alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 157.6065-1 Verification of returns.

If a return, statement, or other document made under the provisions of chapter 55 (Structured Settlement Factoring Transactions) or of subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code, or the regulations under those provisions with respect to any tax imposed by chapter 55, or the form and instructions issued with respect to such return, statement, or other document, requires that it shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, it must be so verified by the person or persons required to sign such return, statement, or other document. In addition, any other statement or document submitted under any provision of chapter 55 or subtitle F, or the regulations under those provisions, with respect to any tax imposed by chapter 55 may be required to contain or be verified by written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury.
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the annual report of CEN Biotech, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bill Chaaban, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify that:  1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: April 14, 2016  /s/ Bill Chaaban Bill Chaaban Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. section 1350, I, the
undersigned Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Gehl
Company (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 28,
2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




Date:  November 12, 2002                           /s/ Kenneth P. Hahn
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Kenneth P. Hahn
                                                   Vice President of Finance
                                                   and Chief Financial Officer
§ 20.2204-2 Discharge of fiduciary other than executor from personal liability. ( a ) A fiduciary (not including a fiduciary of the estate of a nonresident decedent, other than the executor, who as a fiduciary holds, or has held at any time since the decedent's death, property transferred to the fiduciary from a decedent dying after December 31, 1970, or his estate, may make written application to the applicable internal revenue officer with whom the estate tax return is required to be filed, as provided in § 20.6091-1, for a determination of the Federal estate tax liability with respect to such property and for a discharge of personal liability therefrom. The application must be accompanied by a copy of the instrument, if any, under which the fiduciary is acting, a description of all the property transferred to the fiduciary from the decedent or his estate, and any other information that would be relevant to a determination of the fiduciary's tax liability.
( b ) Upon the discharge of the executor from personal liability under § 20.2204-1, or, if later, within 6 months after the receipt of the application filed by a fiduciary pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, such fiduciary will be notified either ( 1 ) of the amount of tax for which it has been determined the fiduciary is liable, or
( 2 ) that it has been determined that the fiduciary is not liable for any such tax. The fiduciary will also be notified of the amount of bond, if any, to be furnished for any Federal estate tax for which the time for payment has been extended under section 6161, 6163, or 6166. The amount of any bond required under the provisions of this paragraph shall not exceed the amount of tax the payment of which has been so extended. Upon payment of the amount for which it has been determined the fiduciary is liable, and upon furnishing any bond required under this paragraph in the form specified under § 301.7101-1 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration), or upon receipt by the fiduciary of notification of a determination that he is not liable for such tax or that a bond is not required, the fiduciary will be discharged from personal liability for any deficiency in the tax thereafter found to be due. If no such notification is received, the fiduciary is discharged at the end of such 6 months (or upon discharge of the executor, if later) from personal liability for any deficiency thereafter found to be due. The discharge of the fiduciary from personal liability under this section applies only to him in his personal capacity and to his personal assets. The discharge is not applicable to his liability as a fiduciary (such as a trustee) to the extent of the assets of the estate in his possession or control. Further, the discharge is not to operate as a release of any part of the gross estate from the lien for estate tax for any deficiency that may thereafter be determined to be due.
[T.D. 7238, 37 FR 28720, Dec. 29, 1972]
----

Action brought on 12 September 2006 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-258/06)

(2006/C 294/107)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant takes issue with the Commission's interpretative communication on the Community law applicable to contract awards not or not fully subject to the provisions of the public procurement directives, which was placed on the Commission's internet website on 24 July 2006 and published in the Official Journal on 1 August 2006 (OJ 2006 C 179, p. 2).

As grounds for its action, the applicant submits that the Commission was not competent to issue the contested communication. It argues in this connection that the contested communication contains new rules on tendering which go beyond the obligations arising under existing Community law. These new rules will have legally binding effects for the Member States. The EC Treaty, however, contains no authorisation which would enable the defendant to adopt such rules. The present case therefore, in the applicant's view, essentially involves an instance of de facto legislation.

The applicant goes on to contend that, by establishing mandatory rules, the defendant has upset the institutional balance existing between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission.

In conclusion the applicant submits that, even if the Commission were competent to issue the contested communication, the latter would still have to be declared null and void as the principle of legal certainty has been infringed. The defendant ought to have invoked the appropriate legal basis and made express reference to this in the legal measure in question. The Commission thus also breached the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC.

