alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 25.6081-1 Automatic extension of time for filing gift tax returns. ( a ) *In general.* Under section 6075(b)(2), an automatic six-month extension of time granted to a donor to file the donor's return of income under § 1.6081-4 of this chapter shall be deemed also to be a six-month extension of time granted to file a return on Form 709, “United States Gift (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return.” If a donor does not obtain an extension of time to file the donor's return of income under § 1.6081-4 of this chapter, the donor will be allowed an automatic 6-month extension of time to file Form 709 after the date prescribed for filing if the donor files an application under this section in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. In the case of an individual described in § 1.6081-5(a)(5) or (6) of this chapter, the automatic 6-month extension of time to file Form 709 will run concurrently with the extension of time to file granted pursuant to § 1.6081-5 of this chapter.
( b ) *Requirements.* To satisfy this paragraph (b), a donor must— ( 1 ) Submit a complete application on Form 8892, “Payment of Gift/GST Tax and/or Application for Extension of Time To File Form 709,” or in any other manner prescribed by the Commissioner;
( 2 ) File the application on or before the later of— ( i ) The date prescribed for filing the return; or
( ii ) The expiration of any extension of time to file granted pursuant to § 1.6081-5 of this chapter; and
( 3 ) File the application with the Internal Revenue Service office designated in the application's instructions.
( 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 extension at any time by mailing to the donor 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 8892, or to the donor'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 a gift tax return or failure to pay the amount shown as tax on the return.
( f ) *Effective/applicability dates.* This section is applicable for applications for an extension of time to file Form 709 filed after July 1, 2008.
[T.D. 9407, 73 FR 37368, July 1, 2008]
DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS



 Exhibit 10.17 
 Danaher Corporation 
 Description of Non-Management Director Compensation Arrangements

 Following is a description of the compensation arrangements for each of the Company’s non-management directors. Non-management directors
receive meeting attendance fees of $2,500 per board meeting (whether telephonically or in person) and $1,000 per committee meeting (whether telephonically or in person), plus an annual cash retainer of $40,000. In addition, the non-management
directors are eligible for grants of equity awards under the Amended and Restated Danaher Corporation 1998 Stock Option Plan, which is attached as Exhibit 10.1 and Exhibit 10.2 to Danaher’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2006.
----

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Self Service Station Weghorst v Commission

(Case T-277/99) (1)

(2006/C 310/55)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

----

(1)OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.

----
#### Otto J. Saur, State’s Attorney, ex rel. E. M. J. Corporation *v.*William Guarnieri, Building Inspector of the Town of Norwalk

*Robert A. Slavitt,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Edward J. Zamm,*deputy corporation counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

Argued May 5

decided May 5, 1964

The motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County is granted.
NATIONAL HEADQUARTER CIVIL AIR PATROL UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AUXILIARY MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA 36112-{i332

Col Rlrlel A, RolHes. CAP Gtnenl ( :nunKI. Cil'il Air PaTrol**l~** S 1I11Uf1l SI.,**Buildio~** 714 Ma;"'.tll AFB. AI. 36112-6331 Telcphone: 877·2.."1·9142 (Clt W)

. ·.nimilt: J.J4..265-4J52 t:mlil: rrobiUllupnhq.l1!o\· 

### U.S
. Department ofTransportalion Federal Aviation Acimini<:trnTion 800 Independence Ave
.. SW Room 810 Washington. IX 20591 Re: Request for changes and clarification ofexemption No. 6771 F Docket No. FAA-2001-9874 4 June 2010

It seems that due to an involuntary clerical mistake we inadvertently cited and made reference in our petition to CAP manuals and fonns that have been superseded andlor are obsolete at thi s time. In addition. 

### a clarification is warranted regarding AFROTC and AFJROTC cadet orientation nights. Therefore. we respectfully request thallhe FAA update exemption 

### 6771 F pages 

### 1 & 

### 3 to clarify and correct items that will mOSI definitely cause some queries and concern from the field. The requested charges are in the attached file. 1. Page 

### I. Clarification. Add AFJROTC to the end ofparagraph 

### 2 so it reads "(AFROTC & AFJROTC) cadet orientation:' We've already had one question on this
...the wing felt AFJROTC flying was excluded because it wasn't listed. 2. Page 3. Corrections. CAP Manual 

### 50

- 16 and CAPF 

### 77 are obsolete. Replacl' them with the 

### CAPR 52· 16 and CAPP 52-7 as listed in the attached tile. 3
. It would also help greatly ifthe FAA clarified that the exemption applies to all Air Force assigned missions. Some ofour wings arc saying it only applies to "Search and Locate" missions because that is the exemption to 61.1 13(e) cited in paragmph 2 ofthe letter. ion,**I~** Regulation 52-16 is "Cadet Progrdm Management". CAP Pamphlet 52-7 is "Cadet

yllabu
.. and CAP Regulation 60-1 is "CA P Flight Management:' inconvenience and appreciate your assistance in advance.

