alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54544, Sept. 26, 2007.

§ 10.77 Appeal of decision of Administrative Law Judge. ( a ) *Appeal.* Any party to the proceeding under this subpart D may appeal the decision of the Administrative Law Judge by filing a notice of appeal with the Secretary of the Treasury, or delegate deciding appeals. The notice of appeal must include a brief that states exceptions to the decision of Administrative Law Judge and supporting reasons for such exceptions.
( b ) *Time and place for filing of appeal.* The notice of appeal and brief must be filed, in duplicate, with the Secretary of the Treasury, or delegate deciding appeals, at an address for appeals that is identified to the parties with the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. The notice of appeal and brief must be filed within 30 days of the date that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is served on the parties. The appealing party must serve a copy of the notice of appeal and the brief to any non-appealing party or, if the party is represented, the non-appealing party's representative.
( c ) *Response.* Within 30 days of receiving the copy of the appellant's brief, the other party may file a response brief with the Secretary of the Treasury, or delegate deciding appeals, using the address identified for appeals. A copy of the response brief must be served at the same time on the opposing party or, if the party is represented, the opposing party's representative.
( d ) *No other briefs, responses or motions as of right.* Other than the appeal brief and response brief, the parties are not permitted to file any other briefs, responses or motions, except on a grant of leave to do so after a motion demonstrating sufficient cause, or unless otherwise ordered by the Secretary of the Treasury, or delegate deciding appeals.
( e ) *Additional time for briefs and responses.* Notwithstanding the time for filing briefs and responses provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury, or delegate deciding appeals, may, for good cause, authorize additional time for filing briefs and responses upon a motion of a party or upon the initiative of the Secretary of the Treasury, or delegate deciding appeals.
( f ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable beginning August 2, 2011.
[T.D. 9527, 76 FR 32310, June 3, 2011]
39953.

#### CLARK et al. v. KAYLOR, Commissioner.

Per Curiam.

The Supreme Court of Georgia in *Clark v. Kaylor,*219 Ga. 256 (132 SE2d 778), although reversing the judgment of this court in *Clark v. Kaylor,*107 Ga. App. 503 (130 SE2d 617), nevertheless, interpreted and utilized the holdings in *Keen v. Laurens County,*214 Ga. 32 (102 SE2d 697), in a manner identical to the way this court construed and applied them. The reversal was rendered necessary by the Act approved on February 12, 1960, Ga. L. 1960, p. 107, amending *Code Ann.*§ 92-5301, which this court overlooked and which, as the latest expression of the General Assembly on the issue, takes precedence over the Act approved January 27, 1960, Ga. L. 1960, p. 2019.

In view of the holding by the Supreme Court and of this court, each following the *Keen*case to the effect that the latest expression of the General Assembly controls with respect to compensation to be paid tax commissioners, it is germane to suggest in order to protect the effectiveness of any Act passed by the General Assembly fixing differently the compensation of any particular county tax commissioner, that consideration be given to the advisability of amending *Code Ann.*§ 92-5301 or other pertinent statute so as to expressly exclude the county officer concerned. This is important as there may be extant other pre-existing statutes authorizing a different compensation which may have been nullified by the Act approved February 12, 1960, Ga. L. 1960, p. 107, or which may be negated by future amendments or re-enactments.

Obedient to the mandate of the Supreme Court, the judgment of *689this court in *Clark v. Kaylor,*107 Ga. App. 503, supra, is vacated, and the judgment of the trial court is

Decided November 19, 1963.

*Stafford R. Brooke,*for plaintiff in error.

*Adams & McDonald, Ernest McDonald,*contra.

*Reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., Hall and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (a) | A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 has been made under my supervision. |

|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period. |

|                                                                                                                          |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                          |
| /s/ Sumito Mulchandani                                                                                                   |
| Sumito MulchandaniAssistant Treasurer ofFord Motor Credit Company LLC,as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2017-A |
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.

