alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §5103. License or registration required

#### (a) In general

Subject to the existence of a licensing or registration regime, as the case may be, an individual may not engage in the business of a loan originator without first—

(1) obtaining, and maintaining annually—

(A) a registration as a registered loan originator; or

(B) a license and registration as a State-licensed loan originator; and

(2) obtaining a unique identifier.

#### (b) Loan processors and underwriters

#### (1) Supervised loan processors and underwriters

A loan processor or underwriter who does not represent to the public, through advertising or other means of communicating or providing information (including the use of business cards, stationery, brochures, signs, rate lists, or other promotional items), that such individual can or will perform any of the activities of a loan originator shall not be required to be a State-licensed loan originator.

#### (2) Independent contractors

An independent contractor may not engage in residential mortgage loan origination activities as a loan processor or underwriter unless such independent contractor is a State-licensed loan originator.

(Pub. L. 110–289, div. A, title V, §1504, July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2814.)
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, a local unit of special-purpose government,

Appellant, v. GRAN PARADISO PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.,

a Florida not-for-profit corporation,

Appellee. No. 2D23-1293 December 13, 2023 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Hunter Carroll, Judge. Joseph A. Brown of Kutak Rock, LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Joseph M. Herbert of Norton, Hammersley, Lopez & Skokos, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and SMITH, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04331A009
# C_2011089EN.01000502.xml

| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Polish Republic) lodged on 14 December 2010 — Minister Finansów v Kraft Foods Polska S.A.

(Case C-588/10)

2011/C 89/10

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Applicant:

Defendant: Kraft Foods Polska SA

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

In view of the fact that Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) provides that where the price is reduced after the supply takes place, the taxable amount is to be reduced accordingly under conditions which are to be determined by the Member States, does the concept of these conditions cover a condition such as that provided for in Article 29(4a) of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on turnover tax) of 11 March 2004 (Dziennik Ustaw No 54, item 535, as amended), which makes the right to reduce the taxable amount in relation to the amount set out in an invoice contingent on holding, before the expiry of the time limit for submitting a tax declaration for the accounting period in which the purchaser of the product or service received a correcting invoice, acknowledgement of receipt of the correcting invoice by the purchaser of the product or service in respect of which the invoice was issued, and does it infringe the principle of VAT neutrality and proportionality?

1

Dziennik Ustaw

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

REORGANIZED RFS CORPORATION & 

SUBSIDIARIES, FOR ITSELF AND AS 

SUBSTITUTE AGENT FOR RELIANCE GROUP 

HOLDING, INC. & SUBSIDIARIES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-5052

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:09-cv-00371-TCW, Judge Thomas C. 

Wheeler. 

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

The parties submit a joint stipulation to dismiss the 

above-captioned appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 42(b), which the court treats as a 

motion to withdraw the appeal. 

Case: 14-5052 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2014
2 REORGANIZED RFS v. US

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion to withdraw the appeal is granted. 

The appeal is dismissed. 

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s21

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: September 3, 2014

Case: 14-5052 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 09/03/2014
### §2155. Retirement for physical disability after selection for promotion; grade in which retired

An officer whose name appears on an approved list of officers selected for promotion to the next higher grade and who is retired for physical disability under the provisions of chapter 61 of title 10 prior to being promoted shall be retired in the grade to which he was selected for promotion.

(Added Pub. L. 88–130, §1(10)(C), Sept. 24, 1963, 77 Stat. 187, §294; renumbered §2155, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §112(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4216.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 294 of this title as this section.

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

#### Retired Pay on or Prior to September 24, 1963

Savings provisions in section 5(g) of Pub. L. 88–130 providing that Pub. L. 88–130 does not affect the retired pay of anyone retired on or prior to Sept. 24, 1963, are set out as a note under section 2101 of this title.
### §3019. Taxation by State, county, etc., taxing authority; Federal tax status

(a) The Bank, including its franchise, capital, reserves, surplus, mortgages, or other security holdings and income shall be exempt from taxation now or hereafter imposed by any State, county, municipality, or local taxing authority, but any real property held by the Bank shall be subject to any State, county, municipal, or local taxation to the same extent according to its value as other real property is taxed.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of subchapter T of chapter 1 of title 26—

(1) the Bank shall be treated as a corporation operating on the cooperative basis within the meaning of section 1381(a)(2) of title 26;

