alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.831-1 Tax on insurance companies (other than life or mutual), mutual marine insurance companies, and mutual fire insurance companies issuing perpetual policies. ( a ) All insurance companies, other than life or mutual or foreign insurance companies not carrying on an insurance business within the United States, and all mutual marine insurance companies and mutual fire insurance companies exclusively issuing either perpetual policies, or policies for which the sole premium charged is a single deposit which, except for such deduction of underwriting costs as may be provided, is refundable upon cancellation or expiration of the policy, are subject to the tax imposed by section 831. As used in this section and §§ 1.832-1 and 1.832-2, the term “insurance companies” means only those companies which qualify as insurance companies under the definition provided by paragraph (b) of § 1.801-1 and which are subject to the tax imposed by section 831.
( b ) All provisions of the Code and of the regulations in this part not inconsistent with the specific provisions of section 831 are applicable to the assessment and collection of the tax imposed by section 831(a), and insurance companies are subject to the same penalties as are provided in the case of returns and payment of income tax by other corporations.
( c ) Since section 832 provides that the underwriting and investment exhibit of the annual statement approved by the National Convention of Insurance Commissioners shall be the basis for computing gross income and since the annual statement is rendered on the calendar year basis, the returns under section 831 shall be made on the basis of the calendar year and shall be on Form 1120. Insurance companies are entitled, in computing insurance company taxable income, to the deductions provided in part VIII (section 241 and following), subchapter B, chapter 1 of the Code.
( d ) Foreign insurance companies not carrying on an insurance business within the United States are not taxable under section 831 but are taxable as other foreign corporations. See section 881.
( e ) Insurance companies are subject to both normal tax and surtax. The normal tax shall be computed as provided in section 11(b) and the surtax shall be computed as provided in section 11(c). For the circumstances under which the $25,000 exemption from surtax for certain taxable years may be disallowed in whole or in part, see section 1551. For alternative tax where the net long-term capital gain for any taxable year exceeds the net short-term capital loss, see section 1201(a) and the regulations thereunder.
MEMO 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

FEB 0 6ZOt5 

OFFICE OF 

SOLID WASTE AND 

EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

Re: Meeting to discuss Smurfit-Stone Mill (Former Frenchtown Mill) NPL Proposed Site 

To: Public Docket 

From: Robert ~xers , Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch 

f~t~ rm~ 

EPA personnel met with several private parties on January 22, 2015 to discuss the Smurfit-Stone Mill site 

in Missoula, MT. The private parties represented current owner M2Green LLC and their consultants, as 

well as representatives from PRP International Paper. The site was proposed to the NPL on May 24, 

2013. EPA has made no decision on whether to finalize the site to the NPL. M2Green presented data and 

a development proposal. Headquarters staff encouraged the private parties to work with EPA Region 8 

in addressing next steps at the Site. No listing decision was made at the meeting. No specific HRS issues 

were discussed. 

A list of participants is included below. 

Attachment: Meeting participants 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclabl e • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
Former Frenchtown Mill Meeting 

llam, 1/22/2015 

Participants: 

EPA Headquarters: 

Douglas Ammon - Chief, Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch 

Dana Stalcup - Acting Division Director, Assessment and Remediation Division. 

Robert Myers - Remedy Decisions Branch 

Terry Jeng - Remedy Decisions Branch 

Jennifer Wendel - Remedy Decisions Branch v" 

Bruce Kulpan - Office of Site Remediation Enforcement. 

EPA Region 8: ./ 

Amelia Piggott / 

Sarah Sparks (by phone) 

Rob Parker (by phone) ;/ 

Sharon Abendschan (by phone) / 

v·'\ ¥-cH\\'--P. , M2Green: J 

Ray Stillwell J 

Chris Cerquone 

David Tooke V . J 

Betsy Temkin (by phone) 

RockTenn: 

Steve Hamilton V 

lnternatior:aJ Pa er: 

Brian Helm · 

Horinko Group: 

Marianne Horinko / 

Brendan Mr.Ginnis \1 

Meeting Location: 

One Potomac Yard (Potomac Yards South) 

2777 S. Crystal Drive 

Arlington. VA 22202 

Public Parking is available in our building. 

Call Doug if no answer when you arrive at the security desk. 

We will have a computer and projector available. 

Please have the presentation available on a USB Drive. 

