CR

DOMENIC TRUMAN APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 362ND DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. F16-443-362

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Pro se Appellant Do menic Truman attempts to ap peal from the trial court’s judgment reached as a result of a plea bargain. Appella nt pled guilty to the state jail felony of fraudulent use or possession of identifying inform ation in exchange

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 for 180 days in county jail. 2 Appellant signed a docu ment including statements that he was mentally competent at the time of his plea and that his plea was made freely and voluntarily as well as a judicial confession of guilt, and he separately signed a waiver of appeal providing that he “waive[d] the right to any appeal in this case ” and that he did “not desire to appeal.” The trial court’s certification of appeal prov ides that this is a plea- bargained case, the Appellant does not have the right to appeal, and he has waived hi s right of appeal. 3 We informed Appellant by letter that this appeal was su bject to dismissal based on the trial court’s ce rtification unless he or an y party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing gr ounds for continuing the appeal by September 2, 2016. We ha ve received no response. We therefore dismiss this appeal. 4

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: October 13, 2016

2 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.44(a) (West 2011), § 32.51(b), (c)(1) (West Supp. 2016).

3 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

4 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS
E ASTLAND , T EXAS
J UDGMENT

In the i nterest of W.L.D. and * From the 91 st District D.T.D., children, Court of Eastland County, Trial Court No. CV

- 11

- 42,439.

No. 11

- 14

- 00111

- CV * May 15, 2014

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )
This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal
should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Kelli Sue Bouget

.
#### Joseph Dunn *v.*Richard J. Finley

Upon reargument, the court reaffirms its order of December 3, 1963, dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County at Waterbury.

*735
      *William B. Hennessy,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*William B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,*for the appellee (defendant).

Argued February 4

decided February 4, 1964
Appendix 6 Acute Impacts Refined Analysis 
Refined Acute Modeling Approach 

Initial acute screening risk calculations were performed with the HEM-3 

model. HEM-3 estimates acute (1-hour) impacts at both polar and census block 

receptors. It is assumed for this short period of time that an exposed individual 

could be located at any off-site location. The lack of readily available detailed 

property boundary information for many of the facilities evaluated made it difficult 

to determine whether receptors were on- or off-site. In the absence of such 

information, the first ring of polar receptors was placed 100 meters from the plant 

center for many facilities. However, these polar rings often transected on-site 

locations, restricting public access to exposures at these levels and thereby 

overestimating exposures. 

 The screening approach used by HEM-3 to estimate maximum 1-hour 

exposures also likely overestimates. To estimate maximum 1-hour 

concentrations at each receptor, HEM-3 sums the maximum concentrations 

attributed to each source, regardless of whether those maximum concentrations 

occurred during the same hour. In other words, HEM-3 assumes that the 

maximum impact from each source at each receptor occurs at the same time. In 

actuality, maximum impacts from different sources may occur at different times. 

 This appendix includes the results of refined acute assessments 

performed for facilities that exceeded short-term health benchmarks using the 

HEM-3 approach. The refinements can address both areas of conservatism 

described above. The simplest refinement is to plot the HEM-3 polar grid results 

on aerial photographs of the facilities; this allows the assessment of off-site 

locations that may be accessible to the public (e.g., roadways and public 

buildings.). The attached figure present the estimated hazard quotient values 

(the modeled 1-hour concentration of a pollutant divided by its short-term health 

benchmark) at the polar receptors near the facilities. 
HEM‐3

(Screening)

Refined

Results

NEI16665 Formaldehyde REL 2.4 0.5 Examined facility for maximum off-site 

NEI42539 Glycol Ethers REL 2.2 1.0 Examined facility for maximum off-site 

Table 1 – Maximum Predicted Acute Risks Greater than 1 (Refined Approach)

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations 

1 Indicates modeling technique used to refined estimates; see Appendix 6 for figures depicting off‐site impacts

Facility NEI ID Pollutant Criteria Refined Modeling Approach 

Baseline ‐ Actuals
Copyrighted page(s) removed. Copyrighted 

material is not available in Regulations.gov since 

it may not be reproduced without consent of the 

copyright holder. 