Gencr.l1 Counse Allachment: I. FAA Gram l.etter ,\fuy28. 20f()
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7756
JAMES OUTLAW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-95-3827-3-22BC) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 20, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Outlaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214, for failure to exhaust state remedies. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant a certificate of appealability and modify the district court's order to reflect that the petition is dismissed without prejudice, we affirm the district court's order as modified on the reasoning of the district court. Outlaw v. South Carolina , No. CA-95-3827-3-22BC (D.S.C. Aug. 29, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
###### 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.

#### § 301.6052-1 Information returns and statements regarding payment of wages in the form of group-term life insurance.

For provisions relating to information returns and statements required in connection with the payment of wages in the form of group-term life insurance, see §§ 1.6052-1 and 1.6052-2 of this chapter (income tax regulations).

[T.D. 7275, 38 FR 11346, May 7, 1973]
### PRE

‐ FLIGHT CHECKLIST 1 Charge Batteries, Transmitter, iPads 

### 2 Clean Camera Lens & iPad Screens 

### 3 Pack Case, Check for Completeness 

### 4 Load Case, Table, Traffic Cones & First

‐ Aid



### FLIGHT CHECKLIST 1 Set

‐ up Transmitter(s) w/Hood and iPad 

### 2 Set iPad(s) to Airplane Mode 

### 3 Turn on Pilot Transmitter 

### 4 Power Up Drone, Exit Travel Mode 

### 5 Power Down Drone/Pilot Transmitter 

### 6 Install Camera w/ SD Memory Card 

### 7 Install Propellers w/Prop Locks 

### 8 Inspect Drone 

### 9 Power Up Drone/Transmitter(s) 

### 10 Check IMU. Recalibrate if not 1.00 +/ ‐ .01 

### 11 Check/Calibrate Compass 

### 12 Check/Set RTH Elevation 

### 13 Check/Set Distance/Height Limitations 

### 14 Set Camera Settings 

### 15 Set Gimbal Mode 

### 16 Set Control Mode 

### 17 Visually Check and Clear Area 

### 18 Verbally Announce Take

‐ Off



### POST

‐ FLIGHT CHECKLIST 1 Remove Camera & Propellers 

### 2 Enter into Travel Mode 

### 3 Disassemble Transmitters 

### 4 Turn Off iPad Airplane Mode 

### 5 Pack Case, Check for Completeness 

### 6 Load Truck 

### 7 Check Area
§ 1.860C-2 Determination of REMIC taxable income or net loss. ( a ) *Treatment of gain or loss.* For purposes of determining the taxable income or net loss of a REMIC under section 860C(b), any gain or loss from the disposition of any asset, including a qualified mortgage (as defined in section 860G(a)(3)) or a permitted investment (as defined in section 860G(a)(5) and § 1.860G-2(g)), is treated as gain or loss from the sale or exchange of property that is not a capital asset.
( b ) *Deductions allowable to a REMIC* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Except as otherwise provided in section 860C(b) and in paragraph (b)(2) through (5) of this section, the deductions allowable to a REMIC for purposes of determining its taxable income or net loss are those deductions that would be allowable to an individual, determined by taking into account the same limitations that apply to an individual.
( 2 ) *Deduction allowable under section 163.* ( i ) A REMIC is allowed a deduction, determined without regard to section 163(d), for any interest expense accrued during the taxable year.
( ii ) For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, a REMIC is allowed a deduction, determined without regard to section 163(j), for any interest expense accrued during the taxable year.
( 3 ) *Deduction allowable under section 166.* For purposes of determining a REMIC's bad debt deduction under section 166, debt owed to the REMIC is not treated as nonbusiness debt under section 166(d).
( 4 ) *Deduction allowable under section 212.* A REMIC is not treated as carrying on a trade or business for purposes of section 162. Ordinary and necessary operating expenses paid or incurred by the REMIC during the taxable year are deductible under section 212, without regard to section 67. Any expenses that are incurred in connection with the formation of the REMIC and that relate to the organization of the REMIC and the issuance of regular and residual interests are not treated as expenses of the REMIC for which a deduction is allowable under section 212. See § 1.860F-2(b)(3)(ii) for treatment of those expenses.
( 5 ) *Expenses and interest relating to tax-exempt income.* Pursuant to section 265(a), a REMIC is not allowed a deduction for expenses and interest allocable to tax-exempt income. The portion of a REMIC's interest expense that is allocable to tax-exempt interest is determined in the manner prescribed in section 265(b)(2), without regard to section 265(b)(3).
[T.D. 8458, 57 FR 61301, Dec. 24, 1992, as amended by T.D. 9905, 85 FR 56842, Sept. 14, 2020]
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 32


