alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1.701-1 Partners, not partnership, subject to tax.

Partners are liable for income tax only in their separate capacities. Partnerships as such are not subject to the income tax imposed by subtitle A but are required to make returns of income under the provisions of section 6031 and the regulations thereunder. For definition of the terms “partner” and “partnership”, see sections 761 and 7701(a)(2), and the regulations thereunder. For provisions relating to the election of certain partnerships to be taxed as domestic corporations, see section 1361 and the regulations thereunder.
Supervisor Bob Bevi lacqua Town of Harrietstown 39 Main Street Saranac Lake, NY 

### 12983 10/2112013 Re: Essential Air Service Dear Supervisor Bevilacqua, As you are aware, the February 

### 2014 expiration of the current Essential Air Service (EAS) contract at the ai rport is approaching. On behalf of Weltevree, we would request the DOT and Town of Harrietstown explicitly sol icit in the forthcoming EAS Request for Proposals 

### a summer-season increase 

### in capacity to reflect the increase in ridership at 

### the airport over the past six years. Since 2010, Cape Air has been operating increased flights during summer on their Boston-Saranac Lake route. We request that this summer-seasonal increase in frequency be codified in the RFP's frequency specification
. Frequency and schedule convenience is 

### vita/to the success of our airport and local economy. At the same time, we are eager to connect our airport with the New York metropolitan area, in addition to the thriving hub connectivity we have with Boston
. We do not want to divert to New York one of our just three daily-authorized frequencies (leaving only two flights to the hub at Boston) as that would undermine the already established popularity of these routes
. An RFP solicitinQ 

### four 

### daily flights in the summer would allow 

### an airline like Cape Air to retain 

### it's current connections to the Boston hub (at least three daily non-stop flightS) , and using a fourth EAS frequency to add incremental service to the New York City market, which is a primary source for visitors
. We would point to the success of Cape Air's Lebanon - New York City service in the EAS program, and understand that Cape Air is eager to add flights between Saranac Lake and New York City under the auspices of the EAS program . My business, api design, 

### is currently agent to two international Companies (Weltevree in the Netherlands and La Castellamonte in Italy) and growing
. 

### It is essential for both incoming business development and outgoing sales calls that 

### I have access to both Boston and NYC metropolitan areas. 

### I represent a growing population of telecommuters that work remotely in this great area but rely on the Essential Air Service to provide me access to both national and international markets. This 'ask' would set the bar for future development of our area as a business and tourist friendly area. Since~

_ Todd Smith Weltevree. US agent 

### 14 Catherine Street Saranac Lake, NY 12983 

### 518-354-1927 toddch ristophersmith@gmaif.com

' Freshly fal len snow, not yet disturbed' ; f
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 September 28, 2018

Order 

Clerk

September 28, 2018

156341(63)(64)

SEJASMI INDUSTRIES, INC., 

Plaintiff/CounterdefendantAppellee,

SC: 156341 

v COA: 336205 

Macomb CC: 2014-004273-CB

A+ MOLD, INC., d/b/a TAKUMI 

MANUFACTURING COMPANY,

Defendant/Cross-Defendant, 

and 

QUALITY CAVITY, INC.,

Defendant/Counterplaintiff/CrossPlaintiff/Third-Party PlaintiffAppellant, 

and

NKL MANUFACTURING, INC., 

Third-Party Defendant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of amici curiae American Mold Builders 

Association et al. for five minutes of oral argument time separate from that of the parties 

is GRANTED.
#### § 1.936-8T Qualified possession source investment income (temporary). [Reserved]
EX-10.19 SUMARY/ BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPENSATION



 





Exhibit 10.19




SYNOVUS FINANCIAL CORP.

