alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3303. Financial Institutions Examination Council

#### (a) Establishment; composition

There is established the Financial Institutions Examination Council which shall consist of—

(1) the Comptroller of the Currency,

(2) the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,

(3) a Governor of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System designated by the Chairman of the Board,

(4) the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,

(5) the Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration Board, and

(6) the Chairman of the State Liaison Committee.

#### (b) Chairmanship

The members of the Council shall select the first chairman of the Council. Thereafter the chairmanship shall rotate among the members of the Council.

#### (c) Term of office

The term of the Chairman of the Council shall be two years.

#### (d) Designation of officers and employees

The members of the Council may, from time to time, designate other officers or employees of their respective agencies to carry out their duties on the Council.

#### (e) Compensation and expenses

Each member of the Council shall serve without additional compensation but shall be entitled to reasonable expenses incurred in carrying out his official duties as such a member.

(Pub. L. 95–630, title X, §1004, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3694; Pub. L. 101–73, title VII, §744(a)(2), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 438; Pub. L. 109–351, title VII, §714(a), Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1995; Pub. L. 111–203, title X, §1091, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2094.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 111–203 substituted "Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau" for "Director, Office of Thrift Supervision".

2006—Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 109–351, §714(a)(1), substituted "Thrift Supervision," for "Thrift Supervision".

Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 109–351, §714(a)(2), (3), added par. (6).

1989—Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 101–73 substituted "Director, Office of Thrift Supervision" for "Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, and".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the designated transfer date, see section 1100H of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 552a of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Effective Date

Section effective upon the expiration of 120 days after Nov. 10, 1978, see section 2101 of Pub. L. 95–630, set out as a note under section 375b of this title.
Exhibit 31.2


I, Kolja Rockov, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of LinnCo, LLC (the “registrant”);





2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make 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 (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):





(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:  November 5, 2013








/s/  Kolja RockovKolja RockovExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(38 South. 942.)

No. 15,664.

#### REED v. CORBIN et al.

(June 19, 1905.)

AEPEAL — COURT OF APPEAL — REHEARING — PROCEDURE — RENDERING JUDGMENT.

The Court of Appeal, on defendant’s application for a rehearing, set aside the judgment it had rendered in favor of plaintiff and rendered judgment in favor of defendant. This it was without authority to do. “If the application (for rehearing) be refused,” says Act 100 of 1896, p. 150, “the judgment or decree shall become final; if granted, the case shall be continued on the docket for the next term.”

{Syllabus by the Court.)

Action by A. H. Reed against John O. Cor-bin and R. A. Corbin. Judgment for plaintiff was aflirmed by the Court of Appeal, and, on defendants’ application for rehearing, set aside, and judgment rendered for defendants, and plaintiff applies for certiorari or writ of review.

Judgment of Court of Appeal set aside.

See 111 La. 654, 35 South. 801.

Alfred Wood Spiller, for applicant. William Hutchinson McClendon, for respondents.

PROVO STY, J.

The Court of Appeal, on defendants’ application for a rehearing, set aside the judgment it had rendered in favor of plaintiff, and rendered judgment in favor of defendants. This it was without authority to do. “If the application (for rehearing) be refused,” says Act' No. 100 of 1896, p. 150, “the judgment or decree shall become final; if granted, the case shall be continued on the docket for the next term.”

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in this case be set aside, and that this case be placed on the docket of the said court, to be proceeded with according to law.
### **CHAPTER 11—FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS**