Call In Information: 

1-866-299-3188 

Code:7033478925#
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  ILay10, 1939 1
Hon. Jay Sar;Levey iisaistaat

Criminal bxar county %,I, **ilitG3%0, TCXBS**  **Dear Sir:**  District Attorney

drives his own truak ia .c,rm.iFos.jay Saz Levey, Hay 10, 1939, Page 2
Section 1 (g) of artiol.6 66S7a of Vernon's kmotated Civil Statutes,reads as follows:

"(g) Chauffmr. Any peraan who operatesa motor VOhiole for any'pmpose,whole or part ti.m, as an emplom, serYantl ag ent, carind6pen4emteontraotor,whet&c paid ia &alary **or aommiaslon;**  an4 wery person who operatesa motor Yehiole while auoh rehlale i8 in use ior h.ire or JaaM."Hon. Jay Sam Levey, PTay10, 1939, Page 3
held that a person who owns md operates a bottling plant,who owns hls own truck registered for 8,000 pounds under the registration law, and who drives and operate8 his truak in making dellveriea ia not *an employee, servant, agent or independentoontraotor*, and, therefore, doea not corn within the first part of the deflnftion applied to a *ohauWeura in paragraph (g) of seotlan 1 or article 6687a,Revised Civil Statwtea, and doss not same within the last part of **tb 4ei2nitiaa**  **beoarpe hiHag**  **er Irsaw**  **ia dnt,**  **in** m,lnt6e6hyZcwfors,the ~lai~~tm~t&reU~

-~u6tQlS& In that 8aw8 th8 4uotla&laa b&woe& **amenuheownsh~mbuaLueuanddri~e8~~** . awntTudk8in ~SeTmmt i puTm-u-*aaaal-~,

~agsntOT tnaam *tTae~.w~ alea~ly ~ia&edod dth a-Slim md **do$$n&** tion& 'II.,

oalf&aoT the hazi&$ng .&a~%hali ops&&m as **authadty** %a the prowat kmtanae, ~:.:

xt %a our .hTtheT eplnian that the grma of 6 tldnaoTmtea pJ.uabineaoapalylmhmh Qparaty UVM tstrakr,a0 dT%YeB on. of us mm 

### traahr,I* net a *uhauaweti4eT attire w37a* mpn,, uhoe oh*%a mitbrqt eaplsaye0,'~aarYant, agent al?au l,Mqand6c-*tra0taT* md; thaTefaT0, *t 11 not aeoeuaTy foT Bltr.toobtaa a ahauffeur*s UaarH;Hon. Jay Sem Levey,May 10, 1939, Page 4Hon. Jay Ssm Levey,May 10, 1939, Page 5

the inquiries in your letter,we are Yours very truly ATl'OIUlEY

G- OF TEXAS
#### § 1.651(a)-5 Estates.

Subpart B has no application to an estate.
#### Bryant v. Bryant

*J. Willison Smith, Jr.,*for plaintiff.

*Lewis T. Moore,*for defendant.

May 29, 1952.

Bok, P. J.,

On July 10, 1951, this court granted a final decree in divorce. On October 10, 1951, defendant appealed to the Superior Court, but as the appeal was not prosecuted, the Superior Court entered a judgment of non pros on April 16, 1952, and remitted the record. On May 5,1952, plaintiff filed her petition for additional counsel fees and expenses.

While we are sympathetic to the obvious suggestion that the appeal was dilatory, we are forced to hold that the current petition was filed too late. The authorities are collected in Baumhauer v. Baumhauer, 44 D. & C. 565 (1942), which squarely decides the point.

It is otherwise when such a petition is pending at the time of final disposition or when it is filed after final decree but pending appeal. The remission of the record is *pro forma*only: the record has to be somewhere, and it is always remitted to the court of first instance after final disposition of an appeal. The conclusion of this appeal leaves the record as it was before, with the final decree as the last act.

The petition is dismissed.
# I n the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

RITA STAUFFER

, * No. 1 3

- 093V

* Special Master Christian J. Moran

Petitioner, *

v. * Filed: May 8 , 2015

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which respondent

* does not object.

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Danielle Strait

, Maglio, Christopher & Toale

, P A

, Washington, D C , for Petitioner;

Michael Milmoe

, U.S. Dep ’ t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS 1

On May 8, 2015, petitioner filed a stipulation of fact concerning final

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above

- captioned matter. Previously, petitioner

informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent

for review. Upon review of petitioner’s application, respondent raised objections

to certain items. Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended her

application to request $24,490.00, an amount to which respondent does not object.