----
§ 156.6081-1 Automatic extension of time for filing a return due under chapter 54. ( a ) *In general.* A taxpayer required to file a return on Form 8725, “Excise Tax on Greenmail,” will be allowed an automatic 6-month extension of time to file the return after the date prescribed for filing the return if the taxpayer files an application under this section in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Requirements.* To satisfy this paragraph (b), a taxpayer must— ( 1 ) Submit a complete application on Form 7004, “Application for Automatic Extension of Time to File Certain Business Income Tax, Information, and Other Returns,” or in any other manner prescribed by the Commissioner;
( 2 ) File the application on or before the date prescribed for filing the return with the Internal Revenue Service office designated in the application's instructions; and
( 3 ) Remit the amount of the properly estimated unpaid tax liability on or before the date prescribed for payment.
( c ) *No extension of time for the payment of tax.* An automatic extension of time for filing a return granted under paragraph (a) of this section will not extend the time for payment of any tax due on such return.
( d ) *Termination of automatic extension.* The Commissioner may terminate an automatic extension at any time by mailing to the taxpayer a notice of termination at least 10 days prior to the termination date designated in such notice. The Commissioner must mail the notice of termination to the address shown on the Form 7004 or to the taxpayer's last known address. For further guidance regarding the definition of last known address, see § 301.6212-2 of this chapter.
( e ) *Penalties.* See section 6651 for failure to file or failure to pay the amount shown as tax on the return.
( f ) *Effective/applicable dates.* This section is applicable for applications for an automatic extension of time to file a return due under chapter 54, filed after July 1, 2008.
[T.D. 9407, 73 FR 37370, July 1, 2008]
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00904-CV

In the INTEREST OF M.D., A.D., A.D., R.D., M.D., Children

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-PA-00352

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Associate Judge Presiding1

Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 9, 2012

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

Appellant mother, N.D., appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights 

to M.D., A.D., A.D., R.D., and M.D. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a 

motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating 

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced and concluding the appeal is frivolous. The brief 

meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-03-

00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, order) (applying 

Anders procedure to appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 

22080522 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellant was 

 1 The Honorable Richard Price is the presiding judge of the 285th Judicial District Court. However, the order of 

termination was signed by the Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Associate Judge. 
04-11-00904-CV

- 2 -

provided a copy of the brief and informed of her right to file her own brief. See Nichols v. State, 

954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 23, 1997, no pet.); In re R.R., 2003 WL 

21157944, at *4. Appellant did not file a pro se brief. 

We have reviewed the record and the attorney’s brief and we agree with counsel that the 

appellate points do not present a substantial question for appellate review. See TEX. CIV. PRAC.

& REM. CODE ANN. § 13.003(b) (West 2002); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.405(d)(3) 

(incorporating section 13.003(b) by reference). Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in finding the points of appeal to be frivolous. We grant the motion to 

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
§ 1.9000-2 Effect of repeal in general. ( a ) Section 452 (relating to prepaid income) and section 462 (relating to reserves for estimated expenses) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 were repealed by the Act of June 15, 1955 (Pub. L. 74, 84th Cong., 69 Stat. 134), with respect to all years subject to such Code. The effect of the repeal will generally be to increase the tax liability of taxpayers who elected to adopt the methods of accounting provided by sections 452 and 462. References to sections of law in §§ 1.9000-2 to 1.9000-8, inclusive, are references to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 unless otherwise specified.
( b ) The Act of June 15, 1955, provides that if the amount of any tax is increased by the repeal of sections 452 and 462 and if the last date prescribed for the payment of such tax (or any installment thereof) is before December 15, 1955, then the taxpayer shall on or before such date file a statement as prescribed in § 1.9000-3. The last date prescribed for payment for this purpose shall be determined without regard to any extensions of time and without regard to the provisions of the Act of June 15, 1955.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2597

___________ Dale J. Burke, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. North Dakota Department of * Corrections and Rehabilitation; Tim * [UNPUBLISHED] Schuetzle, in his official capacity as * Warden of North Dakota State * Penitentiary; Pat Branson, in his * official capacity as Deputy Warden of * North Dakota State Penitentiary; * Kathy Bachmeier, in her official * capacity as Medical Director of * North Dakota State Penitentiary; J. * Peterson, in his official capacity as * Correctional Officer at North Dakota * State Penitentiary; Ron Bjelland, in * his official capacity as a Lieutenant at * the North Dakota State Penitentiary, * * Appellees.

___________ Submitted: April 2, 2010 Filed: April 12, 2010

___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________PER CURIAM. Dale J. Burke appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We dismiss the appeal because Burke’s brief completely fails to meet the requirement s of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a). See Carter v. Lutheran Med. Ctr. , 87 F.3d 1025, 1026 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (dismissing pro se appeal where brief presented no question for court to decide; among other shortfalls, brief did not provide statement of issues presented for review or identify any basi s of alleged error by distri ct court); Brown v. Frey , 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir. 1986) (pro se litigan ts are not excused from compliance with procedural law); cf. Puckett v. Cook , 864 F.2d 619, 620 n.2 (8th Cir. 1989) (to extent appellant was challenging dismi ssal of federal claims, he failed to show precisely and with reference to record why findings we re clearly wrong, and this court would not search record for error relative to claims). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we deny Burke’s pending motion.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota.
-2-
§ 1.892-6T Income of international organizations (temporary regulations). ( a ) *Exempt from tax.* Subject to the provisions of section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288) (the provisions of which are set forth in paragraph (b)(3) of § 1.893-1), the income of an international organization (as defined in section 7701(a)(18)) received from investments in the United States in stocks, bonds, or other domestic securities, owned by such international organization, or from interest on deposits in banks in the United States of moneys belonging to such international organization, or from any other source within the United States, is exempt from Federal income tax.
( b ) *Income received prior to Presidential designation.* An organization designated by the President through appropriate Executive order as entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided in the International Organizations Immunities Act may enjoy the benefits of the exemption with respect to income of the prescribed character received by such organization prior to the date of the issuance of such Executive order, if (i) the Executive order does not provide otherwise and (ii) the organization is a public international organization in which the United States participates, pursuant to a treaty or under the authority of an act of Congress authorizing such participation or making an appropriation for such participation, at the time such income is received.
[T.D. 8211, 53 FR 24065, June 27, 1988]
October 16, 2015