(2) the term "patronage dividend", as defined in section 1388(a) of title 26 includes, only as such section applies to the Bank, any patronage refunds in the form of class B or class C stock or allocated surplus that are distributed or set aside by the Bank pursuant to section 3014(i) of this title;

(3) the terms "written notice of allocation" and "qualified written notices of allocation", as defined in sections 1388(b) and (c) of title 26, include (to the extent of par value), only as such sections apply to the Bank, any class B or class C stock distributed by the Bank pursuant to section 3014(i) of this title and shall also include any allocated surplus set aside by the Bank pursuant to section 3014(i) of this title;

(4) patrons of the Bank shall be deemed to have consented under section 1388(c)(2) of title 26 to the inclusion in their incomes of any qualified written notices of allocation received by such patrons from the Bank; and

(5) any amounts required to be included in the incomes of patrons of the Bank with respect to class B or class C stock or allocated surplus shall be treated as earnings from business done by such patrons of the Bank with or for their own patrons.

(Pub. L. 95–351, title I, §109, Aug. 20, 1978, 92 Stat. 509; Pub. L. 97–35, title III, §392(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 434; Pub. L. 99–514, §2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Subchapter T of chapter 1 of title 26, referred to in subsec. (b), is set out as section 1381 et seq. of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

#### Amendments

1986—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–514 substituted "Internal Revenue Code of 1986" for "Internal Revenue Code of 1954", which for purposes of codification was translated as "title 26" thus requiring no change in text.

1981—Pub. L. 97–35 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), struck out applicability of Final Government Equity Redemption Date to provisions, and added subsec. (b).

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

#### Effective Date of 1981 Amendment

Pub. L. 97–35, title III, §392(b), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 435, provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect on the day after the Final Government Equity Redemption Date [Dec. 31, 1981]." For definition of "Final Government Equity Redemption Date", see section 396(a) of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as a note under section 3012 of this title.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-11179 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TONY ORLANDO ARMSTRONG, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CR-414-R

- - - - - - - - - - May 16, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant Tony Armstrong has appealed the sentence to a 300- month prison term which he received for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The maximum prison term provided by the statute for this offense is 20 years. The district court concluded that Armstrong’s sentencing range as a career offender was from 262 to 327 months in prison. A defendant’s sentence may not exceed the maximum statutoryNo. 95-11179 - 2 - limit provided for the offense of which he was convicted. United States v. Collins , 40 F.3d 95, 101 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1986 (1995). “Where the statutorily authorized maximum sentence is less than the minimum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily authorized maximum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a). Accordingly, Armstrong’s sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded for him to be resentenced to a 240-month prison term. See United States v. Stephenson , 887 F.2d 57, 62 (5th Cir. 1989). VACATED AND REMANDED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF EDWARD J. BOREY PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Edward J. Borey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2006                                 
|                                                     
|/s/ EDWARD J. BOREY                                  
|Edward J. Borey President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

Boca Telecommunications Investors, Inc., a Florida corporation
NAP of the Americas, Inc., a Florida corporation
Park West Telecommunications Investors, Inc., a Florida corporation
Terremark Communications Group, Inc., a Florida corporation
Terremark Post Acquisition, Inc., a Florida corporation
Terremark Real Estate Group, Inc., a Florida corporation*
Terremark Trademark Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation



*        Terremark Real Estate Group is the sole shareholder of the following
                  companies:
                  Terremark Centre GP, Inc., a Florida corporation
                  Terremark Centre Partner, Inc., a Florida corporation
                  Terremark Construction Services, Inc., a Florida corporation
                  Terremark Development, Inc., a Florida corporation**
                  Terremark Financial Services, Inc., a Florida corporation
                  Terremark Fortune House #1, Inc., a Florida corporation
                  Terremark Fortune House #2, Inc., a Florida corporation
                  Terremark Galloway, Inc., a Florida corporation
                  Terremark Hospitality Services, Inc., a Florida corporation
                  Terremark Management Services, Inc., a Florida corporation
                  Terremark Northeast, Inc., a New York corporation
                  Terremark Realty, Inc., a Florida corporation



**       Terremark Development, Inc. is the sole shareholder of:
                  Terremark Miami Avenue, Inc., a Florida corporation
# C_2010274EN.01001801.xml

| 9.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/18

---

Action brought on 4 August 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-395/10)

()

2010/C 274/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and V. Peere, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) or, in any event, by not communicating such measures to the Commission, France has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) or, in any event, by not communicating such measures to the Commission, France has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2007/2/EC expired on 14 May 2009. As at the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not notified the Commission thereof.

