alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.

§ 301.7404-1 Authority to bring civil action for estate taxes. ( a ) If the estate tax imposed by chapter 11 of the Code is not paid on or before the last date prescribed for payment, the district director shall proceed to collect the tax under the provisions of general law; or appropriate proceedings in the name of the United States may be commenced in any court having jurisdiction to subject the property of the decedent to be sold under the judgment or decree of the court.
( b ) The remedy by action provided in section 7404 is not exclusive. The district director may proceed to collect the tax by levy, as provided in section 6331, on any or all property or rights to property of the estate, or collection may be enforced by an appropriate action against the executor, certain transferees, trustees, and beneficiaries for their personal liability. See § 20.2002-1 of this chapter (Estate Tax Regulations).
exv10w38



 





Exhibit 10.38




Summary of 2007 Named Executive Officer Compensation




          The table below shows the current annual salary and 2007 target bonus under the Tenneco Inc.
Value Added (“TAVA”) Incentive Plan for the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, the Company’s Chief
Financial Officer and each of the next three most highly compensated officers of the Company other
than the Chief Executive Officer or Chief Financial Officer (based on compensation received during
2006).




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name	 	Current Salary	 	2007 Target Bonus
	Gregg Sherrill
	 	$	875,000	 	 	$	875,000	 
	Timothy R. Donovan
	 	$	455,050	 	 	$	273,000	 
	Hari N. Nair
	 	$	428,490	 	 	$	273,000	 
	Kenneth R. Trammell
	 	$	408,825	 	 	$	273,000	 
	Neal Yanos
	 	$	338,946	 	 	$	223,000
Exhibit 3 

USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 1 of 12
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 2 of 12
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 3 of 12
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 4 of 12
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 5 of 12
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 6 of 12
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 7 of 12
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 8 of 12
Enclosure A 

USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 9 of 12
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 10 of 12
Enclosure B 

USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 11 of 12
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 12 of 12
CEDAR CITY 

10 NORTH MAIN • CEDAR CITY, UTAH 84720 

435-586-2950 • FAX: 435-586-4362 

www.cedarcity.org 

Mtivor 

Joe Burgess 

Council Members 

Ronald R. Adams 

Nina R. Barries 

John Black 

Paul Cozzens 

Don Marchant 

5 March 2012 

Dennis J. DeVany 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

US Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street, S.W. 

Washington DC, 20590 

_r> 

0 

CO 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

Re: Essential Air Service in Cedar City, Utah 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the use of an alternate airplane for the 

current Essential Air Service provider. The proposed use of Skywest Regional Jets has 

been delayed due to a FAA ordered Environmental Assessment. Using the EMB-120 to 

continue providing daily flight schedules until 1 June 2012 is acceptable to Cedar City. 

Creamer & Noble, the Airport Consultant is in the final stages of the Environmental 

Assessment and anticipates the FAA will sign the EA and a Findings of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) within a couple weeks. Skywest will then be able to submit an updated 

Op Spec which will indicate that Cedar City Regional Airport is a "Regular Scheduled" 

operation for Regional Jet Service. Skywest will then be able to readjust the flight 

schedule to begin using Regional Jets for daily operations. 

If for any reason a delay past 1 June 2012 is required. Cedar City wishes to have input on 

any fiuther extensions for the use of an alternate airplane. 

Sincerely, 

Joe Burgess 

Mayor 

Aclniiiiistraiion 

586-2953 

Building Eind Zoning 

865-4519 

Economic Development 

586-2770 

City Engineer 

586-2963 

Parks & Recreation 

865-9223 

Public Works 

586-2912
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.