Removed pages can be viewed at the USEPA 

Docket Center, Public Reading Room. 

Address: 1301 Constitution Ave, NW 

Room 3334 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: 202-566-1744 

Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION January 1 8 , 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) FROM: Angela Cullen TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR- 2010 - 0162 This memorandum documents a meeting held on Thurs day , January 1 3 , 2011 b etween EMA and EPA and included the following individuals: EMA: Tim Blubaugh - EMA, Tony Cook – Navistar, Dave Kayes – Daimler, Dan Kieffer

– Kenworth, Al Pearson – Daimler, Gary Salemme – Cummins, Mike Sorrells – Volvo, Brian Burton – Daimler, Matt Markstaller – Daimler, Jason Krajewski – Daimler, John Brzustowicz – Daiml er, Rick Mihelic – Peterbilt, Peter Kilcline – PACCAR, Josef Tarp - Kenworth EPA: By ron Bunker , Cle Jackson, Chien Sze, Sam Waltzer, Arvon Mitcham, and Angela Cullen The discussion focused on developing a reference method for measuring the aerodyn amic p erformance of heavy- duty vehicles.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000855876
<NAME> CITIZENS BANCSHARES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          21,001
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             326
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    229,767
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          44,833
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            44,871
<LOANS>                                        539,973
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 853,127
<DEPOSITS>                                     636,583
<SHORT-TERM>                                    65,080
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,411
<LONG-TERM>                                     63,938
<COMMON>                                        13,703
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,927
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 853,127
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 39,609
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,158
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   279
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                51,046
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              18,160
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,612
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           29,434
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,144
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   7
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 15,878
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,638
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      15,638
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,478
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.94
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.80
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,601
<LOANS-PAST>                                       861
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   126
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,252
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                10,283
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,493
<RECOVERIES>                                       953
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,887
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,422
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          8,465
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.16

 

Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC

399 Park Avenue, 38th Floor

New York, NY 10022

 

February 27, 2019

 

Craig W. Packer

Owl Rock Capital Corporation 

399 Park Avenue, 38th Floor

New York, NY 10022

 

|        |     |                                |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------|
|   | Re: | Partial Waiver of Advisory Fee |

 

Dear Mr. Packer,

 

Reference is hereby made to the Investment Advisory Agreement (the “Investment Advisory Agreement”), dated March 1, 2016, by and between Owl Rock Capital Corporation (the “Company”) and Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC (the “Adviser”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Investment Advisory Agreement.

 

We hereby agree, at all times prior to the fifteen-month anniversary of an Exchange Listing, to waive (i) any portion of the Management Fee that is in excess of 0.75% of the Company’s gross assets, excluding cash and cash-equivalents but including assets purchased with borrowed amounts at the end of the two most recently completed calendar quarters, calculated in accordance with the Investment Advisory Agreement, and (ii) the Incentive Fee (including, for the avoidance of doubt, the Capital Gains Incentive Fee).

 

Any portion of the Management Fee or the Incentive Fee (including, for the avoidance of doubt, the Capital Gains Incentive Fee) waived shall not be subject to recoupment.  

 For the avoidance of doubt, the purpose of the waivers described herein is to reduce aggregate fees payable to the Adviser by the Company, for the fifteen-month period following an Exchange Listing. 

|        |                               |                                                   |
|--------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |                          |                                              |
|   | Sincerely yours,              |
|   |                          |
|   | Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC |
|   |                          |
|   | By:                           |           |
|   |                          | Name: Alan Kirshenbaum                            |
|   |                          | Title: Chief Operating Officer                    |

 

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT TINICUM TOWNSHIP

v. ALLAN J. NOWICKI AND RIVER ROAD QUARRY, LLC

v. RIVER ROAD QUARRY, LLC AND PENNSWOOD HAULING, LLC

v. TINICUM TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD PETITION OF: RIVER ROAD QUARRY, LLC AND PENNSWOOD HAULING, LLC : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 742 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 10th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

