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.

§ 301.7701(b)-5 Coordination with section 877. ( a ) *General rule.* An alien individual will be subject to United States income tax in the manner provided by section 877, regardless of whether the individual has a tax avoidance motive, if— ( 1 ) The alien individual is a resident alien of the United States for at least three consecutive calendar years (the initial residency period) beginning after December 31, 1984;
( 2 ) The period of residence for each of the three consecutive calendar years includes at least 183 days;
( 3 ) The alien is once again taxed as a nonresident (including an individual taxed as a nonresident) under § 301.7701(b)-7(a)(1); and
( 4 ) The alien then becomes a resident of the United States before the close of the third calendar year beginning after the individual's residency termination date in the initial residency period.
( b ) *Tax imposed.* The tax provided for under paragraph (a) of this section will be imposed for the intervening period of nonresidency only if the amount of tax would exceed the amount of tax that would be imposed under section 871, relating to the taxation of nonresident aliens.
( c ) *Example.* The following example illustrates the application of this section.
Example. B, a citizen of foreign country F, enters the United States on April 1, 1985, as a lawful permanent resident. On August 1, 1987, B ceases to be a lawful permanent resident and returns to country F. B meets the initial residency period requirement because he is a resident of the United States for at least 183 days in each of three consecutive years (1985, 1986 and 1987). B returns to the United States on October 5, 1990, as a lawful permanent resident. Because B became a resident of the United States before the close of the third calendar year (1990) beginning after the close of the initial residency period (August 1, 1987), he is subject to tax under section 877(b) for the intervening period of nonresidency, August 2, 1987 through October 4, 1990, if the amount of the tax imposed under section 877 is more than the tax imposed under section 871.
[T.D. 8411, 57 FR 15250, Apr. 27, 1992]
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ex parte Joseph Gomez

Appellate case number: 01

- 20

- 00004

- CR & 01

- 20

- 00005

- C R

Trial court case number: 1657519 & 1657521

Trial court: 338th District Court of Harr is County

Appellant Joseph Gomez filed a motion asking this Court to designate the opinion in this case for publication.

Rule 19.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure pe rmits a n appellate court w hose ple nary power has exp ired t o order its opinion p ublished in a ccordance with Rule 47. See T EX

. R

. A PP

. P. 19.3, 47. Rule 47.2(b) requires that a majority of the panel designate the opinion as

“ publish ” or “ do not pu blish ” before it is handed down. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). It further provides : “ Any party may move the appellate court to change the notation, but the court of appeals must not change the notation after the Court of Criminal Appeals has acted on a ny party ’ s petition for discretionary review or other request for relief. ” Id. In addition, the “ Co urt of Criminal Appeals may, at any time, order that a ‘ do not publish ’ not ation be changed to

‘ pub lish

. ’ ” Id.

This Court ’ s ple nary power expired when the State filed a petition for discretionary

review. See Vidales v. State , 471 S.W.3d 457, 458 ( Tex. Crim . App. 2015) (holding that court of appeals does not retain plenary jurisdiction after a petition for review is filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 19.2 ( providing that plenary power of court of appeals continu es after the fil ing of a petition for re view in the Supreme Court but not extending

the rule to the Court o f Criminal Appeals ). In addition, the Court of C riminal Appe als issued an order gr anting the State ’ s motion to recall the mandates in th ese cases.Because the Court of Criminal Appeals has acted on a party ’ s request for relief, Rule 47

does not au thorize this Court to designate the opinion in this case for publi cation. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Because we otherwise lack plenary power, we di smiss this motion.

It i s so ORDERED

.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Peter Kelly

__________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Landau.

Date: September 10, 2020
**Mudd
      (USA) LLC**


**1407
      Broadway, 29** **th** **Floor**


**New
      York, New York 10018**





April
      11,
      2006





Iconix
      Brand Group, Inc.


1450
      Broadway, 4 th Floor


New
      York,
      NY 10018


Attention:
      Deborah Stehr, Esq.