§ 301.6323(a)-1 Purchasers, holders of security interests, mechanic's lienors, and judgment lien creditors. ( a ) *Invalidity of lien without notice.* The lien imposed by section 6321 is not valid against any purchaser (as defined in paragraph (f) of § 301.6323(h)—1), holder of a security interest (as defined in paragraph (a) of § 301.6323(h)—1), mechanic's lienor (as defined in paragraph (b) of § 301.6323(h)-1), or judgment lien creditor (as defined in paragraph (g) of § 301.6323(h)-1) until a notice of lien is filed in accordance with § 301.6323(f)-1). Except as provided by section 6323, if a person becomes a purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic's lienor, or judgment lien creditor after a notice of lien is filed in accordance with § 301.6323(f)-1, the interest acquired by such person is subject to the lien imposed by section 6321.
( b ) *Cross references.* For provisions relating to the protection afforded a security interest arising after tax lien filing, which interest is covered by a commercial transactions financing agreement, real property construction or improvement financing agreement, or an obligatory disbursement agreement, see §§ 301.6323(c)-1, 301.6323(c)-2, and 301.6323(c)-3, respectively. For provisions relating to the protection afforded to a security interest coming into existence by virtue of disbursements, made before the 46th day after the date of tax lien filing, see § 301.6323(d)-1. For provisions relating to priority afforded to interest and certain other expenses with respect to a lien or security interest having priority over the lien imposed by section 6321, see § 301.6323(e)-1. For provisions relating to certain other interests arising after tax lien filing, see § 301.6323(b)-1.
[T.D. 7429, 41 FR 35498, Aug. 23, 1976]
Offer Letter, dated August 21, 2006



 Exhibit 10.60 
 August 21, 2006 
 Mr. Chuck Boesenberg 
  

	Re:	Position on the Board of Directors of Rackable Systems, Inc. (“Rackable Systems”) 

 Dear Chuck: 
 I am very
happy to offer you a position on the Board of Directors of Rackable Systems (the “Board”). 
 All members of Rackable Systems’
Board receive an annual cash retainer of $35,000 paid quarterly. Additional cash retainers are paid to Board members who serve as chairman or members of Board committees. 
 In addition, upon appointment to the Board you will be granted a non-statutory stock option to purchase 30,000 shares of Rackable Systems’ common stock. This option will vest over a four year period commencing on
the date of your appointment, with 1/48th vesting per month of service. In addition, all Board members are granted a stock option to purchase 10,000 shares of Rackable Systems’ common stock upon their re-election to Board at each year’s
annual stockholders meeting. 
 Rackable Systems will also reimburse you for your travel expenses in attending Board and committee meetings.

 If the terms of this letter are acceptable to you, please confirm to me your willingness to serve on Rackable Systems’ Board. Upon
your agreement, I will submit your nomination to the Board for formal consideration. We look forward to your favorable reply. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	RACKABLE SYSTEMS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/    TOM
BARTON        

		 	Thomas K. Barton
		 	President and Chief Executive Officer
IV

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 89

Waiving provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 requiring

adjournment of Congress by July 31.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 31, 1995

Mr. SENSENBRENNER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which

was considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Waiving provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of

1970 requiring adjournment of Congress by July 31.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That, notwithstanding the provisions of sec3 tion 132(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946

4 (2 U.S.C. 198(a)), the House of Representatives and the

5 Senate shall not adjourn for a period in excess of three

6 days, or adjourn sine die, until both Houses of Congress

7 have adopted a concurrent resolution providing either for

8 an adjournment (in excess of three days) to a day certain

9 or for adjournment sine die.

Æ
----

Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EEA

(Case T-331/06)

(2006/C 326/157)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Environment Agency

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its claims the applicant argues that in the decision taken in the framework of the tendering procedure EEA/IDS/06/002 for the ‘Provision of IT consultancy services’ (OJ 2006 S 118-125101) communicated to the applicant by letter dated 14 September 2006 the European Environmental Agency (‘EEA’) failed to comply with its obligations foreseen in the Implementing rules and Directive 2004/18/EC as well as the principle of transparency by not disclosing to the participants in advance the weighting of the sub-criteria which were subsequently applied during the selection procedure.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the EEA committed several manifest errors of assessment which resulted in the rejection of its bid.

The applicant requests that the decision of the EEA to reject its bid and award the contract to three other participants be annulled and that the defendant is ordered by the Court to pay all legal expenses related to the present proceedings even if the application is rejected.

----
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 13, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-2413

Lower Tribunal No. 00-37276

________________

Norberto Enrique Dominguez,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rodney Smith, Judge.

