alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HE .!~ATTORNEY GENERAL 

0~ TEXAS 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-7070 

Re: Exemption and rates of tax 

applicable to a city in 

computing inheritance taxes. 

1946, 

We are in receipt of your letter of January 28, 

which requests the opinion of this Department as to the 

exemption and rate of tax applicable to Bay City, Texas, in 

computing inheritance taxes arising from a transaction with 

V. L. Le Tulle, deceased. 

A close examination of ths inheritance tax skatutes 

shows that no tax is laid upon a city. A city cannot possibly 

come within any of the classes taxes sxcept Class E--Foreign 

bequest, the applicable pcrtion of which reads as follows: 

"If passing to or for the use of the United 

States, to or for the use of any other person or religious, 

educational or charitable organization or institution, 

or to any other person, corporation or association not 

included in any of the classes mentioned in the preceding porticns of-the original Act known as Chapter 29 

of the General kaws of the Second Called Session of 

the ~lhirty-eTghth Legislature, the tax shall be: . . *It 

'(Emphasis ours) 

Section 4, as preceding portion of the original Act, 

mentions and lays an inheritance tax upon cities although 

subsequent legislative revisions of the inheritance tax 

statutes resulted in the omission of cities from any of the 

classes taxed. 

Therefore, you are advised that since a city does not 

come within any of the classes taxed neither the estate of V. L. 

Le Tulle nor the city of Bay City, Texas, is liable for any inheritance tax arising from the transaction about which you 

inquired. 

WIE:na/pam 

APPROVED MAR 13 1946 

Yours very truly 

Carlos Ashley ATTORNEY GENERAL OF T,EXAS 

First Assistant 

Attorney General BY Woodrow H. Edwards 

Assistant 

THINS OPINION CONSIDERED ,AND APPROVED IN LIMITED CONFERENCE
#### Emil Carlson, Zoning Inspector of the Town of Berlin, et al. *v.*Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Berlin et al.

Submitted June 25

decided July 16, 1968

*Francis 11. Danaher,*in support of the motion.

The motion by the defendant Sabin Waluk to erase the appeal of the intervening plaintiffs from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is denied.
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.6081-1 Extension of time for filing returns.

For provisions concerning extensions of time for filing returns or other documents, see the regulations relating to the particular tax.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 11289 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 5:18

- cr - 00026

- RH

- MJF

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ALONSO CONTRERAS

- GUERRERO, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida

________________________ ( October 18, 2019 ) Before W ILLIAM PRYOR , JILL PRYOR and BRANCH , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 19-11289 Date Filed: 10/18/2019 Page: 1 of 22 Richard M. Summa , appointed counsel for Alonso Contreras

- Guerrero in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of
Contreras

- Guerrero and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Contreras

- Guerrero ’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 19-11289 Date Filed: 10/18/2019 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Vice President Finance & Administration,
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as Amended





Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted), Jack K. Lai, the Vice President Finance
& Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Silicon Storage
Technology, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:

1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the "Periodic
Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the
5th day of August, 2004.





/s/ Jack K. Lai 
Jack K. Lai 
Vice President Finance & Administration, 
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary



A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, has been provided to Silicon
Storage Technology, Inc. and will be retained by Silicon Storage Technology,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
EXHIBIT 10.3


IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED

EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


______________________________________________


FIRST AMENDMENT


______________________________________________


Iron Mountain Incorporated (the “Company”) hereby amends the Iron Mountain
Incorporated Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”).


*   *   *  
*   *


1.             Section 10.6 of the Plan shall be deleted in its
entirety and in its place shall be substituted the following:


10.6         [Reserved]


*   *   *  
*   *


2.             Except as hereinabove specifically amended, all
provisions of the Plan, as previously amended, shall continue in full force and
effect; provided, however, that the Company hereby reserves the power from time
to time to further amend the Plan.


*   *   *  
*   *


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Company has caused this First Amendment to the Plan to be executed in its name
and on its behalf this _____ day of __________, 2004.