---
Opinion issued June 28 , 2013
.

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01
- 13
- 00421
- CV

——————————— IN RE JULIE NICOLE V IRGIN AND GREG ENOS , Relator s

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relators , Julie Nicole Virgin and her attorney, Greg Enos, seek mandamus relief from the trial judge’s orders for (1) declining to refer the motion to recuse the trial judge to the regional presiding judge and (2) failing to provide notice or a hearing before signing orders disqualifying Enos and imposing sanctions on him. 1

1 The underlying case is In re K.V. , cause number 07FD2250, pending in the County Court at Law No. 3 of Galveston County, Texas, the Hon. Christopher Dupuy presiding.2 Since relators filed their petition, the Texas Commissio n on Judicial Ethics has temporarily suspended the trial judge. In his absence, the parties attended a hearing during which a visiting judge vacated the challenged rulings . R elators move the Court to dismiss the petition on that basis. The motion is gra nted and the petition is dismissed. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Bland.
§ 11.24 Reporting by management. ( a ) Within 5 days following the conclusion of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, containing Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses, the managements of such show, exhibition, sale or auction shall submit to the Regional Director[1] for the State in which the show, exhibition, sale or auction was held, the information required by § 11.22(a)(1) through (6) for each horse excused or disqualified by management or its representatives from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the reasons for such action. If no horses are excused or disqualified, the management shall submit a report so stating.
( b ) Within 5 days following the conclusion of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction which does not contain Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses, the management of such show, exhibition, sale or auction shall inform the Regional Director for the State in which the show, exhibition, sale or auction was held, of any case where a horse was excused or disqualified by management or its representatives from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned because it was found to be sore.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0056) [44 FR 25179, Apr. 27, 1979, as amended at 48 FR 57471, Dec. 30, 1983; 55 FR 41994, Oct. 17, 1990; 56 FR 13750, Apr. 4, 1991; 63 FR 62927, Nov. 10, 1998] Footnotes -
11.24
[1] See footnote 1 to § 11.1.
#### Paul J. Coletti et al. *v.*Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Fairfield

*Henry Lyons III,*in support of the petition.

Submitted April 24

decided May 8, 1974

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County is granted.
### §5341. Definitions

For purposes of this part—

(1) the terms "Office" and "Director" mean the Office of Financial Research established under this part and the Director thereof, respectively;

(2) the term "financial company" has the same meaning as in subchapter II, and includes an insured depository institution and an insurance company;

(3) the term "Data Center" means the data center established under section 5344 of this title;

(4) the term "Research and Analysis Center" means the research and analysis center established under section 5344 of this title;

(5) the term "financial transaction data" means the structure and legal description of a financial contract, with sufficient detail to describe the rights and obligations between counterparties and make possible an independent valuation;

(6) the term "position data"—

(A) means data on financial assets or liabilities held on the balance sheet of a financial company, where positions are created or changed by the execution of a financial transaction; and

(B) includes information that identifies counterparties, the valuation by the financial company of the position, and information that makes possible an independent valuation of the position;

(7) the term "financial contract" means a legally binding agreement between 2 or more counterparties, describing rights and obligations relating to the future delivery of items of intrinsic or extrinsic value among the counterparties; and

(8) the term "financial instrument" means a financial contract in which the terms and conditions are publicly available, and the roles of one or more of the counterparties are assignable without the consent of any of the other counterparties (including common stock of a publicly traded company, government bonds, or exchange traded futures and options contracts).

(Pub. L. 111–203, title I, §151, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1412.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Subchapter II, referred to in par. (2), was in the original "title II", meaning title II of Pub. L. 111–203, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1442, which is classified principally to subchapter II (§5381 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of title II to the Code, see Tables.
#### Edward Ochman *v.*Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Fairfield et al.

*Thomas N. Moore,*in support of the petition.

*Aaron B. Schless*and *Sydney P. Simons,*in opposition.

Submitted June 20

decided June 25, 1974

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County is denied.
#### § 103.2 Depositories (52 U.S.C. 30102(h)(1)).

Each political committee shall designate one or more State banks, federally chartered depository institutions (including a national bank), or depository institutions the depositor accounts of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, or the National Credit Union Administration, as its campaign depository or depositories. One or more depositories may be established in one or more States. Each political committee shall maintain at least one checking account or transaction account at one of its depositories. Additional accounts may be established at each depository.