Norberto Enrique Dominguez, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jill D. Kramer, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee. 

Before ROTHENBERG, LAGOA, and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Norberto Enrique Dominguez, seeks review of an order denying

his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not

timely filed.

The order on appeal was rendered1 on September 16, 2015, and Appellant’s

notice of appeal was filed on October 19, 2015, more than thirty days past the date

of rendition. Accordingly, because this Court lacks jurisdiction, we dismiss this

appeal as untimely. See Joseph v. State, 157 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015);

Guzman v. State, 364 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

DISMISSED.

1 Rule 9.020(i), Fla. R. App. P., defines rendition as follows: “An order is rendered

when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal.”

2
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RESIGNATION 

C pi E

i"..' I K. L NDEMAV 

BY 1101 ill? 

CHIEF DEFOrTTLERK 11 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF RESIGNATION 

OF JAMES M. 0. MILLER, BAR NO. 

10405. 

No. 70192 

FILE 

MAY 0 9 2016 

This is a joint petition by the State Bar of Nevada and 

attorney James M. 0. Miller for his resignation from the Nevada bar. 

SCR 98(5) provides that Nevada attorneys who are not 

actively practicing law in this state may resign from the state bar if 

certain conditions are met. The petition includes statements from state 

bar staff confirming that no disciplinary, fee dispute arbitration, or client 

security fund matters are pending against Miller; and that he is current 

on all membership fee payments and other financial commitments relating 

to his practice of law in this state. See SCR 98(5)(a)(1)-(2). 

Bar counsel has recommended that the resignation be 

approved, and the Board of Governors has approved the application for 

resignation. See SCR 98(5)(a)(2). Miller acknowledges that his 

resignation is irrevocable and that the state bar retains continuing 

jurisdiction with respect to matters involving a past member's conduct 

prior to resignation. See SCR 98(5)(c)-(d). Finally, Miller has submitted 

an affidavit of compliance with SCR 115. See SCR 98(5)(e). 

(0) 1947A 44E07 )44743 
J. 

J. 

The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5). 

Accordingly, we approve attorney James M.O. Miller's resignation. SCR 

98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted. 

It is so ORDERED. 

, C.J. 

Parraguirre 

Hardesty 

J. 

J. 

Pickering 

cc: James M. Miller 

C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Officer, U.S. Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e
----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources

COM(2005) 670 final — [SEC(2005) 1683 + SEC(2005) 1684]

(2006/C 309/14)

On 21 December 2005 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 24 May 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Ribbe.

At its 428th plenary session held on 5-6 July 2006 (meeting of 5 July), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 157 votes to two with six abstentions.

1.   Summary of EESC conclusions and recommendations

2.   Main elements and background of the opinion

3.   Comments on the content of the Commission communication

The EESC's critical observations

3.20   Four initiatives to achieve the objectives

In all, the Commission mentions four new initiatives in its communication that are intended to form the basis of the strategy for the next 25 years:

Brussels, 5 July 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  COM (2003)572 final, 1.10.2003.

(2)OJ C 117, 30.4.2004.

(3)  COM (2005)670 final, 21.12.2005.

(4)  COM(2005) 37 final; see relevant references in the EESC opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy — A platform for action (CESE 361/2006).

(5)  COM(2005) 666 final.

(6)  This, incidentally, has not led to the disappearance of endangered cod from the menus of the canteens of the European institutions.

(7)  See COM(1999) 543, 24.11.1999, p. 16 point 4.4: Efficient use and management of resources, and also the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission on Europe's Environment: What directions for the future? — The Global Assessment of the European Community Programme of Policy and Action in relation to the environment and sustainable development, ‘Towards Sustainability’, OJ C 204, 18.7.2000, pp.59-67.

(8)  COM(2005) 658, NAT/304 — Draft opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy — A platform for action (CESE 361/2006).

----
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-89,380-01

EX PARTE JOHNNY LEE DAVIS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. A-16-5063-CR(HC1) IN THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM ARANSAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of criminal

solicitation and sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals

affirmed his conviction. Davis v. State, No. 13-17-00103-CR (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi -

Edinburg July 26, 2018) (not designated for publication). 