Sec.
1421.
Short title.
1422.
Definitions.
1422a, 1422b. Repealed.
1423.
Federal Home Loan Bank districts; number and boundaries; establishment of Federal Home Loan Banks; names.
1424.
Eligibility for membership.
1425 to 1425b. Repealed.
1426.
Capital structure of Federal home loan banks.
1426a.
Exclusion from certain requirements.
1427.
Directors.
1428.
Examination of State laws, regulations, and procedures; studies of values, etc.
1428a.
Repealed.
1429.
Eligibility to secure advances.
1430.
Advances to members.
1430a.
Omitted.
1430b.
Advances to nonmember mortgagee; terms and conditions.
1430c.
Housing goals.
1431.
Powers and duties of banks.
1432.
Incorporation of banks; corporate powers; housing project loans.
1433.
Exemption from taxation; obligations acceptable as credit on debt of home owner.
1434.
Depositaries of public money; financial agents.
1435.
Obligations as lawful investments; liability of United States for debentures, etc., issued by banks.
1436.
Reserves and dividends; emergency suspensions of requirements.
1437.
Repealed.
1438.
Omitted.
1438a.
Nonadministrative expenses; expenses of studies and investigations.
1439, 1439–1. Repealed.
1439a.
Deposits in special fund; availability for all purposes of Federal Home Loan Bank Board and Federal Home Loan Bank Administration.
1440.
Examinations and audits.
1440a.
Sharing of information among Federal Home Loan Banks.
1441.
Financing Corporation.
1441a.
Repealed.
1441a–1.
Definitions.
1441a–2.
Authorization for State housing finance agencies and nonprofit entities to purchase mortgage-related assets.
1441a–3.
RTC and FDIC properties.
1441b.
Resolution Funding Corporation established.
1442.
Member financial information.
1442a.
Repealed.
1443.
Forms of bank stock and obligations.
1444.
Eligibility to membership in banks.
1445.
Succession of Federal Home Loan Banks.
1446.
Liquidation or reorganization; acquisition of assets by other banks; assumption of liabilities.
1447.
Repealed.
1448.
Effect of partial invalidity of chapter.
1449.
Reservation of right to amend or repeal chapter.
1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1771

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Arkansas.

*

Modesto De Asuncion Mancia-Polanco, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 26, 2010

Filed: September 3, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Modesto Mancia-Polanco directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence

the District Court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to an immigration offense. His

counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting the sentence is excessive.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the District Court, in sentencing ManciaPolanco, committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable
-2-

sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)

(in reviewing sentences, the appellate court first ensures that no significant procedural

error occurred, then considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under an

abuse-of-discretion standard, taking into account the totality of the circumstances; if

the sentence is within the Guidelines range, the appellate court may, but is not

required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness). 

Having independently reviewed this matter under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-20 

January 14, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(b)(13) Plans Covered. Professional Service Employer Plans

4021(c)(2)(B) Plans Covered. Definition of Professional Individuals 

OPINION: 

 This is a confirmation of the telephone call to you by * * * of our staff regarding your request for clarification of

the exclusion from coverage under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1975 (the "Act") of

plans established or maintained by "professional service employers". You advise that your particular concern is whether

a "Veterinary Hospital" is a professional service employer within the meaning of the exclusion. 

A professional service employer is any entity (it need not be a corporation) owned or controlled by professional

individuals, as defined in § 4021(c)(2)(B). where both the entity and the professional individuals are engaged in the

performance of the same professional service. Licensed veterinarians are "licensed practitioners of the healing arts"

under § 4021(c)(2)(B). Accordingly, a plan maintained by an employer entity engaged in providing veterinary services

that is owned or controlled by licensed veterinaries is a plan maintained by a professional service employer. Pursuant

to § 4021(b)(13), such a plan [*2] is excluded from Title IV cove rage if it does not at any time subsequent to the

enactment of the Act have more than 25 active participants. 