                  FAIRFIELD INN BY MARRIOTT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                            FORM 10-Q MARCH 31, 2004


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fairfield Inn by Marriott
Limited Partnership, (the "Partnership"), on Form 10-Q for the three month
period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities
and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and 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 Partnership.



Date:  May 14, 2004           /s/ Michael L. Ashner
                              -------------------------------
                              Michael L. Ashner
                              Chief Executive Officer


Date:  May 14, 2004           /s/ Thomas C. Staples
                              -------------------------------
                              Thomas C. Staples
                              Chief Financial Officer
§ 25.6011-1 General requirement of return, statement, or list. ( a ) *General rule.* Every person made liable for any tax imposed by Chapter 12 of the Code shall make such returns or statements as are required by the regulations in this part. The return or statement shall include therein the information required by the applicable regulations or forms.
( b ) *Use of prescribed forms.* Copies of the forms prescribed by paragraph (b) of § 25.6001-1 and § 25.6019-1 may be obtained from district directors and directors of service centers. The fact that a person required to file a form has not been furnished with copies of a form will not excuse him from the making of a gift tax return, or from the furnishing of the evidence for which the forms are to be used. Application for a form should be made to the district director or director of a service center in ample time to enable the person whose duty it is to file the form to have the form prepared, verified, and filed on or before the date prescribed for the filing thereof.
[T.D. 6334, 23 FR 8904, Nov. 15, 1958, as amended by T.D. 7012, 34 FR 7691, May 15, 1969]
###### 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.

#### § 301.6363-3 Transition years.

The State may by law provide for the transition to or from a qualified tax to the extent necessary to prevent double taxation or other unintended hardships, or to prevent unintended benefits, under State law. Generally, such provisions shall be administered by the State; but, if requested to do so by the Governor of the State, the Secretary or his delegate may in his discretion, agree to administer such provisions either solely or jointly with the State.