Applicant contends, among other things, that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective

assistance because counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed

and failed to advise him of his right to petition pro se for discretionary review. We remanded this
2

application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The trial court held a habeas hearing, heard live testimony and considered documentary

evidence. Based on that testimony and evidence, the trial court has entered findings of fact and

conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had

been affirmed and failed to advise him of his right to petition for discretionary review pro se. Ex

parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition

for discretionary review of the judgment of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 13-17-

00103-CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. A-16-5063-CR from the 36th District Court of

Aransas County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court within 30

days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Applicant's remaining claims are dismissed. See Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1997).

Delivered: July 3, 2019

Do not publish
Calendar No. 153

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 97

JOINT RESOLUTION

To commemorate the sesquicentennial of the

Oregon Trail.

JULY 22 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Reported without amendment
II

Calendar No. 153

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 97

To commemorate the sesquicentennial of the Oregon Trail.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. PACKWOOD (for himself, Mr. HATFIELD, Mr. HEFLIN, Mr. STEVENS, Mr.

INOUYE, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. SIMON, Mr. DURENBERGER,

Mr. DANFORTH, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. PRYOR, Mr.

BROWN, Mr. DODD, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. NUNN, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN,

Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. DOLE, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. COHEN, Mr. LEVIN,

Mr. BOND, Mr. KERREY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr.

METZENBAUM, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. WOFFORD, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. PRESSLER, Mr. SASSER, Mr. HATCH, Mr. GORTON, Mr. KOHL, Mr. WALLOP,

Mr. COATS, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. EXON, Mr. BRYAN, Mr.

HELMS, Mr. BOREN, Mr. PELL and Mr. MATHEWS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JULY 22 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Reported by Mr. BIDEN, without amendment

JOINT RESOLUTION

To commemorate the sesquicentennial of the Oregon Trail.

Whereas, of all the western trails used by fur traders, gold

seekers, missionaries, and emigrants, the Oregon Trail

was the most important to the western settlement of this

great Nation;
2

•SJ 97 RS

Whereas, in the year 1843, the first major wave of humanity

left Independence, Missouri and travelled 2,170 miles in

covered wagons across sagebrush, plains, mountains, and

rivers to the Willamette Valley in Oregon Territory;

Whereas over 400,000 men, women, and children risked their

lives in this greatest migration in American history;

Whereas this Nation was expanded from ocean to ocean, as

settlement of the Old Oregon Territory forced Great Britain to relinquish this land to the United States;

Whereas the pioneering spirit of the Oregon Trail emigrants

embodies the spirit of the American people;

Whereas Americans have an ever-increasing desire to understand our national heritage;

Whereas, in 1978, Congress enacted the National Trails System Act, designating the Oregon Trail as a national historic trail, in recognition of the vital role it played in our

Nation’s history; and

Whereas, in 1993, the American people will seek to rekindle

the pioneering spirit of the ‘‘Great Migration’’ and an official Oregon Trail sesquicentennial wagon train will journey across the Nation, arriving in Oregon City, Oregon

on September 4, 1993: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That September 4, 1993, is hereby designated as ‘‘Na4 tional Oregon Trail Day’’. The President is authorized and

5 requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people

6 of the United States to observe this day with the appro7 priate ceremonies and activities.
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.

§ 301.6302-1 Manner or time of collection of taxes. ( a ) *Employment and excise taxes.* For provisions relating to the manner or time of collection of certain employment and excise taxes and deposits in connection with the payment thereof, see the regulations relating to the particular tax.
( b ) *Income taxes.* ( 1 ) For provisions relating to the deposits of income and estimated income taxes of certain corporations, see § 1.6302-1 of this chapter (Income Tax Regulations).
( 2 ) For provisions relating to the deposits of tax required to be withheld under chapter 3 of the Code on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations and tax-free covenant bonds, see § 1.6302-2 of this chapter.
( c ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section applies to deposits and payments made after December 31, 2010.
[75 FR 75904, Dec. 7, 2010]