Mr. Thomas N. Jacob

22718 Bayside Way

California, MD 20619

Dear Mr. Jacob:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

part 21 and §§ 61.23(a)(c), 61.101(e)(4)(5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 

91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1)(2), and 91.417(a)(b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and what you 

should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your June 18, 2015, exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−3127, 

but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
PUBLIC LAW 115–15—MAR. 28, 2017 131 STAT. 79 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 305: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017): 

Feb. 3, considered and passed Senate. 

Mar. 21, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–15 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To amend title 4, United States Code, to encourage the display of the flag of 

the United States on National Vietnam War Veterans Day. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Vietnam War Veterans Recognition Act of 2017’’. 

SEC. 2. DISPLAY OF FLAG ON NATIONAL VIETNAM WAR VETERANS 

DAY. 

Section 6(d) of title 4, United States Code, is amended by 

inserting ‘‘National Vietnam War Veterans Day, March 29;’’ after 

‘‘third Monday in February;’’. 

Approved March 28, 2017. 

Vietnam War 

Veterans 

Recognition Act 

of 2017. 

4 USC 1 note. 

Mar. 28, 2017 

[S. 305] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.3620 Ear, nose, and throat synthetic polymer material. ( a ) *Identification.* Ear, nose, and throat synthetic polymer material is a device material that is intended to be implanted for use as a space-occupying substance in the reconstructive surgery of the head and neck. The device is used, for example, in augmentation rhinoplasty and in tissue defect closures in the esophagus. The device is shaped and formed by the suregon to conform to the patient's needs. This generic type of device is made of material such as polyamide mesh or foil and porous polyethylene.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.3    
    


Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 


Outside
Board Compensation Policy 



	Equity Compensation(1)	 	 
	

Initial Grant upon election to the Board:	
 	

120,000 shares for each outside Board member, vesting ratably over 3 years on first three anniversaries of the grant date.(2)
	

Annual Grant:	
 	

80,000 shares for each outside Board member, vesting in full upon re-election to the Board or being a member of the Board upon conclusion of the first annual meeting of the Company following the grant date. Annual grants will begin at the first
annual meeting of the Company following the initial public offering.
	

 	
 	

40,000 additional shares for the chairman/lead director and 30,000 additional shares for each of the chair of the Board audit committee and the chair of the Board compensation committee. Annual grants will begin at the first annual meeting of the
Company following the initial public offering.
	
Cash Compensation(3)	
 	

 
	

Board Fees:	
 	

$20,000 Annual Retainer

$2,000 attendance at board meeting

$600 participation in telephonic board meeting
	

Committee Fees:	
 	

$5,000 Annual Retainer

$1,000 for each committee meeting






	(1)
	Share
numbers are pre-split/combination for initial public offering. All vested options held by a director may be exercised by such director at any time until the first
anniversary of the date on which such director ceased to be a member of the Board.



	(2)
	Initial
options will be granted at the March 1 Board meeting at FMV to be determined by Board with 3 year vesting, subject to the Company completing an initial public
offering prior to the first anniversary of the date of grant.



	(3)
	Effective
following the initial public offering. 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.3
IV

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 52

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the visit of the Prime Minister

of New Zealand, the Right Honorable James Bolger.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 28, 1995

Mr. ROHRABACHER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the visit

of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Right Honorable James Bolger.

Whereas New Zealand and the United States enjoy a natural

and historic partnership built on shared values and

shared Pacific shores, and an unshakable commitment to

democracy, human rights and to market economies; and

Whereas the New Zealand Prime Minister will be visiting

Washington, DC from March 26 through 29, 1995, to

meet with the President and leaders of the United States

Congress: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—
2

HCON 52 IH

1 (1) welcomes the Prime Minister of New Zea2 land, the Right Honorable James Bolger, to the

3 United States of America on the occasion of his

4 visit;

5 (2) recognizes the traditional and close ties be6 tween New Zealand and the United States;

7 (3) notes with interest the comprehensive eco8 nomic reforms New Zealand has undertaken over the

9 last ten years, which has seen it move from one of

10 the most insulated and restrictive economies among

11 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel12 opment countries to one of the most open and com13 petitive;

14 (4) commends New Zealand for its dedication

15 to reducing agricultural protectionism and liberaliz16 ing world trade, particularly in the Uruguay Round,

17 where New Zealand and the United States have

18 worked closely together; and

19 (5) welcomes bilateral trade between New Zea20 land and the United States, which exceeded United

21 States $2,000,000,000 in 1994.

Æ