alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1881. "Federal supervisory agency" defined

As used in this chapter the term "Federal supervisory agency" means the appropriate Federal banking agency, as defined in section 1813(q) of this title.

(Pub. L. 90–389, §2, July 7, 1968, 82 Stat. 294; Pub. L. 101–73, title VII, §744(h), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 439; Pub. L. 108–386, §8(d), Oct. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 2232; Pub. L. 111–203, title III, §356(1), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1547.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Pub. L. 111–203 substituted "the term 'Federal supervisory agency' means the appropriate Federal banking agency, as defined in section 1813(q) of this title." for "the term 'Federal supervisory agency' means—

"(1) The Comptroller of the Currency with respect to national banks,

"(2) The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with respect to Federal Reserve banks and State banks which are members of the Federal Reserve System,

"(3) The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation with respect to State banks which are not members of the Federal Reserve System but the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and State savings associations, and

"(4) The Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision with respect to Federal savings."

2004—Par. (1). Pub. L. 108–386 struck out "and district banks" after "national banks".

1989—Par. (3). Pub. L. 101–73, §744(h)(2), inserted reference to State savings associations.

Par. (4). Pub. L. 101–73, §744(h)(1), substituted "Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision" for "Federal Home Loan Bank Board", struck out "and loan" after "Federal savings", and struck out "associations, and institutions the accounts of which are insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation" before period at end.

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

#### Effective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the transfer date, see section 351 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 906 of Title 2, The Congress.

#### Effective Date of 2004 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 108–386 effective Oct. 30, 2004, and, except as otherwise provided, applicable with respect to fiscal year 2005 and each succeeding fiscal year, see sections 8(i) and 9 of Pub. L. 108–386, set out as notes under section 321 of this title.

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 90–389, §1, July 7, 1968, 82 Stat. 294, provided: "That this Act [enacting this chapter and amending section 1729 of this title] may be cited as the 'Bank Protection Act of 1968'."
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-39171 and No. 333-62890) and the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-59163, No. 333-59157, No. 333-21997, No.
333-86634, No. 333-94872, and No. 333-63804) pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option
Plan and 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Lynx Therapeutics, Inc. of our
report dated February 2, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Lynx Therapeutics, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form
10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                            /s/   ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                            -------------------------------


Palo Alto, California
September 19, 2001


                                       56
# C_2007096EN.01001502.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Republic of Lithuania) — UAB Profisa v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos respublikos finansц ministerijos

(Case C-63/06) (1)

1

(Directive 92/83/EEC - Harmonisation of structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Article 27(1)(f) - Alcohol contained in chocolate products - Exemption from the harmonised excise duty)

(2007/C 96/25)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB Profisa

Applicant:

Defendant: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos respublikos finansų ministerijos

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Interpretation of Article 27(1)(f) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 concerning harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21) — Obligation to exempt alcohol contained in chocolate products being imported from third countries

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1)(f) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages should be understood as imposing an obligation on Member States to exempt from harmonised excise duty ethyl alcohol imported into the customs territory of the European Union and contained in chocolate products intended for direct use, where the alcohol content does not exceed 8.5 litres for every 100 kilograms of the chocolate products.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

1

---
Exhibit 99.1




Annual Servicer’s Certificate


Provided by Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation


to Holders of Notes and Certificates









NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION




OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE




The undersigned, Michael J. McConnell, Vice-President of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as an Authorized Officer of the Company:






(1)           The undersigned has caused a review, under his supervision, to be made of:  i) the activities; and ii) the performance under the Agreement, of the Company during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”); and






(2)           To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, i) the Company has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects during the Reporting Period; and ii) no Servicer Default has occurred.






This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to (i) Section 3.01(c) of the Servicing Agreement, as may be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time, dated as of March 1, 1999, by and among Nissan-Infiniti LT, NILT Trust, as UTI Beneficiary, and the Company, as Servicer; and (ii) Section 8.11(b) of the 2012-A SUBI Servicing Supplement, dated as of March 21, 2012, by and among Nissan-Infiniti LT, as Titling Trust, NILT Trust, as Grantor and UTI Beneficiary, and the Company, as Servicer (the “Agreement”).






Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meaning assigned to them in the Agreement.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 16th day of June, 2014.




/s/ Michael J. McConnell________________


Michael J. McConnell


Vice President
#### § 215.21 Payment of gross production tax on lead and zinc.

The superintendent of the Quapaw Indian Agency is hereby authorized and directed to pay at the appropriate times, from the respective individual Indian funds held under his supervision, such gross production tax due the State on production of lead and zinc from restricted lands under his jurisdiction as may be properly assessed under provisions of law against the royalty interests of the respective Indian owners in the mineral produced from their lands.
H. Res. 42

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 11, 1999.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 391) to amend chapter 35 of title 44, United

States Code, for the purpose of facilitating compliance by

small businesses with certain Federal paperwork requirements, to establish a task force to examine the feasibility of

streamlining paperwork requirements applicable to small

businesses, and for other purposes. The first reading of the

bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 303 of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Government

Reform. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be con-
2

•HRES 42 EH

sidered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the

portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall

be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without

intervening business, provided that the minimum time for

electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall

be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill

for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill

to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### § 61.9 Burden of proof.