Board of Directors Compensation

Approved January 25, 2007




     Upon the recommendation of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, the Board of
Directors of Synovus Financial Corp. approved modifications to the compensation to be paid to
directors effective February 1, 2007, as set forth below:



	 	 	 	 	 
	Cash Compensation
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Board Retainer

	 	$	40,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Committee Member Retainers:
	 	 	 	 
	Audit Committee

	 	$	15,000	 
	Compensation Committee

	 	$	10,000	 
	Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee

	 	$	7,500	 
	Executive Committee

	 	$	10,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Committee Chair Retainers*:
	 	 	 	 
	Audit Committee

	 	$	15,000	 
	Compensation Committee

	 	$	10,000	 
	Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee

	 	$	7,500	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Lead Director Retainer

	 	$	5,000	 








 




			
	*	 	Note: The committee chair will receive both an annual committee member retainer and an annual
committee chair retainer.





	 	 	 	 	 
	Equity Compensation
	 	 	 	 
	 
	Annual restricted stock award (in the form of a grant from the
Synovus 2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan, 3 year cliff vesting)

	 	500 shares

	 
	 	 	 	 
	No equity awards to employee directors
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Director Stock Purchase Plan
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual maximum company cash contribution per director
participant to company-sponsored open market stock purchase plan,
with company’s contribution equal to 50% of director participant’s
cash contribution, subject to annual maximum contribution limit by
director of $20,000

	 	$	10,000
----

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-275/04) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - External Community transit - Regulations (EEC) No 2913/92 and No 2454/93 - Communities' own resources - Making available - Time-limits - Default interest - Failure to keep and communicate supporting documents relating to the establishment and making available of own resources)

(2006/C 294/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and G. Wilms, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: E. Dominkovits and M. Wimmer, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by C. Jackson, Agent, and M. Angiolini and R. Anderson, Barristers

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1), which, as from 31 May 2000, repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) — Anomalies and delays found in the accounting entries of own resources.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 217, 28.08.2004.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 188 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 188

 To recognize the outstanding service of the Architect of the Capitol, 
  the Honorable George M. White, for the restoration of the Statue of 
                                Freedom.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             March 11 (legislative day, February 22), 1994

   Mr. Moynihan (for himself and Mr. Warner) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To recognize the outstanding service of the Architect of the Capitol, 
  the Honorable George M. White, for the restoration of the Statue of 
                                Freedom.

Whereas the Statue of Freedom Triumphant in Peace and War has stood atop the 
        tholos of the United States Capitol Dome since December 2, 1863;
Whereas the Statue of Freedom has served since its installation as an object of 
        great national pride and inspiration;
Whereas the Statue, modeled by the American sculptor Thomas Crawford in Rome, 
        and cast by Clark Mills in Northeast Washington, D.C., using bronze made 
        of zinc, Lake Superior copper, and tin purchased in New York, was found 
        after inspection in 1988 to be suffering from rust and corrosion and to 
        be in need of repair;
Whereas the plan developed by the Architect of the Capitol for carrying out the 
        necessary repairs required great skill and expertise in historical 
        restoration techniques as well as extraordinary feats of engineering for 
        the removal and replacement of the Statue; and
Whereas Members of Congress, residents of Washington, D.C., and visitors watched 
        with awe and appreciation as the Architect's plan unfolded, 
        accomplishing the removal, restoration, and replacement of the Statue 
        atop the Dome in time for the 200th anniversary of the laying of the 
        cornerstone of the Capitol: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Architect of the Capitol, the Honorable George 
M. White, is recognized and commended for outstanding service to the 
Capitol and to the Nation for successfully restoring the original 
grandeur of the Statue of Freedom.
    Sec.2. The Secretary shall transmit a copy of this resolution to 
the Architect of the Capitol, the Honorable George M. White.