§ 301.6805-1 Redemption of stamps. ( a ) *Authorization.* ( 1 ) Upon receipt of satisfactory evidence of the facts by the district director or director of the service center, he may make allowance for or redeem stamps issued under the authority of any internal revenue law if— ( i ) The stamps have been spoiled, destroyed, or rendered useless or unfit for the purpose intended, or
( ii ) The owner of the stamps has no use therefor.
( 2 ) If a stamp has been in use for any period of time, it may not be redeemed under section 6805. Similarly, no allowance shall be made for stamps which have been lost or stolen.
( b ) *Method and conditions of allowance.* Such allowance or redemption may be made, either by giving other stamps in lieu of the stamps so allowed for or redeemed, or by refunding the amount or value to the owner thereof, deducting therefrom, in case of repayment, the percentage, if any, allowed to the purchaser thereof. Claims for the redemption of or allowance for stamps shall be made on Form 843 and filed with the district director or director of the service center within three years from the date of the purchase of the stamps from the Government. The stamps for which redemption or allowance is claimed shall be submitted with the claim. If the stamps are destroyed or damaged to the extent that they cannot be presented for redemption or allowance, proof satisfactory to the district director or director of the service center that they have been destroyed or so damaged must accompany the claim before allowance or redemption shall be made. In any case where the actual date of purchase of the stamps from the Government cannot be established, it must be definitely shown in the claim whether they were so purchased within three years prior to the date of filing of the claim.
( c ) *Time for filing claims.* No claim for the redemption of, or allowance for, stamps shall be allowed under this section unless presented within 3 years after the purchase of such stamps from the Government.
( d ) *Finality of decisions.* The findings of fact in and the decision of the district director or director of the service center upon the merits of any claim presented under or authorized by this section, shall in the absence of fraud or mistake in mathematical calculation, be final and not subject to revision by any accounting officer.
[T.D. 7188, 37 FR 12795, June 29, 1972]
#### § 34.800 General.

This subpart describes procedures applicable to grant agreements used by Treasury, the Council (including Federal agencies carrying out responsibilities for the Council), NOAA, Gulf Coast States, coastal political subdivisions, and coastal zone parishes in making awards under subparts D, E, F, G, and H of this part. It also describes Treasury's authority to inspect records and the Treasury Inspector General's authority under the Act.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 351.32 How are redemption values calculated for Series EE bonds with issue dates of May 1, 1997, through April 1, 2005? ( a ) *Formula for redemption value.* We determine the redemption value of a bond for the accrual date (the first day of each month beginning with the fourth month from the issue date) in accordance with this section and the following formula: FV = PV × {[1 + (i ÷ 2)](m/6)} where FV (future value) = redemption value on redemption date rounded to the nearest cent. PV (present value) = redemption value at the beginning of the semiannual rate period i = savings bonds rate converted to decimal form by dividing by 100. m = number of full calendar months outstanding during the semiannual rate period.[1]
( b ) *Value of bonds at original maturity* — ( 1 ) *Definitive bond.* At original maturity, the redemption value of a definitive bond shall not be less than the face amount/denomination of the bond.
( 2 ) *Book-entry bond.* At original maturity, the redemption value of a book-entry bond shall not be less than double the purchase price of the bond.
Footnotes -
351.32
[1] The following hypothetical example illustrates how this formula is applied: Example, assume a hypothetical savings bonds rate of 5.00% effective May 1, 2002, for a bond denominated at $25, with an issue date of September 1, 1997 and a redemption value of $16.00 as of September 1, 2002. The February 1, 2003, redemption value is calculated as follows: Bonds issue dated in September have semiannual rate periods beginning each March 1 and September 1. The first semiannual rate period to begin on or after the effective date of the May 1, 2002, rate would be the period beginning September 1, 2002. PV, the present value, would be the value of the bond at the beginning of the semiannual rate period, on September 1, 2002. The savings bonds rate of 5.00% converted to a decimal would be 0.05. The number of months, m, is 5 since 5 full calendar months (September through January) have lapsed since the beginning of the rate period. FV is then the result of the formula: FV = $16.00 × {[1 + (0.05 ÷ 2)](5/6)} = $16.33 after rounding to the nearest cent. Using the example, the FV of a savings bond with a $50 or larger denomination can be determined by applying the appropriate multiple, for example: $16.33 × ($50.00/$25.00) for a bond with a $50.00 face amount; or $16.33 × ($100.00/$25.00) for a bond with a $100.00 face amount.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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

The undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer of Texas Eastern Products
Pipeline Company, LLC, the sole general partner of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. (the
Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, filed
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TEPPCO Partners, L.P.
and will be retained by TEPPCO Partners, L.P. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

October 29, 2003
Date

/s/ CHARLES H. LEONARD
Charles H. Leonard
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company, LLC, General Partner
EXHIBIT 99.1

                      CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Kenneth R. Rezendes, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Edward
Bernardo, Jr. Vice President and Treasurer of Slade's Ferry Bancorp (the
"Company"), each hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Axley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of his
knowledge:

      1)    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
            quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13(2) or 15(d) of the Securities
            Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d); and

      2)    the information contained in Form 10-Q fairly represents in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company.


August 13, 2002                        /s/ Kenneth R. Rezendes
--------------------                   ------------------------------------
(Date)                                 (Signature)      Kenneth R. Rezendes
                                          President/Chief Executive Officer



August 13, 2002                        /s/ Edward Bernardo Jr.
--------------------                   ------------------------------------
(Date)                                 (Signature)      Edward Bernardo Jr.
                                                   Vice President/Treasurer
                                                   Chief Financial Officer/
                                                   Chief Accounting Officer
### STATEOPMISSISSIPPI WY B~UR Gowon MISSISSIPPIDEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENTALQUAJ.,llY TRUOY D. FISHER. ErrCm~ DI~R 

# I September 22, 2008

Mr. James I. Palmer, Jr. Regional Administrator U 

### 3.Environmental ProtectionAgency 61 Forsyth Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 Dear Mr. Palmer: Re; Regional 

### Haze SIP Revision Enclosed is a State ImplementationPlan (SIP) Revision for the Control of Air Pollution (including the Technical Support Document) 

### Concerning federal regional haze program requirements. We are transmitting, under separate cover, additional copies and an electronic copy on compact disk to Dick Schutt of your agency. The SIP Revision involves regional haze and visibility improvement in Federal Class I areas. The SIP Revision is a non-regulatory revision. No changes to state air pollution control regulations are involved. The SIP Revision was adopted on August 28, 2008, by the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality. The SIP Revision will become effective on October 4,2008. We certify that this SIPrevisionhas been completed in accordance with the Mississippi Administrative ProceduresAct and the Mississippi Pollution Control Law. We further certify that a public hearing was held on July 16, 2008, to receive comments regarding the SIP Revision. We feel that this SIPrevision submittal is complete. Therefore, we request approval of this SIP revision by the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency.

### If you have any questions, please call me or Maya Rao ofmy staff at 601-961-5171.



### TDF/MR:jar Enclosure cc: Ms. Beverly Banister, Director Air, Pesticides, and Toxics ManagementDivision U.S. 

### EPA, RegionIV
Page 2 of 3 to determine the scope of work necessary to support Registration Revi ew. In addition, HED conducted an open search to look for new literature re levant to the human-health risk assessment.

“BASF” and “The Physicians Committee for Re sponsible Medicine” have submitted responses to the Chlorfenapyr Docket (Docket ID : EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0467) regarding HED’s humanhealth risk assessment scoping document for chlorfenapyr.

CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

The Agency thanks “BASF,” and “The Physic ians Committee for Responsible Medicine” for their comments regarding HED’s human-hea lth risk assessment scoping document for chlorfenapyr. The Agency has considered thes e comments and will utiliz e them, along with any newly available data, during the Regi stration Review of chlorfenapyr.

DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS

BASF to the Office of Pesticid e Programs (OPP) Regulatory P ublic Docket. “Registration Review; Chlorfenapyr Docket Opened for Review and Comment. Docket Number: EPAHQ-OPP-2010-0467.” 23 June 2010.

“BASF’s” comment: BASF has previously submitted a 28-day Dermal Toxicity study (466547020) and a 90-day Inhalation Toxic ity study (46654701) for chlorfenapyr.