The burden of proof rests upon the applicant or tribal member to establish eligibility for enrollment. Documentary evidence such as birth certificates, death certificates, baptismal records, copies of probate findings, or affidavits, may be used to support claim of eligibility for enrollment. Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs may be used to establish eligibility.
#### Norman R. SIMONS and Catherine Simons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 78-1873

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 30, 1979.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1979.

Norman R. Simons, Catherine Simons, pro se.

Joe Alfred Izen Jr., Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Jose A. Canales, U. S. Atty., Arthur R. Amdur, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Chief, Crombie J. D. Garrett, David E. Carmack, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellees.

Before CLARK, GEE and HILL, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Norman and Catherine Simons became the subject of an IRS audit in 1977 concerning their income tax returns for 1975 and 1976. In August 1977 a criminal investigation began. The IRS served a summons for production of records on Mr. Simons’ employer, Southwest Drywall, and sent appellants notice of the summons by certified mail. Appellants refused to pick up their mail and did not attempt to intervene in the summons procedure. Southwest Drywall complied with the summons. The appellants then filed a motion in the district court for the return of the seized records and their suppression in any further criminal proceeding. The district court upheld the legality of the summons and denied all relief.

Under the standard set forth in *Di-Bella v. United States,*369 U.S. 121, 82 S.Ct. 654, 7 L.Ed.2d 614 (1962), the denial of the appellant’s motion is appealable only if “the motion is solely for the return of property and is in no way tied to a criminal prosecution in esse against the movant.” 369 U.S. at 131-32, 82 S.Ct. at 660, 7 *252L.Ed.2d at 621. We have interpreted *Di-Bella*broadly, holding that only if the motion is “a collateral attempt to retrieve property and not an effort to suppress evidence in related criminal proceedings is it appealable.” *United States v. Glassman,*533 F.2d 262 (5th Cir. 1976). In *Glassman*we held that denial of a motion for the return of property and suppression of evidence was not appealable even in the absence of the existence of any formal criminal charges at the time of appeal. 533 F.2d at 263. *See also United States v. Peachtree,*456 F.2d 442, 447-48 (5th Cir. 1972).

The “property” which the appellants seek returned in this case consists of W-2 and W — 4(e) forms, expense checks and vouchers, payroll checks, and other employment records, all kept in the files of Mr. Simons’ employer. It is obvious that the appellants’ motion is directed at the suppression of this evidence in any criminal proceeding arising from the IRS criminal investigation and is not a collateral action for the return of property. The district court’s order is nonappealable, and we therefore dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
# C_2007109EN.01000401.xml

| 15.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

14 May 2007

(2007/C 109/03)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3549 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 163,06 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4513 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68435 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2313 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6515 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 86,23 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1985 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5832 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,288 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 247,23 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6963 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7648 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,2760 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,584 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8090 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6276 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5012 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5852 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8334 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0539 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 252,20 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,4204 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,4060 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3185 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 923,12 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6087 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,863 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,9440 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,240 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3549

JPY

Japanese yen

163,06

DKK

Danish krone

7,4513

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68435

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2313

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6515

ISK

Iceland króna

86,23

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1985

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5832

CZK

Czech koruna

28,288

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

247,23

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6963

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7648

RON

Romanian leu

3,2760

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,584

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8090

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6276

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5012

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5852

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8334

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0539

KRW

South Korean won

1 252,20

ZAR

South African rand

9,4204

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,4060

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3185

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 923,12

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6087

PHP

Philippine peso

63,863

RUB

Russian rouble

34,9440

THB

Thai baht

45,240

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

RUTH Y. GOLDWAY
CHAIRMAN

March 28, 2014

Ms. Nerissa Cook
Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Economic and Global Issues
U.S. Department of State
Bureau of International Organization Affairs
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Deputy Assistant Secretary Cook:

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 407 (c) and your letter of August 28, 2012, the Postal Regulatory Commission
hereby submits its views on whether proposals to amend market dominant rates or classifications that
will be considered during Universal Postal Union (UPU) Postal Operations Council (POC) sessions are
consistent with the statutory criteria of subchapter 1 of chapter 36 of title 39, U.S. Code.

The Commission has reviewed all proposals for the upcoming POC session that are currently available on
the UPU’s website. The Commission has determined that none of these proposals requires a view from
the Commission. Should any proposal arise between now and the end of the POC session that requires
a view, the Commission will provide it to you at the earliest opportunity.