                                 <all>
```
----

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Cámara de Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza v Commission

(Case T-225/02) (1)

(European Social Fund - Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Withdrawal of financial aid - Action for annulment - Directly concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 331/89)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Cámara de Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza (Zaragoza, Speain) (represented by: initially A. Sánchez-Rubio García, then A. Creus Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Escobar Guerrero and L. Flynn, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2000) 2621 of 29 December 2000 relating to the withdrawal of aid which was allocated by the European Social Fund (ESF) by application of Decision C (91) 2852 of 19 December 1991 adopting the Community initiative ‘Euroform’ for Spain (P.O. 913051ES8) and ESF funds which the Spanish authorities allocated to the Cámara de Comercio e Industria (Chamber of Commerce), Zaragoza, for the ‘Tricoin’ project (ref.: EUR-82), for the implementation of which the company Copy Aragón de Zaragoza was responsible.

Operative part of the order

----

(1)OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DANON JON DOYLE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 63 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of July, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

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

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

#### § 301.7122-0 Table of contents.

This section lists the major captions that appear in the regulations under § 301.7122-1.

## § 301.7122-1 Compromises.

(a) In general.

(b) Grounds for compromise.

(c) Special rules for the evaluation of offers to compromise.

(d) Procedures for submission and consideration of offers.

(e) Acceptance of an offer to compromise a tax liability.

(f) Rejection of an offer to compromise.

(g) Effect of offer to compromise on collection activity.

(h) Deposits.

(i) Statute of limitations.

(j) Inspection with respect to accepted offers to compromise.

(k) Effective date.

[T.D. 9007, 67 FR 48029, July 23, 2002]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 150 (Thursday, August 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 39377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18776]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Jersey, 
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of 
Columbia)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, 
ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, September 16, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marianne Ayala at 1-888-912-1227 or 
954-423-7978.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Wednesday, September 16, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone 
conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, 
notification of intent to participate must be made with Marianne Ayala. 
For more information please contact Mrs. Ayala at 1-888-912-1227 or 
954-423-7978, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 
340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: July 30, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-18776 Filed 8-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
H. Con. Res. 94 Agreed to October 10, 1995

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. DEDICATION CEREMONY AND PLACEMENT OF A BUST OF

RAOUL WALLENBERG IN THE CAPITOL.

The rotunda of the Capitol may be used on November 2, 1995,

for a ceremony incident to the placement of a bust of Raoul

Wallenberg in the Capitol as previously authorized by Congress.

SEC. 2. SECURITY AND PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

The Capitol Police Board shall take such action with respect

to security as may be necessary to carry out section 1. The Architect

of the Capitol shall make appropriate physical preparations for

the ceremony referred to in section 1.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
1

Assessing	the	Effect	of	Five	Gasoline	Properties	on	Exhaust	Emissions	from	LightDuty	Vehicles	certified	to	Tier-2	Standards

Analysis	of	Data	from	EPA	Phase	3

(EPAct/V2/E-89)

Appendix		K.3

Model	Fitting	Information	for

Acetaldehyde	(Bag	2)

This appendix summarizes model fitting for Bag-2 acetaldehyde. Model-fitting techniques and 

approaches are summarized in Section 8.7. Features of the data and modeling for this compound are 

listed below.

Media contamination: YES

No. measurements: 63

No. censored values: 1

Modeling approach: MIXED MODEL

Estimated Dependent Variable model: YES
2

Models fit for Bag-2 Acetaldehyde

Model term Notation Model