	
  

  	
  IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Garry B. Watzke

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
      Garry B. Watzke, Vice
  President

      and General Counsel
§ 20.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers. ( a ) *In general.* A person that employs one or more tax return preparers to prepare a return or claim for refund of estate tax under chapter 11 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code, other than for the person, at any time during a return period, shall satisfy the recordkeeping and inspection requirements in the manner stated in § 1.6060-1 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78450, Dec. 22, 2008]
Regulatory EYaluation 

Docket No. FAA- 20 N~ttt oo t.f-{J) Directorate Idcntilier: -AD 

Add the work hours. paris cost. and 1wmher oj" U. S. registered products totlu: tahle below. Wlleu you are 

Jini.\hed. click on the ··uiulate Fields·· 1m/loll lo aut icol~r ill in the totals. 

Update Fields 

Estimated Costs: 

Action 

Costs per Product (e.g., aircrnfi, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

replacement) Work-hours Labor Pa11s Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

Do 1w 1 (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet include 011-

conditio11 costs ln•re access. testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Removal I 4000 88 0 

Inspection 1.5 .. Rcploccmcnt J.S . , 

Arm /tet/1) •h··' I.A 0 :l'l 

I 

,, 

,, 

'I' 

~ (1{1 

Ill '•i l 

0 I 1 1 

o I 

0 

-· 

I ., "' 

The known number of" products in compliance: Numbe r 

Totnl Costs of compliance lo r U.S. fleet: S359,480 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) s\Varralll\ 

On-Condition Costs: • 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Pans Cost Cost per Product 

(\!.g .. Inspection. (inc lucie access. <(cilS85/hour) 

testing. and close· replacement) up) 

l ,, ' 

I 

- -- L_ 
Special considcnttions for Economic Analysis rUse this .field to explain anything in the £ vtimatcd Costs table 

that was assullu:d ur might 1101 he oh1·ious. Tllisfldd can also be 1/.'ied to explain warranty costs): 

Executive Ordct· 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regu latory action"? . 

YES* 0 NO I8J 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies a nd Pmccdur·cs: 

Is the AD significant? ~ 

YES* 0 NO I8J 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a signilicant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. 0 

YES 0 NO 181 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaslm: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? • 

YES* 0 NO r8J 

*Explanation:
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 September 30, 2015 (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: November 3, 2015



| |  |  |  |     |  |                                      
| |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Jochen E. Tilk                   
| |  |  |  |     |  | Jochen E. Tilk                       
| |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 3, 2015



| |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                
| |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Wayne R. Brownlee                                          
| |  |  |  |     |  | Wayne R. Brownlee                                              
| |  |  |  |     |  | Executive 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.
§ 26.6011-4 Requirement of statement disclosing participation in certain transactions by taxpayers. ( a ) *In general.* If a transaction is identified as a *listed transaction* or a *transaction of interest* as defined in § 1.6011-4 of this chapter by the Commissioner in published guidance, and the listed transaction or transaction of interest involves a tax on generation-skipping transfers under chapter 13 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code, the transaction must be disclosed in the manner stated in such published guidance.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section applies to listed transactions and transactions of interest entered into on or after November 14, 2011.
[T.D. 9556, 76 FR 70341, Nov. 14, 2011]
#### KLOCK *v.*BROWN.

Contracts — Illegality — Gaming — Betting—Principal and Agent.

Plaintiff couid recover back money placed in defendant’s bands to bet upon an approaching election, where defendant did not carry out the illegal purpose but appropriated the money to his own use. s

Error to Wayne; Donovan, J.

Submitted June 17, 1912.

(Docket No. 123.)

Decided October 7, 1912.

Assumpsit in justice’s court by Benjamin E. Klock against Morrie Brown for money had and received. Defendant appealed to the circuit court from a judgment rendered against him. Judgment for defendant, upon a directed verdict. Plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

*Jonas B.*Houck, for appellant.

*Percy W. Grose,*for appellee.

McAlvay, J.

In this case plaintiff sued defendant in justice’s court for Detroit in an action in assumpsit, and on all the common counts, to recover the sum of $500. A recovery was had, and defendant appealed to the circuit court.. The result of the trial in that court was a directed verdict in favor of defendant. Upon a writ of error the case is brought before this court for review.