The Commission wishes the U.S. delegation fruitful and productive negotiations during the upcoming
POC session.

Sincere!

Ruth Y. Goldway
Chairman

cc: Robert Faucher, Director, Office of Global Systems
Joseph Murphy, Deputy Director, Office of Global Systems

901 New YoRK AVENUE, NW « SUITE 200 WEST * WASHINGTON, DC 20268-0001
# C_2007099EN.01000302.xml

| 3.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4619 — SCOR/Converium)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 99/06)

On 20 April 2007, 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 (EC) No 139/2004. 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 32007M4619. 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 32007M4619. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
§ 700.701 Definitions. ( a ) *Act* means Pub. L. 93-531 (88 Sat. 1712, 25 U.S.C. 640 *et. seq.*) as amended by Pub. L. 96-305 and Pub. L. 100-666.
( b ) *New Lands* means the land acquired for the use of relocatees under the authority of Pub. L. 96-305, 25 U.S.C. 640d-10. These lands include the 215,000 acres of lands acquired by the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission and added to the Navajo Reservation and 150,000 acres of private lands previously owned by the Navajo Nation in fee and taken in trust by the United States pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.
( c ) *Commissioner* means the Commissioner of The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation in Flagstaff, Arizona. Reference to approval or other action by the Commissioner will also include approval or other action by another Federal officer under delegated authority from the Commissioner.
( d ) *Tribe* means the Navajo Nation.
( e ) *Range unit* means a tract of range land designated as a management unit for administration of grazing.
( f ) *Range Management Plan* means a land use plan for a specific range unit that will provide for a sustained forage production consistent with soil, watershed, wildlife, and other values.
( g ) *Stocking rate* means the authorized stocking rate by range unit as determined by the Commissioner. The stocking rate shall be based on forage production, range utilization, land management applications being applied, and range improvements in place to achieve uniformity of grazing under sustained yield management principles.
( h ) *Grazing permit* means a revocable privilege granted in writing limited to entering on and utilizing forage by domestic livestock on a specified tract of land. The term, as used herein, shall include written authorization issued to enable the crossing or trailing of domestic livestock across specified tracts or range.
( i ) *Animal unit* (AU) means one adult cow with unweaned calf by her side or equivalent thereof based on comparative forage consumption. Accepted conversion factors are: Sheep and Goats—one ewe, doe, buck, or ram equals 0.25 AU. Horses and Mules—one horse, mule, donkey or burro equals 1.25 AU.
( j ) *Sheep unit* means one ewe with lamb at side or a doe goat with kid.
( k ) *SUYL* means one sheep unit grazed yearlong.
( l ) *HPL* means the area partitioned to the Hopi Tribe pursuant to Pub. L. 93-531 known as the Hopi Partitioned Land.
### §4206. Rights of declarants; notifications; Government accountability

#### (a) In general

A person who has filed a declaration that meets the requirements of sections 4201 through 4204 of this title shall have the rights stated in this section.

#### (b) Notice of decision not to pursue

If, after review, the Attorney General concludes that the information contained in a declaration should not be pursued in a civil or criminal proceeding, the Attorney General shall so notify the declarant in writing and shall provide a brief statement of the reasons that the declaration will not be pursued.

#### (c) Judgment, order, or settlement

(1) When the United States obtains a judgment, order, or settlement based in whole or in part on a valid declaration filed under section 4201 of this title, the Attorney General shall notify the declarant in writing of such fact.

(2) A notice described in paragraph (1) shall contain—

(A) the Attorney General's determination of the amount of the award due the declarant under subsection (c) or (d) of section 4205 of this title upon recovery by the United States; and

(B) a short statement of reasons for the amount of the award.

#### (d) Notice of pendency of investigation or proceeding

If the Attorney General has not provided the declarant with notice under subsection (b) or a notice of invalidity pursuant to section 4204 of this title within the time period set forth in subsection (e), the Attorney General shall notify the declarant in writing that—

(1) there is a pending investigation or proceeding in the course of which the declarant's allegations are being addressed; or

(2) the declarant's allegations have not yet been addressed.

#### (e) Time for notices

(1) In the case of a valid declaration filed not more than 3 years after November 29, 1990, the Attorney General shall send notification to a declarant pursuant to subsection (d) not later than 3 years after the date of filing of the declaration.

(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), in the case of a declaration filed more than 3 years after November 29, 1990, the Attorney General shall send notification not later than 1 year after the date of filing of the declaration.

(B) If the Attorney General certifies that it is in the interest of the United States to give further consideration to the information provided in the declaration for an additional 90-day period, the Attorney General shall so notify the declarant in writing.

#### (f) Confidentiality of notices

All notices provided to a declarant under this section shall be kept confidential by the declarant in the same manner, and subject to the same penalties, as the declaration under section 4203 of this title.

(Pub. L. 101–647, title XXV, §2566, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4897.)
----