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.

§ 301.6684-1 Assessable penalties with respect to liability for tax under chapter 42. ( a ) *In general.* If any person (as defined in section 7701(a)(1)) becomes liable for tax under any section of chapter 42 (other than section 4940 or 4948(a)), relating to private foundations, by reason of any act or failure to act which is not due to reasonable cause and either— ( 1 ) Such person has theretofore (at any time) been liable for tax under any section of such chapter (other than section 4940 or 4948(a)), or
( 2 ) Such act or failure to act is both willful and flagrant, then such person shall be liable for a penalty equal to the amount of such tax.
( b ) *Showing of reasonable cause.* The penalty imposed by section 6684 shall not apply to any person with respect to a violation of any section of chapter 42 if it is established to the satisfaction of the district director or director of the internal revenue service center that such violation was due to reasonable cause. An affirmative showing of reasonable cause must be made in the form of a written statement, containing a declaration by such person that it is made under the penalties of perjury, setting forth all the facts alleged as reasonable cause.
( c ) *Willful and flagrant.* For purposes of this section, the term “willful and flagrant” has the same meaning as such term possesses in section 507(a)(2)(A) and the regulations thereunder.
( d ) *Effective date.* This section shall take effect on January 1, 1970.
[T.D. 7127, 36 FR 11504, June 15, 1971]
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

The regulations contained in this part have been recodified in 46 CFR part 287.

#### § 2.1-3 Requirements as to vessel operations.

Section 511 of the Act applies with respect to vessels operated in the foreign or domestic commerce of the United States or in the fisheries of the United States and vessels acquired or being constructed for the purpose of such operation. The foreign commerce of the United States includes commerce or trade between the United States (including the District of Columbia), the territories and possessions which are embraced within the coastwise laws, and a foreign country or other territories and possessions of the United States. The domestic commerce of the United States includes commerce or trade between ports of the United States and its territories and possessions, embraced within the coastwise laws and on inland rivers. The fisheries include the fisheries of the United States and its territories and possessions. Section 511 of the Act does not apply to vessels operated in the foreign commerce or fisheries of any country other than the United States.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 50061 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JESUS REYES

- CHAVEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:15

- CR

- 1529

- 1

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Reyes

- Chavez
has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Reyes

- Chavez h a s not filed a resp onse. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 20 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-50061 Document: 00513804188 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016No. 16

- 50061

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdra w is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-50061 Document: 00513804188 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
**
**Exhibit 31.3**

**Certification of President and Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Andrew Allen, M.D., Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of Gritstone Oncology, Inc., certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Gritstone Oncology, Inc.; and 

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 thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 

 

Date: April 18, 2019
  By: /s/ Andrew Allen   
Andrew Allen, M.D., Ph.D.
   
President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
**
EXHIBIT 32.1

                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                     OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Giant Industries, Inc.
("Giant") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Fred L. Holliger, Chief Executive Officer of Giant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (a)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (b)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Giant.


                                       By: /s/ FRED L. HOLLIGER
                                         -------------------------------

                                       Name:   Fred L. Holliger
                                       Title:  Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 9, 2007
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00120

- CV

IN RE FIRST TEXAS BH C, INC.

AND SOUTHWEST BANK RELATOR S

------------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

------------

The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and

emergency motion for temporary relief and is of the opinion that relief should be

denied. Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and emergency

motion for temporary relief is denied.

Relators shall pay all c osts of this original proceeding, for which let

execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8 (d).2

DELIVERED: March 31, 2011
#### Montgomery *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 22,654.

Filed October 13, 1914.]

1. *Contempt.*— Appeal.—FinaMty *of Judgment.*— Suspension *of Sentence.*— Where a sentence of fine and imprisonment imposed for contempt of court is without objection suspended during good behavior, there is no final judgment from which an appeal may be prosecuted, p.277.

Prom Vigo Circuit Court; *Charles M. Fortune,*Judge.

Proceeding on information for indirect contempt against Harry S. Montgomery. Prom a judgment adjudging him to be in contempt, the defendant appeals.

*Appeal 'dismissed.*

*277
      *Charles S. Bait,*for appellant.

*Thomas M. Honan,*Attorney-General, and *Thomas H. Branaman,*for the State.

Cox, C. J.

1.