[T.D. 7577, 43 FR 59375, Dec. 20, 1978]
§ 1.6662-7 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 changes to the accuracy-related penalty. ( a ) *Scope.* The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 made certain changes to the accuracy-related penalty in section 6662. This section provides rules reflecting those changes.
( b ) *No disclosure exception for negligence penalty.* The penalty for negligence in section 6662(b)(1) may not be avoided by disclosure of a return position.
( c ) *Disclosure standard for other penalties is reasonable basis.* The penalties for disregarding rules or regulations in section 6662(b)(1) and for a substantial understatement of income tax in section 6662(b)(2) may be avoided by adequate disclosure of a return position only if the position has at least a reasonable basis. See § 1.6662-3(c) and §§ 1.6662-4(e) and (f) for other applicable disclosure rules.
( d ) *Reasonable basis.* For purposes of §§ 1.6662-3(c) and 1.6662-4(e) and (f) (relating to methods of making adequate disclosure), the provisions of § 1.6662-3(b)(3) apply in determining whether a return position has a reasonable basis.
[T.D. 8617, 60 FR 45665, Sept. 1, 1995, as amended by T.D. 8790, 63 FR 66435, Dec. 2, 1998]
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10406 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus ANDRES PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CR-101-A(1)
- - - - - - - - - - (October 18, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Andres Perez objects to the district court's three-level increase in his offense level for being a manager or supervisor in the offense, stating that without the unreliable evidence of his co-defendant Magdalina Garcia, there was no evidence to support the district court's finding regarding his role in the offense.No. 95-10406 -2- This court disturbs a district court's determination regarding a defendant's role in a criminal activity only if it is clearly erroneous. United States v. Barreto , 871 F.2d 511, 512 (5th Cir. 1989). The testimony at the sentencing hearing revealed that Perez had discussed the different brands of cocaine and the possibility of making large cocaine purchases. The presentence report (PSR) also reported that co-defendant Rene Morelos-Rocha told agents that Perez paid him for storing cocaine and that Agent DeLaFlor believed that Perez directed Morelos-Rocha and another defendant. Perez does not demonstrate that this evidence was materially untrue. United States v. Santiago , 993 F.2d 504, 506-07 (5th Cir. 1993). Even considering any unreliability of Garcia's statements regarding Perez's involvement, the district court had sufficient evidence to find that Perez was a manager or supervisor. The district court did not clearly err in its finding. AFFIRMED.
§ 1.507-5 Aggregate tax benefit; in general. ( a ) *General rule.* For purposes of section 507(c)(1), the aggregate tax benefit resulting from the section 501(c)(3) status of any private foundation is the sum of: ( 1 ) The aggregate increases in tax under chapters 1, 11, and 12 (or the corresponding provisions of prior law) which would have been imposed with respect to all substantial contributors to the foundation if deductions for all contributions made by such contributors to the foundation after February 28, 1913, had been disallowed,
( 2 ) The aggregate increases in tax under chapter 1 (or the corresponding provisions of prior law) which would have been imposed with respect to the income of the private foundation for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1912, if ( i ) it had not been exempt from tax under section 501(a) (or the corresponding provisions of prior law), and
( ii ) in the case of a trust, deductions under section 642(c) (or the corresponding provisions of prior law) had been limited to 20 percent of the taxable income of the trust (computed without the benefit of section 642(c) but with the benefit of section 170(b)(1)(A)),
( 3 ) The amount succeeded to from transferors under § 1.507-3(a) and section 507(b)(2), and
( 4 ) Interest on the increases in tax determined under subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this paragraph from the first date on which each such increase would have been due and payable to the date on which the organization ceases to be a private foundation.
( b ) *Contributions.* In computing the amount of the aggregate increases in tax under subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, all deductions attributable to a particular contribution shall be included. For example, if a substantial contributor has taken deductions under sections 170 and 2522 (or the corresponding provisions of prior law) with respect to the same contribution, the amount of each deduction shall be included in the computations under section 507(d)(1)(A). Accordingly, the aggregate tax benefit may exceed the fair market value of the property transferred.
[T.D. 7233, 37 FR 28161, Dec. 21, 1972]
Figure 5. Ogden Alternative 3 – Proposed Units with Tree Treatments.
Figure 6. Ogden Alternative 3 Fuels Treatments
###### 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.

#### § 301.6013-1 Joint returns of income tax by husband and wife.

For provisions with respect to joint returns of income tax by husband and wife, see §§ 1.6013-1 to 1.6013-7, inclusive, of this chapter (Income Tax Regulations).

[32 FR 15241, Nov. 3, 1967, as amended by T.D. 7670, 45 FR 6932, Jan. 31, 1980]
#### § 143.1 [Reserved]
#### § 25.2703-2 Effective date.

Section 25.2703-1 applies to any right or restriction created or substantially modified after October 8, 1990, and is effective as of January 28, 1992. With respect to transfers occurring prior to January 28, 1992, and for purposes of determining whether an event occurring prior to January 28, 1992 constitutes a substantial modification, taxpayers may rely on any reasonable interpretation of the statutory provisions. For these purposes, the provisions of the proposed regulations and the final regulations are considered a reasonable interpretation of the statutory provisions.

[T.D. 8395, 57 FR 4274, Feb. 4, 1992]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 3, 2010

p1027

Order 

November 3, 2010

141333

RACHEL BAKER, Individually and as 

Personal Representative of the Estate of

Jonathan Baker, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141333

COA: 289191 

Oakland CC: 2007-086703-NF

TRANS-PORTE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant, 

and

BRISTOL WEST INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 20, 2010 

judgment 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.
#### § 1.6001-2 Returns.

For rules relating to returns required to be made by every individual, estate, or trust which is liable for one or more qualified State individual income taxes, as defined in section 6362, for a taxable year, see paragraph (b) of § 301.6361-1 of this chapter (Regulations on procedure and Administration).

[T.D. 7577, 43 FR 59357, Dec. 20, 1978]