HED’s Response : RAB1 confirms that the studies have been submitted, and they are currently

under review.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P). “Registration Review; Chlorfenapyr Docket Opened for Review and Comment. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0467.” 23 June

2010.

“The Physicians Committee For Re sponsible Medicine’s” comment: In advance of performing the 28-day dermal toxicity study, we urge the ag ency and the registrants to consider whether extrapolating from oral toxicity values is possible, given the curre nt knowledge of the chemical’s dermal absorption factor and local effects. The agency should consider requesting in vitro dermal penetration testing (see OECD Test Guid eline 428 for example) to confirm this estimate of the extent of dermal penetration likely for Chlorfenapyr, instead of in vivo dermal penetration.

Results can also be confirmed us ing bridging data from other appr opriate pyrroles. While such a strategy will not be appropriate in all cases, asse ssing potential (lack of) dermal penetration is one strategy to avoid systemic dermal testing fo r cases where penetration of the material, and thus resultant systemic toxi city, is inconsequential.

HED’s Response : Since the drafting of the most recen t scoping document for chlorfenapyr, the new 28-day Dermal toxicity study has been submitt ed and identified in our databases. It is currently under review, and this study will impact future registrations for chlorfenapyr. With the incorporation of this route-specific study into fu ture hazard assessments, we don’t anticipate thePage 3 of 3 need for the data recommended in the letter from “The Physicians Committee for Responsible

Medicine.”

cc: Anwar Y. Dunbar (RAB1) RDI: D. Vogel (04-NOV-10) Anwar Y. Dunbar: S10952:PY-S:(703)603-0611:7509P:RAB1
#### In the Matter of the Assignment of Robert S. Orsor to Theodore Smith for the Benefit of Creditors.

[Special Term.]

(Decided June 4th, 1879.)

An assignee for the benefit of creditors who continues the business of the assignors at a loss, is chargeable with the full value of the assets originally received, and is to be allowed the expenses of getting them in, but nothing for his losses.

Where, after an assignment for benefit of creditors, a composition is entered into, creditors who refuse to join in the composition are entitled, on the final accounting of the assignee, only to the proportion they, in common with all the creditors, would have received of the assets had no composition been made.

Application to confirm the report of a referee upon the final accounting of an assignee under a general assignment for the benefit of creditors.

The accounting was ordered upon petition of Whitlock *&*Anderson, creditors of the assignor. The facts are stated in the opinion.

J. F. Daly, J.

A majority of the assignor’s creditors (if not all excepting these petitioners), agreed to a composition of thirty cents on the dollar payable in notes of the assignor indorsed by the assignee, and consented to the assignee continuing the insolvent’s business for the purpose of providing for the notes. Petitioners did not agree to this arrangement, and called the assignee to account for his dealings with the trust. The value of the goods and fixtures that came to his possession, and the debts collected by him amounted altogether to $910.44. He took this stock, added new purchases of his own and carried on the business for a short period, paying a part of the notes and ultimately winding up with a loss of $1,247.60 to himself. I do not gather from the papers, that of this loss more than $500 at the outside, was for payments on the notes ; that is to say, he did not pay much, if anything, over a fourth *27of the thirty per cent. It would seem, therefore, that at least $700 of the loss was upon the business. The referee charges him with the value of the estate he received from the assignee in the first instance, allowing him nothing for his losses in carrying on the business. This is correct. Had he made a profit in that business he would have been chargeable with that profit in addition to the value of the assigned estate, but he is not to be allowed his losses on the experiment. On the other hand he is not chargeable with the gross receipts of the business without regard to the cost of carrying it on. If he speculated and lost, he is chargeable only with the full value of the assets originally received, and allowed only the expenses of getting them in. This the referee has found, and his report should be confirmed.

The petitioners are entitled to be paid only the proportion they, in common with all the creditors, would have received of those assets, had no composition been made. This is found by the referee to be a less sum than the petitioners have already received, and nothing is therefore due them.

Report confirmed, with $10 costs of motion to assignee against petitioners.

Order accordingly.