The facts of the case are that plaintiff gave defendant $500, with instructions to make a bet of the same with a man named Hayes upon a certain candidate for office at the next coming election; that defendant took the money and claimed soon after that he had bet $200 of it, and still retained the balance; that later, when asked for the balance, defendant stated that he had given it to another man to bet for him, and later defendant stated, or plaintiff *380ascertained, that he had not bet any of the money, and defendant upon demand promised to return the $200, and also promised to make good the $800 he had given the other man. Later plaintiff demanded the whole amount from the defendant, and, not getting it, instituted this suit.

The trial judge, in instructing a verdict for defendant, went upon the theory that plaintiff was seeking to recover money which had been bet upon an election, and that, under the statute and the decisions of this court, no recovery could be had, and held that this was an election gambling contract. Upon such holding error is assigned. By reason of the instructed verdict, the facts in the case presented by the plaintiff will be considered in the light most favorable to him. As we construe these facts presented, this was not a betting upon an election. In fact, it was not a betting contract. Plaintiff had placed his money in the hands of an agent for the purpose of betting, which purpose was never carried out. So far as plaintiff’s case shows, no part of this money was bet upon this election, but it was appropriated by this defendant who was his agent, and upon that state of facts, if established before a jury, the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The instant case is easily distinguishable from the cases relied upon by the circuit judge, as those were all cases where bets upon election had been actually made. They are therefore not controlling in this case.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Moore, C. J., and Steers, Brooke, Stone, Ostrander, and Bird, JJ., concurred.
Exhibit 31(a)
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan
Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:  May 7, 2010
    By:
    /s/ WILLIAM J. DOYLEWilliam J. DoylePresident and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under t he limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.l Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________

No. 97-31320

______________________

DONN FORD; CARLEE GERALD; KERRY THOMAS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

PENNZOIL, ET AL,

Defendants,

SPIDER STAGING CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES,

Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans

(94-CV-3948-I)

___________________________________________________________________

November 5, 1999

Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. Rule 47.6. (The motion to strike Appellants’

substitute brief is DENIED. Judge Barksdale would have granted the motion and,

in addition, would have required Appellants’ counsel to show cause why sanctions

should not be imposed against him in the light of the numeroussubstantive changes

made by counsel in preparing the substitute brief. Along this line, Appellants’
2

counsel is warned that sanctions will be imposed against him if, in the future, he

engages in conduct similar to that challenged by the motion to strike.)
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of J.A.F., a child, * From the 318th District

 Court of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. FM 54,284.

No. 11-15-00034-CV * July 2, 2015

* 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. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

appeal is dismissed.
§ 15a.453-0 Taxable years affected. ( a ) *In general.* Except as otherwise provided, the provisions of § 15a.453-1 (a) through (e) generally apply to installment method reporting for sales of real property and casual sales of personal property occurring after October 19, 1980. See 26 CFR § 1.453-1 (rev. as of April 1, 1980) for the provisions relating to installment method reporting for sales of real property and casual sales before October 20, 1980 (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section) and for provisions relating to installment sales by dealers in personal property occurring before October 20, 1980.
( b ) *Certain limitations.* The provisions of prior law (section 453(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, in effect as of October 18, 1980) which required that the buyer receive no more than 30 percent of the selling price in the taxable year of the installment sale and that at least two payments be received shall not apply to reporting for casual installment sales of personal property and installment sales of real property occurring in a taxable year ending after October 19, 1980.
[T.D. 7768, 46 FR 10709, Feb. 4, 1981; 46 FR 43036, Aug. 26, 1981]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund VII, Ltd. at September 30, 1997, and its statement of
income for the nine months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to the Form 10Q of CNL Income Fund VII, Ltd. for the nine months ended
September 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         979,674
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,959
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      17,552,433
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,093,481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,269,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,359,086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,269,144
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,979,817
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  351,766
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,613
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,742,316
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,742,316
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,742,316
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund VII, Ltd. has an
unclassified balance sheet, therefore, no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>