The Court awards this amount.

On February 1 , 2013

, Rita Stauffer filed a petition for compensation alleging

that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine , which she received on September 6 , 2011

, caused her to suffer Guillain

- Barré Syndrome (“GBS”)

. Petitioner received

compensation based upon th e parties’ stipulation. Decision , filed Dec. 18 , 2014

. Because petitioner received compensation, she is entitled to an award of attorneys’

fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

1 T he E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17,

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b),

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical inf ormation or other

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special

master will appear in the document posted on the website.2

Petitioner seeks a total of $ 24,490 .00 in attorneys’ fees and costs for her

counsel. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states

that she incurred no out

- of

- pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this claim.

Respondent has no objection to the amount requested fo r attorneys’ fees and costs.

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $ 24,490 .00 in the form of a check made payable to

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Danielle A. Strait, Esq., of the law

firm Maglio, Christoph er & Toale, P A, 1605 Main Street, Suite 710,

Sarasota, Florida 34236, for attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs

available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this

matter. The Clerk s hall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Christina Gervasi , at (202)

357

- 6 360

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

November 25, 2014

h1117 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2014

148376(19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148376

COA: 315335

Wayne CC: 09

- 003770

- FC

DOUGLAS C. JACKSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 24, 2014

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
§ 1.9004-4 Manner of exercising election. ( a ) *By whom election is to be made.* Generally, the taxpayer whose tax liability is affected by the election shall make the election. In the case of a partnership, or a corporation electing under the provisions of subchapter S, chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the election shall be exercised by the partnership or such corporation, as the case may be.
( b ) *Time and manner of making election.* The election shall be made on or before December 11, 1961, by filing a statement with the district director with whom the taxpayer's income tax return for the taxable year in which the election is made is required to be filed. The statement shall include the following: ( 1 ) A clear indication that an election is being made under the Act, and
( 2 ) The taxable years to which the election applies.
Amended income tax returns reflecting any increase or decrease in tax attributable to the election shall be filed for the taxable years to which the election applies. In the case of partnerships and electing small business corporations under subchapter S, chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, amended returns shall be filed by the partnership or electing small business corporation, as well as by the partners or shareholders, as the case may be. Any amended return shall be filed with the office of the district director with whom the taxpayer files his income tax return for the taxable year in which the election is made and, if practicable, on the same date the statement of election is filed, but amended returns shall be filed in no event later than March 31, 1962, unless an extension of time is granted under section 6081 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Whenever the amended returns do not accompany the statement of election, a copy of the statement shall be submitted with the amended returns. The amended returns shall be accompanied by payment of the additional tax (together with interest thereon) resulting from the election. (75 Stat. 674, 26 U.S.C. 613 note)
[T.D. 6575, 26 FR 9633, Oct. 12, 1961]
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Dennis E. Bunday, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Williams Controls Inc.;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

 

| Date:  May 10, 2005 | /s/ DENNIS E. BUNDAY |
|---------------------|----------------------|

Dennis E. Bunday

Chief Financial Officer
NO. 07-07 -014 6-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C MA Y15, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ D U TC H G IR L OF TE X

AS , IN C ., E T A L, A PP EL LA N TS V. HR H OF AM AR ILLO, APP ELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 47 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 90, 114-A; H ON ORABLE HA L M IN ER , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON By lette r dated A p ri l 1 7, 20 07, this Court directe d App ellant , Dutch Girl of Te x as, Inc ., et al , to pa y

the re q uired fil ing fee of $125 w it hin t e n d a ys. The Cou rtnote d tha t failu re to do s o mi g ht resul t i n di smi ss al pursuantto Rul e 42. 3( c)of the Texas Rul es of App ellate Proced ure. Unless a party is excused from paying a f iling fee, the Clerk of this2

Court is required to collect f iling fees set by stat ute o r th e Sup reme Court w hen an item is present ed for fili ng . See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 5 and 12. 1( b) . Alt houg h the f il ing of a noti ce of appeal i nv okesthi s C our t’ s j ur isd ict io n , i f a par ty fail s t o foll ow

the presc ri bed r ule s o f app ellate proced ure, th e ap pea l may be dismisse d. T ex. R . App . P. 25 .1(b). Conse quently, becau se the f iling fee rem ains un paid , w e mu st dismiss th e ap pea l. Acc ordin g ly , the appeal is dismi ss ed for fail ure to compl y

w it h the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Pro ce d u re and w it h a n oti ce from the Cl er k req uir ing pay ment of the fili ng fee w ithin te n da ys. Te x . R. App. P. 42. 3(c). Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice
| (logo) usbank  | All of **us** serving you |
|---------------------|---------------------------|