Appellant was charged by information filed in the court below with having committed an indirect contempt of its authority by an attempt to take from it and its officials certain documentary evidence alleged to be relevant and material in certain criminal charges then under investigation by that court and the grand jury acting with it. A rule was served on appellant to appear and show cause why he should not be attached and punished for the alleged contempt. He appeared in response to this rule and filed an answer which the court deemed insufficient to purge appellant of the contempt charged and he was adjudged guilty, fined $100 and sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment in jail. This judgment the court suspended during appellant’s good behavior without objection or exception from appellant.

In this appeal numerous errors are assigned. The Attorney-General, however, has interposed objection.to the consideration of them by a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that an appeal will only lie from a final judgment and that where sentence is suspended there is no final judgment and therefore no basis for an appeal. The motion is well founded. The question has been decided by this court favorably to the position of the Attorney-General. *Walther*v. *State*(1913), 179 Ind. 565, 101 N. E. 1005.

Appeal dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 106 N. E. 370. As to relief of party sentenced for contempt, see 22 Am. St. 417. See, also, 9 Cyc. 63.
###### 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.

#### § 301.6106-1 Publicity of unemployment tax returns.

For provisions relating to publicity of returns made in respect of unemployment tax imposed by chapter 23 of the Code, see §§ 301.6103(a)-1, 301.6103 (b)-1, 301.6103(c)-1, 301.6103 (d)-1, and 301.6103(f)-1.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8227

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. PAUL A. LEE, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:89-cr-00273-FPS-1)

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: February 9, 2010

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul A. Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Paul A. Lee appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions to revisit and to refile. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.

Lee , No. 5:89-cr-00273-FPS-1 (N.D. W. Va. Dec. 9, 2009). Appellant’s “Motion for Abeyance and Motion to Dismiss” is denied. We 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
#### In re Application of George Koenig

*J oseph O. Shapiro,*in support of the motion.

*Louis Feinmark,*in opposition.

Submitted April 25

decided May 5, 1964

The motion by the respondent to strike out the appendix to the petitioner’s brief in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.
Order entered September 14, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00925-CV

HMS HOLDINGS CORP., HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., AND HMS

BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., Appellants

V.

PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP, INC., JAMES GAMBINO, AND JASON RAMOS,

Appellees

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-09047

ORDER

We GRANT appellants’ unopposed motion for leave to file redacted brief pursuant to the 

agreed confidentiality and protective order signed by the trial court October 17, 2014 and 

ORDER the redacted brief tendered to the Clerk of the Court September 11, 2015 filed as of the 

date of this order. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 4.3
                                PROMISSORY NOTE


AMOUNT:  $1,500,000                                   DATE:  JANUARY 15, 2003

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, BPK RESOURCES, INC. ("Borrower") promises to pay to the
order of CONTINENTAL SOUTHERN RESOURCES, INC.,  ("Lender") the principal sum of
ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($1,500,000) DOLLARS.  Principal plus interest
at the rate of 10% shall be made in lawful money of the United States, at the
principal address of Lender, or such other place as the holder of this Note may
designate on April 30, 2003.

This Note will be secured by Borrower's Limited Partnership interest in CSR-WAHA
Partners, L.P.  Borrower shall have the privilege without premium or penalty, at
any time and from time to time, of prepaying this Note in whole or in part.

     No partial prepayment shall postpone or interrupt the payment of the
remaining principal balance, all of which shall continue to be due and payable
at the time and the manner set forth above.

     Borrower agrees that a default shall occur hereunder in the event that
payment is not made upon demand and such default continues for a period of ten
(10) days from the date of demand therefor.  After the expiration of such ten
(10) day period interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance due hereunder at a
rate of twelve (12%) percent, together with attorneys' fees for collection and
payment of the same, which sums may be enforced and recovered by the entry of
judgment on this.

     Borrower (and all endorsers, sureties and guarantors) waives presentment
for payment, demand, notice of demand, notice of nonpayment or dishonor, protest
and notice of protest of this Note, and all other notices in connection with the
delivery, acceptance, performance, default, or enforcement of the payment of
this Note; liability hereunder shall be unconditional and shall not be affected
in any manner by any indulgence, extension of time, renewal, waiver or
modification granted or consented to by Lender.