Full FM11FM2 FM3 Null model2

etOH Ze ● ● ● ● ×

Arom Za ● ● ×

T50 Z5 ● ×

T90 Z9 ● ● ● ×

1

Indicates “Full minus 1,” etc.

2

Indicates model with no terms except an intercept.

Fitting history for Bag-2 Acetaldehyde – with “FM3” selected as best fit model.

Fit Parameters Test with respect to

Full

Test with respect to

Previous Model

Model p -

2lnL

BIC

1 Dev.1

d Pr>χ

2 Dev. d Pr>χ2

Full 5 71.62 82.89

FM1 4 71.87 81.53 1.66 2 0.43 0.25 1 0.62

FM2 3 73.92 81.96 3.71 3 0.29 2.04 1 0.15

FM3 2 76.44 82.87 6.23 4 0.18 2.52 1 0.11

Null 

model

1 88.03 92.86 17.82 5 0.0032 11.59 1 0.00066

1 A lower value indicates a better fit. 1 The deviation is the difference in

the -2lnL statistics for the 

nested and reference models,

respectively, per Error! Reference source not 

found..

Acetaldehyde (Bag 2): Coefficients and Type-III Tests of Effect for Full and Best-Fit Models.

Effect Full Model Best-Fit Model (MM3)

Estimate Std.Err. d.f. t-value Pr>t Estimate Std.Err. d.f. t-value Pr>t

Intercept -9.4189 0.1177 5 -80.1 0.000000 -9.4192 0.1162 5.007 -81.1 0.000000

Ze 0.1520 0.06080 58 2.50 0.0152 0.1910 0.05306 58.13 3.60 0.00066

Za 0.07991 0.05279 58 1.51 0.136

Z5

-0.02997 0.05957 58 -0.503 0.617

Z9

-0.07836 0.05153 58 -1.52 0.134

2  veh 0.05654 0.05372

2 

0.3814 0.4153
###### 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.

#### § 301.6015-1 Declaration of estimated income tax by individuals.

For provisions relating to requirements of declarations of estimated income tax by individuals, see §§ 1.6015 (a)-1 through 1.6015 (j)-1 of this chapter (Income Tax Regulations).

[T.D. 7427, 41 FR 34033, Aug. 12, 1976]
#### Jones, etc., et al. v. Podover

*213
      *Adis & McDermott,*for plaintiffs.

*Herman Weiner,*for defendant.

November 24, 1952.

Flood, J.,

This complaint in trespass was filed by a minor and his mother to recover for an assault and battery by fist committed against the minor on June 15, 1951. The father of the minor has filed a petition and rule to amend the complaint to include a cause of action on his own behalf for an assault and battery by automobile against him by the defendant on October 2, 1952. It is averred in the petition that both assaults “were motivated by the defendant’s malice toward the entire household of (the) petitioner and that the two . . . are part of a pattern that permit the joinder of these two causes of action by amendment”. Defendant filed an answer on the grounds that plaintiffs have failed to set forth facts which would entitle them to have the complaint amended and that they are attempting to incorporate a new and distinct cause of action.

Rule 1044 permits the joinder of causes of action in trespass and rule 2229(a) the joinder of plaintiffs, where the actions arise from the same series of transactions or occurrences, provided any common question of law or fact affecting the rights to relif of all such persons will arise in the action. It seems to us that if the assaults on both the father and son arose from the same motive of malice toward the family that there is a series of occurrences within the meaning of the rule and a proper case for joinder. The averment of a *214common motive in both assaults satisfies the requirement as to a common question of law or fact in the two cases. Both are averred to be direct and are labeled “intentional” trespasses. On the question of possible punitive damages, if on nothing else, the cases are connected.

Rule 1033 provides that a pleading may be amended to state a new cause of action arising after it has been filed so that ordinarily a permissive joinder can be effected by amendment.

Defendant argues that since his answer denies malice and no depositions were taken upon this hearing his denial must be accepted so that the basis for the joinder fails. But plaintiffs’ right to join depends not upon the existence of malice, but upon their assertion that it does exist. Rule 2229(a) states that: “Persons may join as plaintiffs who assert any right to relief . . . separately.”. Rule 1044 reads that: “The plaintiff may state . . . two or more causes of action.”. Rule 1033 says that “The amended pleading may aver transactions . . •. after the filing of the original pleading. . . ”. All these provisions, particularly the words “assert”, “state” and “aver”, point to the conclusion that the allegations of plaintiffs determine the right to join by amendment. Hence we do not see any necessity or use for depositions since the allegations control, despite defendant’s answer. The rules do not require a preliminary trial on the existence of the fact of malice before the court can pass on joinder. If plaintiff is willing to assert upon his oath that malice exists we accept that fact for the purposes of this rule.

Rule absolute.