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

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

 April 22, 2020

b0415

Order 

Clerk

April 22, 2020

160767 & (59)(60)

In re EMONI DOMINIQUE LIPSCOMB SC: 160767

COA: 351259

Oakland CC Family Div: 

 2019-874296-DL

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the December 12, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for miscellaneous relief is DENIED.
### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-01-00382-CV United States

Wire les s Cabl e, Inc., Appel lant v. Worl d Satellite Network, Inc., Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 261S T JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. GN00 0512, HON ORABLE P ETER M. LOWR

Y, JUD GE PR

ESIDING
Because appe l l an

t Un i ted Sta tes W i re l es s C ab l e, Inc. h as

f ai l ed to file an appellant’s br ief, wewi

l l di sm i ss thi s a ppe al f orwan t of pros ecuti

on. See Tex . R. A

pp. P. 38 .8(a)(1 ), 42.3(b). The Cl erk of thi s Court

fi led the notice of appeal an d the clerk’s recor d in

this cause on Jul y 12, 2001. A

report er’s record was not fi le d. Thus, appel la

nt’s bri ef wa s due August 13. By po st car d da t ed O ct obe r 8 , 2 001 , t he Cler k o f this Co ur t not ifi ed t he parties that t he app eal wa s su bject t o d ismi ssal fo r w ant of p ro sec ut ion u nless ap pellant ten de red a m oti on f or ex ten si on o f t ime by O ct o be r18 r ea so na bly ex pla ining t he failu r e t o file a brief. Thu s far, app ellant has su bmit t ed neit her a br ief no r a mo t io n fo r e xt ens io n o f t ime t o file a b rie f.2 Ac co r di ng ly, wedi sm

i ss the ap pe al f or wa nt of pros ec ution

on our own

motion . See id. 42.3(b ).

Davi d Puryear, Justice Bef ore Chi ef J

ustice A boussi e, Justices

Smi th and Pury

ear Di sm i ss ed f or W an t of Pros ec ution File d: Decem

ber 13, 2001 Do No t Publis

h
Exhibit 32

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2014 (the Form 10-Q), of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: April 29, 2014



By:

/s/ William J. DoyleWilliam J. DoylePresident and Chief Executive Officer


Date: April 29, 2014



By:

/s/ Wayne R. BrownleeWayne R. BrownleeExecutive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of
Regulation S-K, Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the
Form 10-Q.
§ 1.6662-1 Overview of the accuracy-related penalty. Section 6662 imposes an accuracy-related penalty on any portion of an underpayment of tax required to be shown on a return that is attributable to one or more of the following: ( a ) Negligence or disregard of rules or regulations;
( b ) Any substantial understatement of income tax;
( c ) Any substantial valuation misstatement under chapter 1;
( d ) Any substantial overstatement of pension liabilities; or
( e ) Any substantial estate or gift tax valuation understatement.
Sections 1.6662-1 through 1.6662-5 address only the first three components of the accuracy-related penalty, *i.e.,* the penalties for negligence or disregard of rules or regulations, substantial understatements of income tax, and substantial (or gross) valuation misstatements under chapter 1. The penalties for disregard of rules or regulations and for a substantial understatement of income tax may be avoided by adequately disclosing certain information as provided in § 1.6662-3(c) and §§ 1.6662-4(e) and (f), respectively. The penalties for negligence and for a substantial (or gross) valuation misstatement under chapter 1 may not be avoided by disclosure. No accuracy-related penalty may be imposed on any portion of an underpayment if there was reasonable cause for, and the taxpayer acted in good faith with respect to, such portion. The reasonable cause and good faith exception to the accuracy-related penalty is set forth in § 1.6664-4. [T.D. 8381, 56 FR 67498, Dec. 31, 1991, as amended by T.D. 8617, 60 FR 45664, Sept. 1, 1995]
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r 

### 137260 Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137260 COA: 273233 Berrien CC: 2005-412913-FH GEORGE CALVIN PAYNE, III, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 31, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1117 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2008

Clerk