 

 

**Annual Statement ofCompliance**

MSJP 2015-HAUL

 

*VIA: EMAIL*

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10036

Attention: Stephen Holmes

stephen.holmes@morganstanley.com

 

 

Re: Trust and ServicingAgreement dated as of October 1, 2015 (the “Agreement”) betweenMorgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Servicer and Special Servicer, and U.S. Bank NationalAssociation, as Certificate Administrator and Trustee.

 

I, Kimberly O. Jacobs, a SeniorVice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator,as a certifying servicer hereby certify that:

 

(1) A review of the activitiesof the Certificate Administrator during the preceding calendar year (the“Reporting Period”) and of the performance of the CertificateAdministrator under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

 

(2) To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Certificate Administrator has fulfilledall its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutsuch Reporting Period. 

 

Capitalized terms used but notdefined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.

 

 

Date: March 7, 2017

 

U.S. Bank NationalAssociation, as Certificate Administrator

 

By: /s/ Kimberly O. Jacobs 

Kimberly O. Jacobs

Senior Vice President
exv10wxly



 





Exhibit 10(l)




Directors’ Compensation Arrangements




     At its meeting on December 6, 2006, our Board of Directors, at the recommendation of the
Compensation Committee, approved an increase to the annual retainer fee for our non-employee
directors to $40,000 from $35,000, effective January 1, 2007. In addition, our non-employee
directors receive $2,000 per board meeting attended and $1,000 per telephone conference attended,
including, as of the fourth quarter of 2005, a $1,000 fee for meetings or conferences attended as
part of their duties as a board or committee member. The Chairman of the Compensation Committee is
also paid an additional fee of $5,000 per year, and effective January 1, 2007, the additional fee
for the non-executive Chairman of the Board was increased from $5,000 per year to $20,000 per year.
The Chairman of the Audit Committee is paid an additional fee of $20,000 per year and the other
Audit Committee members are paid an additional annual retainer of $5,000 for serving on the Audit
Committee. The members of the Audit Committee may also receive an additional $5,000 per year fee
for performing special services. The only such award to date has been to Mr. Heather, who performs
review work on our annual reserve report and began receiving this additional fee in the fourth
quarter of 2002.



     The Company’s Director Plan allows each non-employee director to make a quarterly election to
receive his or her compensation either in cash or in shares of our common stock (see Exhibit 10(g)
to this Report).



     During the period between August 2004 and January 2005, we issued to each non-employee
director 20,000 shares of restricted stock that vest over a period of five years, 20% per annum.
As per the terms of the agreement, the Company retains 60% of the shares as they vest, with such
shares to be released when the director separates from the Company. The remaining 40% are issued
to the director on the vesting dates.



     During 2005 and 2006, we granted each non-employee director stock options or stock appreciation
rights payable in common stock (“SARs”). These awards cliff vest four years from the date of grant
and have an exercise price equal to the closing market price on the date of grant. Each director
received 6,000 stock options in January 2005 and 3,000 SARs in February 2006 as part of their
annual grants for that year. In January 2007, we gave each non-employee director 2,000 additional
shares of restricted stock that cliff vest three years from the date of grant in lieu of any
additional stock options or SARs. As per the terms of the restricted stock agreements, the Company
retains 60% of the shares when they vest, with such shares to be released when the director
separates from the Company. The remaining 40% are issued to the director on the vesting date.
§ 1.641(a)-2 Gross income of estates and trusts. The gross income of an estate or trust is determined in the same manner as that of an individual. Thus, the gross income of an estate or trust consists of all items of gross income received during the taxable year, including: ( a ) Income accumulated in trust for the benefit of unborn or unascertained persons or persons with contingent interests;
( b ) Income accumulated or held for future distribution under the terms of the will or trust;
( c ) Income which is to be distributed currently by the fiduciary to the beneficiaries, and income collected by a guardian of an infant which is to be held or distributed as the court may direct;
( d ) Income received by estates of deceased persons during the period of administration or settlement of the estate; and
( e ) Income which, in the discretion of the fiduciary, may be either distributed to the beneficiaries or accumulated. The several classes of income enumerated in this section do not exclude others which also may come within the general purposes of section 641.