Senior
      Vice President and General Counsel





Ladies
      and Gentlemen:





Reference
      is made to the Asset Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”), dated as of
      March 31, 2006, between Iconix Brand Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation and
      Mudd (USA) LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. All capitalized terms
      used
      herein and not otherwise defined shall having the meaning given such terms
      in
      the Purchase Agreement. This letter agreement confirms our understanding with
      respect to the amendments to the Purchase Agreement set forth
      below.




The
      Cash
      Consideration provided for under Section 3.2(i) of the Purchase Agreement has
      changed from $45,500,000 to $45,000,000. To effect such change, Section 3.2(i)
      is hereby deleted and restated in its entirety as follows:




“(i) Forty-Five
      Million Dollars ($45,000,000) payable in immediately available funds by wire
      transfer to one or more accounts designated by Seller on the Closing Date (the
      “Cash Consideration”),”




The
      first
      paragraph of Section 15.1(2) is hereby deleted and restated in its entirety
      as
      follows:




“(1)
      If
      to Seller;




Mudd
      (USA), LLC


1407
      Broadway, 29 th Floor


New
      York,
      New York 10018


Attention:
      Richard Gilbert”





Except
      as
      expressly amended hereby, the Purchase Agreement remains in full force and
      effect.




This
      Letter Agreement shall be construed pursuant to the laws of the State of New
      York without giving effect to conflict of laws provisions. This Letter Agreement
      may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered
      one and the same agreement, and shall become effective when one or more
      counterparts have been signed by each of the parties hereto and delivered,
      in
      person, or by telecopier, receipt acknowledged, to the other party
      hereto.










If
      the
      foregoing correctly states the agreement between the parties, please countersign
      this letter agreement in the space indicated below, whereupon this letter shall
      constitute a binding agreement between the parties.







MUDD
      (USA)
      LLC


/s/
      Conrad H.
      Lung


Name:
      Conrad H.
      Lung


Title:
      President





ACKNOWLEDGED
      AND AGREED:





ICONIX
      BRAND GROUP, INC.








By:  /s/
      Neil Cole


Name:


Title:
      CEO
www.gpo.gov

### §286e–1a. Increase in capital stock of Bank

The United States Governor of the Bank is authorized to vote for an increase of $1,000,000,000 in the authorized capital stock of the Bank under article II, section 2, of the articles of agreement of the Bank, as recommended in the report, dated November 6, 1962, to the Board of Governors of the Bank by the Bank's Executive Directors.

(July 31, 1945, ch. 339, §19, as added Pub. L. 88–178, Nov. 13, 1963, 77 Stat. 334.)
###### 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.

#### § 301.6501(n)-2 Certain contributions to section 501(c)(3) organizations.

If a private foundation makes a contribution to a section 501(c)(3) organization as provided in section 4942(g)(3), and a deficiency of tax of such foundation occurs due to the failure of the section 501(c)(3) organization to make the distribution prescribed by section 4942(g)(3), then such deficiency may be assessed within one year after the expiration of the period within which a deficiency may be assessed for the taxable year with respect to which the contribution was made.

[T.D. 7838, 47 FR 44251, Oct. 7, 1982]
Department of Pesticide Regulation 

Edmund G. Brown Jr. 

Governor 

1001 I Street • P.O. Box 4015 • Sacramento, California 95812-4015 • www.cdpr.ca.gov

A Department of the California Environmental Protection Agency 

 Printed on recycled paper, 100% post-consumer--processed chlorine-free. 

July 28, 2011 

Mr. Andrew Steckel 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

Mail Code AIR-4 

San Francisco, California 94105-3901 

Dear Mr. Steckel: 

California’s ozone State Implementation Plan for the federal Clean Air Act contains a pesticide 

element that requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to develop and maintain an 

emission inventory to track volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from pesticides, and to 

reduce pesticide VOC emissions by specified levels in specified ozone nonattainment areas. In 

October 2009, the Air Resources Board submitted DPR’s State Implementation Plan 

amendments and three sets of regulations for reducing VOC emissions from fumigants to the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). To assist U.S. EPA with its review, the 

attached document contains more detailed information than previously submitted on DPR’s 

evaluation of fumigation methods, and information on other potential pesticide VOC reduction 

measures. Additionally, this document includes more recent emission inventory data. This 

document is an update of the original version dated June 1, 2011, and includes information on 

the two additional sets of pesticide VOC regulations submitted to U.S. EPA this month. 