Steven E. Schanes 

Acting Executive Director
# C_2006289EN.01000101.xml

| 28.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

27 November 2006

(2006/C 289/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3114 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 152,24 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4549 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67770 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0423 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5855 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 91,96 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2690 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5780 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,040 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 258,25 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6977 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8239 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4776 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,66 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 35,662 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9250 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6848 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4866 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1972 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9591 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0324 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 220,45 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,2965 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2861 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3220 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 988,16 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7702 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 65,111 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,5880 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,750 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3114

JPY

Japanese yen

152,24

DKK

Danish krone

7,4549

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67770

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0423

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5855

ISK

Iceland króna

91,96

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2690

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5780

CZK

Czech koruna

28,040

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

258,25

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6977

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8239

RON

Romanian leu

3,4776

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,66

SKK

Slovak koruna

35,662

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9250

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6848

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4866

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1972

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9591

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0324

KRW

South Korean won

1 220,45

ZAR

South African rand

9,2965

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2861

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3220

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 988,16

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7702

PHP

Philippine peso

65,111

RUB

Russian rouble

34,5880

THB

Thai baht

47,750

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2006331EN.01001102.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-257/05) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Infringement of Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Obligation of establishment within the national territory in order to be able to provide an inspection service for boilers and pressure tanks (‘Kesselprüfstelle’))

(2006/C 331/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and W. Bogensberger, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Obligations laid down by national legislation to have the seat of the undertaking or an establishment within the national territory in order to be able to provide an inspection service for boilers and pressure tanks (‘Kesselprüfstelle’)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by providing in Paragraph 21(4) of the Federal law on the security measures for steam or other vapour generating boilers, pressure vessels, containers and pipes [Bundesgesetz über Sicherheitsmaßnahmen für Dampfkessel, Druckbehälter, Versandbehälter und Rohrleitungen (Kesselgesetz)] that only applicants established in Austria may be approved as boiler inspection bodies, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by providing in Paragraph 21(4) of the Federal law on the security measures for steam or other vapour generating boilers, pressure vessels, containers and pipes [Bundesgesetz über Sicherheitsmaßnahmen für Dampfkessel, Druckbehälter, Versandbehälter und Rohrleitungen (Kesselgesetz)] that only applicants established in Austria may be approved as boiler inspection bodies, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austriato pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austriato pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.

1

---
EXHIBIT
21





SUBSIDIARIES
OF THE REGISTRANT





(1)
Gregory Gold Producers, Inc., a Colorado corporation, 100% owned by Wits Basin
Precious Minerals Inc.





(2)
Wits-China Acquisition Corp. Inc., a Minnesota corporation, 100% owned by Wits
Basin Precious Minerals Inc.





(3) Wits
Basin (BVI) Ltd. a British Virgin Islands corporation, 100% owned by Wits Basin
Precious Minerals Inc (f/k/a China Global Mining Resources Limited, renamed in
January 2009).





(4)
Hunter Bates Mining Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, 100% owned by Wits
Basin Precious Minerals Inc.





(5)
Maanshan Global Mining Resources Limited, a People’s Republic of China
corporation, 100% owned by Wits Basin (BVI) Ltd.





(6) China
Global Mining Resources (BVI) Limited, a British Virgin Islands corporation,
effective March 17, 2009, 50% owned by Wits Basin Precious Minerals
Inc.
# C_2007006EN.01000702.xml

| 11.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2175 — Dow Chemical/Gurit-Essex)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 6/14)

On 8 December 2000, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32000M2175. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32000M2175. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 128548 &(57) Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128548 COA: 250334 Ottawa CC: 02-026430-FC NATHAN PAUL WESTBERG, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 13, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this C ourt. The motion for remand is DENIED.

C AVANAGH , J., would grant leave to appeal.

K ELLY , J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan , lv gtd 472 Mich 881 (2005).

d1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
# C_2006331EN.01004301.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/43

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — MMT v Commission

(Case T-392/05) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Objection of inadmissibility)

(2006/C 331/95)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: MMT Mecklenburg-Strelitzer Montage- und Tiefbau GmbH (Neustrelitz, Germany) (represented by: R.-J. Kurschus, M. Zimmermann, M. Grehsin and C. Kupke, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and T. Scharf, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/595/EC of 5 March 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in connection with the sale and export of products from the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (OJ 2003 L 202 p. 15) to the extent that the decision classifies as unlawful State aid for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC the financial assistance envisaged by the guidelines of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for shared offices on the territory of countries which are official candidates for accession to the European Union.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.

1

---