Borrower shall pay the cost of any revenue, tax or other stamps now or hereafter
required by law at any time to be affixed to this Note or any security documents
executed in conjunction herewith, and if any taxes be imposed with respect to
debts secured by any such security documents or with respect to notes evidencing
debts so secured Borrower agrees to pay or to reimburse Lender upon demand the
amount of such taxes.

     The words "Lender" and "Borrower" whenever occurring herein shall be deemed
and construed to include their respective successors and assigns of Lender and
Borrower.

This instrument shall be construed according to and governed by the laws of the
State of Nevada.


                                  Page 1 of 2
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower has duly executed this Promissory Note under
seal the day and year first above mentioned.

WITNESS:                             BPK Resources, Inc.



______________________               By:______________________________



                                  Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0 167 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MICHAEL ROBERT STUTZMAN,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 8, 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 30 2020

07/30/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0167
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **CMBS Department**

 

MAC N9401-011

1055 10th Avenue SE

Minneapolis, MN 55414 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1585 BROADWAY

NEW YORK, New York 10036-8200

 

RE: Annual Statement ofCompliance for MAD 2015-11MD Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates

 

Per the Trust and ServicingAgreement dated as of September 6, 2015 (the “Agreement”), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian(“Wells Fargo”), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the yearending December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo’sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer’s supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer’s knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Gail Vannest

GAIL VANNEST

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-30260

Summary Calendar

 

LEN EDWIN DAVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR., Sheriff;

BILLY SHORT, Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-2898-D

- - - - - - - - - -

October 22, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Len Edwin Davis, #00004, has filed an application for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, following the

district court’s certification that an appeal would be frivolous.

Davis has failed to challenge specifically the district court’s

finding that his appeal was not taken in good faith and was

legally frivolous. Although this court liberally construes pro

se briefs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), the
No. 98-30260

-2-

court requires arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved. 

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Thus, the

only appealable issue -- the district court’s certification of

the appeal as frivolous -- has been abandoned. See id. 

Davis’ request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is

DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor,

117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997).

DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
###### 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.

#### § 301.7304-1 Penalty for fraudulently claiming drawback.

Whenever any person fraudulently claims or seeks to obtain an allowance of drawback on goods, wares, or merchandise on which no internal tax shall have been paid, or fraudulently claims any greater allowance of drawback than the tax actually paid, he shall forfeit triple the amount wrongfully or fraudulently claimed or sought to be obtained, or the sum of $500, at the election of the district director.

provisions common to forfeitures
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50280 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUCILLE CHRISTIE BLAKLEY; DAVID PORRAS, Defendants-Appellants.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-98-CR-92-3

-------------------- February 23, 2001 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * David Porras argues that the district court clearly erred in
al lowing his bankruptcy attorney to testify at trial because it violated the attorney-client privilege. Lucille Christie Blakley adopts this argument.
The district court did not clearly err in allowing the attorney to testify because the Government made a prima facie showing that Porras and his codefendants sought counsel’s legal representation in order to further their illegal and fraudulentNo. 00-50280 -2- conduct. Thus, the defendants’ attorney-client privilege was lost
under the crime or fraud exception to that rule. S ee United States v. Ballard , 779 F.2d 287, (5th Cir. 1986). Blakley argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion to take the deposition of her fugitive codefendant William Edmiston pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(a), which provides th at the district court may order the taking of a deposition in a criminal case if it finds that exceptional circumstances exist.
The district court did no t abuse its discretion in denying Blakley’s motion for the deposition. The district court concluded
based on its prior experience with Edmiston in civil proceedings that Edmiston would not be a credible witness and also determined
that the deposition would expose the prosecutors to an unnecessary risk of harm and would cause the Government to incur substantial

expense. Further, the record reflects that Blakley’s prior testimony in civil proceedings, which was reviewed at the criminal trial, showed her knowledge of the fraudulent activity, and clearly outweighed any probative value that would have been given to the testimony of the fugitive codefendant. Blakley failed to show the existence of exceptional circumstances warranting the deposition.
See United States v. Aggarwal , 17 F.3d 737, 741 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                          10,735
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                       446
<INVENTORY>                                     17,983
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,379
<PP&E>                                          52,494
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,409
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,949
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,244
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,425
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,158
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,949
<SALES>                                         30,225
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,225
<CGS>                                           25,026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,205
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (54)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 431
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    643
<INCOME-TAX>                                       195
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                448
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       448
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07


</TABLE>