Please contact me if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Original signed by 

Randy Segawa 

Environmental Program Manager 

Environmental Monitoring Branch 

916-324-4137 

cc: see next page 
Mr. Andrew Steckel 

August 28, 2011 

Page 2 

cc: Mr. Charles M. Andrews, DPR Associate Director 

 Marylou Verder-Carlos, DPR Assistant Director 

 Ms. Polly Frenkel, DPR Chief Counsel

 John S. Sanders, Ph.D., DPR Environmental Program Manager 

 Ms. Karen Magliano, Air Resources Board 

Mr. Kerry Drake, U.S. EPA Associate Director 

 Ms. Nancy Levin, U.S. EPA
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6768

DENNIS RODGER DAVIS, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. TONYA JAMES, Warden KER CI (Official Capacity) , Respondent

- Appellee , and
BRYAN P. STERLING, Director SCDC (Official Capacity); JEANNINE PRICE, Case Manager KER CI (Official Capacity) , Respondents

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. ( 0:19

- cv - 02720

- JD )

Submitted : January 4, 2023 Decided: January 17, 2023

Before WYNN and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Dennis Rodger Davis, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6768 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/17/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Dennis Rodger Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge as modified and d ismissing his 28 U.S .C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a const itutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment
of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, __, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v.
Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability , deny the motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres ented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 21-6768 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/17/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Copyright © 1997 Global Compliance, LLC. A LL RIGHTS RESERVED. 

## Basics Case No: 12-008-U - Flint Creek Retrofit Date Entered: 05/07/2012 12:03:42 PM Party/Requestor: APSC Staff Date Received: 05/04/2012 Date Requested: 05/04/2012 Internal Due Date: 05/16/2012 Service Due Date: 05/21/2012 Answer Status: New Service Date: 

## Question No: 19 Regarding Exhibit SCW-5: Please explain why an SCR was assumed necessary in Option #2. Specify the environmental regulations that would necessitate SCR, and why SCR was chosen over other retrofit options.

Answer: An SCR was assumed to be required at a gas-converted Flint Creek facility due to the need to achieve 1) US EPA could significantly lower the ozone national ambient air quality standard during its next review of this standard in 2013. A lower ozone standard would ultimately lead to additional NOx reductions to meet that standard. Additional reductions in NOx emissions may also be required by a second phase of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule. SCR technology would mitigate this risk. 2) US EPA did not approve Arkansas' Regional Haze SIP for NOx and has directed ADEQ to require BART-eligible sources in Arkansas to perform a BART analysis (5 factor analysis) in which SCR must be included. At the time of filing, it was uncertain whether the BART analysis will eliminate SCR as BART and whether EPA would accept this analysis if it did eliminate SCR. For consistency, note that an SCR was assumed--for modeling purposes only--to be included in the retrofit option for largely the same reasons. Also note also that the cost of the SCR --estimated at approximately only $125/kW, or $29 million (SWEPCO share)-- is in-line with the type of SCR tecnology required for a gas-fired facility.

Advanced Date Verified: Date Accepted: Confidential: No Yes Attachments:Copyright © 1997 Global Compliance, LLC. A LL RIGHTS RESERVED. Voluminous: No Yes Highly Sensitive: No Yes
Comments:

Preparer(s): Henry C Steele Witness: Scott C Weaver

Modification History Created by Scott C Weaver Created on 05/16/2012 10:41:59 AM Modified on 05/18/2012 02:32:47 PM Edit History 3. Scott C Weaver 05/18/2012 02:32:34 PM 2. Edward J Locigno 05/17/2012 02:51:41 PM 1. Scott C Weaver 05/16/2012 10:51:30 AM
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 4,
2015 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2015-4 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes
by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith. The capitalized terms used
herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate
Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.



|    |  |                                         |  |  |  |                      
|--- |  | --------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Connie Coffey                       |  |  |  | Dated: March 15, 2018
|    |  | Connie Coffey                           |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |
# L_2021382DE.01006101.xml

| 28.10.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 382/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 382/61

---

Berichtigung der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2019/2122 der Kommission vom 10. Oktober 2019 zur Ergänzung der Verordnung (EU) 2017/625 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates hinsichtlich bestimmter Kategorien von Tieren und Waren, die von amtlichen Kontrollen an Grenzkontrollstellen ausgenommen sind, hinsichtlich besonderer Kontrollen des persönlichen Gepäcks von Fahrgästen bzw. Passagieren und von für natürliche Personen bestimmten Kleinsendungen von Waren, die nicht in Verkehr gebracht werden sollen, sowie zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 142/2011 der Kommission

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 321 vom 12. Dezember 2019
  )

Seite 59, Anhang III Absatz 1 Satz 3:

Anstatt:

„Diese Verfahren gelten allerdings nicht für die Ein- und Ausfuhr tierischer Erzeugnisse in die/aus den EU-Mitgliedstaaten sowie für die Einfuhr geringer Mengen tierischer Erzeugnisse für den eigenen Verbrauch aus Andorra, Liechtenstein, Norwegen, San Marino und der Schweiz.“

muss es heißen:

„Diese Verfahren gelten allerdings nicht für die Ein- und Ausfuhr tierischer Erzeugnisse in die/aus den EU-Mitgliedstaaten sowie für die Einfuhr geringer Mengen tierischer Erzeugnisse für den eigenen Verbrauch aus Andorra, Island, Liechtenstein, Norwegen, San Marino und der Schweiz.“

---
For 2014 RFS FRM docket

Meeting Between Fuels America and Administrator McCarthy

Date: January 14, 2014

Attendees:

EPA: Administrator McCarthy, Benjamin Hengst, Paul Argyropoulos, Michael Geller, Sarah 

Bittleman

Raffaella Cristanetti, Dupont

Nick Yaksich, AEM

Roger Johnson, NFU

Bob Dineen, RFA

Chris Standlee, Abengoa

Brent Erickson, BIO

David Woodruff, ADM

Tom Buis, Growth Energy

Jonathan Lehman, Mascoma

Kyle Gilley, POET

Catharine Ransom, Fuels America/Glover Park Group

Jeff Lautt, POET

Brooke Coleman, AEC

Summary: representatives from the biofuel industry expressed their concerns regarding the 2014 

RFS volume proposal, stating that the proposal had produced a chilling effect on the biofuel 

industry.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for JPMCC Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2016-JP4 CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-JP4

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of December 1, 2016 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(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 of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
 On June 28, 2012, upon the recommendation of the
Compensation & Benefits Committee, the Board of Directors of First BanCorp (the “Corporation”) approved the following revised compensation structure for non-employee directors, effective July 1, 2012. 

Cash Compensation 
 Non-employee
directors of the Corporation will receive the following cash compensation: 
  

	 	•	 	 $75,000 annual cash retainer; $25,000 additional annual cash retainer for the Chair of the Audit Committee; 



 

	 	•	 	 $20,000 additional annual cash retainer for the Chair of the Credit Committee; 



 

	 	•	 	 $5,000 additional annual cash retainer for the Chairs of the Compensation and Benefits, Corporate Governance and Nominating, Asset/Liability and
Compliance Committees; and 


  

	 	•	 	 $5,000 additional annual cash retainer for each member, other than the Chair, of the Credit and Audit Committees. 



The annual cash retainers will be payable on a monthly basis over a twelve-month period beginning on July 1, 2012. 

Equity Compensation 
 Each non-employee
director will be awarded an annual equity grant of Restricted Stock, which grant will be awarded subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the First BanCorp 2008 Omnibus Incentive Plan, as amended December 9, 2012, and subject to a
one-year vesting period. 
 The Board of Directors also approved a reduction in the director stock ownership requirements from shares of the
Corporation’s Common Stock having a fair market value of $250,000 to shares having a fair market value of $150,000, which ownership must be attained within a three-year period from commencement of Board services.