alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 23.103 Calculation of market risk exposure requirement and credit risk requirement when models are not approved. ( a ) *Non-model approach.* A swap dealer that: ( 1 ) Computes its regulatory capital requirements under § 23.101(a)(1)(ii) or (a)(2), and
( 2 ) Either: ( A ) has not received approval from the Commission or from a registered futures association of which the swap dealer is a member to compute its market risk exposure requirement and/or credit risk exposure requirement pursuant to internal models under § 23.102, or
( B ) has had its approval to compute its market risk exposure requirement and/or credit risk exposure requirement pursuant to internal models under § 23.102 revoked by the Commission or registered futures association must compute its market risk exposure requirement and/or credit risk exposure requirement pursuant to paragraphs (b) and/or (c) of this section.
( b ) *Market risk exposure requirements.* ( 1 ) A swap dealer that computes its regulatory capital under § 23.101(a)(1)(ii) or (a)(2) shall compute a market risk capital charge for the positions that the swap dealer holds in its proprietary accounts using the applicable standardized market risk charges set forth in § 240.18a-1 of this title and § 1.17 of this chapter for such positions.
( 2 ) In computing its net capital under § 23.101(a)(1)(ii), a swap dealer shall deduct from its tentative net capital the sum of the market risk capital charges computed under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( 3 ) In computing its minimum capital requirement under § 23.101(a)(2), a swap dealer must add the amount of the market risk capital charge computed under this section to the $20 million minimum capital requirement.
( c ) *Credit risk charges.* ( 1 ) A swap dealer that computes regulatory capital under § 23.101(a)(1)(ii) or (a)(2) shall compute counterparty credit risk charges using the applicable standardized credit risk charges set forth in § 240.18a-1 of this title and § 1.17 of this chapter for such positions.
( 2 ) In computing its net capital under § 23.101(a)(1)(ii), a swap dealer shall reduce its tentative net capital by the sum of the counterparty credit risk charges computed under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
( 3 ) In computing its minimum capital requirement under § 23.101(a)(2), a swap dealer must add the amount of the credit risk charge computed under this section to the $20 million minimum capital requirement.
[85 FR 57551, Sept. 15, 2020, as amended at 89 FR 45586, May 23, 2024]
### §2297h–3. Establishment of private corporation

#### (a) Incorporation

(1) The directors of the Corporation shall establish a private for-profit corporation under the laws of a State for the purpose of receiving the assets and obligations of the Corporation at privatization and continuing the business operations of the Corporation following privatization.

(2) The directors of the Corporation may serve as incorporators of the private corporation and shall take all steps necessary to establish the private corporation, including the filing of articles of incorporation consistent with the provisions of this subchapter.

(3) Employees and officers of the Corporation (including members of the Board of Directors) acting in accordance with this section on behalf of the private corporation shall be deemed to be acting in their official capacities as employees or officers of the Corporation for purposes of section 205 of title 18.

#### (b) Status of private corporation

(1) The private corporation shall not be an agency, instrumentality, or establishment of the United States, a Government corporation, or a Government-controlled corporation.

(2) Except as otherwise provided by this subchapter, financial obligations of the private corporation shall not be obligations of, or guaranteed as to principal or interest by, the Corporation or the United States, and the obligations shall so plainly state.

(3) No action under section 1491 of title 28 shall be allowable against the United States based on actions of the private corporation.

#### (c) Application of post-Government employment restrictions

Beginning on the privatization date, the restrictions stated in section 207(a), (b), (c), and (d) of title 18 shall not apply to the acts of an individual done in carrying out official duties as a director, officer, or employee of the private corporation, if the individual was an officer or employee of the Corporation (including a director) continuously during the 45 days prior to the privatization date.

#### (d) Dissolution

In the event that the privatization does not occur, the Corporation will provide for the dissolution of the private corporation within 1 year of the private corporation's incorporation unless the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate, upon the Corporation's request, agrees to delay any such dissolution for an additional year.

(Pub. L. 104–134, title III, §3105, Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321–337.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in subsecs. (a)(2) and (b)(2), means subchapter A of chapter 1 of title III of Pub. L. 104–134, Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321–335, known as the USEC Privatization Act, which is classified principally to this subchapter. For complete classification of subchapter A to the Code, see Short Title of 1996 Amendment note set out under section 2011 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the USEC Privatization Act and also as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, and not as part of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which comprises this chapter.
First Department,

June, 1953.

(June 2, 1953.)

#### Peter Schwabe, Respondent, v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Defendant, and Tully & Di Napoli, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — ■ Dore, J. P., Callahan, Breitel and Bergan, JJ.; Callahan, J., dissents and votes to reverse.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-1293 Directorate Identifier: 2012-NE-45-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Replacement $ 0.00 $487,312 $487,312.00 0 $ 0.00

Initial inspection 2.0 $ 170.00 $ 170.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): ASE Estimate
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.3a71-1 Definition of “security-based swap dealer.” ( a ) *General.* The term *security-based swap dealer* in general means any person who: ( 1 ) Holds itself out as a dealer in security-based swaps;
( 2 ) Makes a market in security-based swaps;
( 3 ) Regularly enters into security-based swaps with counterparties as an ordinary course of business for its own account; or
( 4 ) Engages in any activity causing it to be commonly known in the trade as a dealer or market maker in security-based swaps.
( b ) *Exception.* The term *security-based swap dealer* does not include a person that enters into security-based swaps for such person's own account, either individually or in a fiduciary capacity, but not as a part of regular business.
( c ) *Scope of designation.* A person that is a security-based swap dealer in general shall be deemed to be a security-based swap dealer with respect to each security-based swap it enters into, regardless of the type, class, or category of the security-based swap or the person's activities in connection with the security-based swap, unless the Commission limits the person's designation as a security-based swap dealer to specified types, classes, or categories of security-based swaps or specified activities of the person in connection with security-based swaps.
( d ) *Inter-affiliate activities* — ( 1 ) *General.* In determining whether a person is a security-based swap dealer, that person's security-based swaps with majority-owned affiliates shall not be considered.
( 2 ) *Meaning of majority-owned.* For these purposes the counterparties to a security-based swap are majority-owned affiliates if one counterparty directly or indirectly owns a majority interest in the other, or if a third party directly or indirectly owns a majority interest in both counterparties to the security-based swap, where “majority interest” is the right to vote or direct the vote of a majority of a class of voting securities of an entity, the power to sell or direct the sale of a majority of a class of voting securities of an entity, or the right to receive upon dissolution or the contribution of a majority of the capital of a partnership.
[78 FR 30751, May 23, 2013]
#### August P. Jurgensen, Respondent, v. Precision Machine Company, Inc., Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements; the date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-0475 

_____________________________

QUONTARRIOUS JONES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Stephen S. Everett, Judge.

March 8, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Richard M. Bracey, III,

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### Crucifice Larotondo, Respondent, v. James A. Larotondo, Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order granting plaintiff’s motion to punish him for contempt, for failing to comply with the provisions of a judgment of divorce which directs him to pay $25 a week for plaintiff’s support and maintenance. Order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Special Term for a hearing in accordance with the views indicated herein. In his answering affidavit defendant claimed that he was unemployed and absolutely without means, and he demanded a hearing as to his financial inability to comply. The Special Term granted the motion, without a hearing. Special Term may decide, after a hearing, whether defendant was and is, as he contends, financially unable to comply with the judgment (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1172-a). The issue with respect thereto, presented by the conflicting affidavits herein, may be better determined after the taking of oral proof. *(Kruger*v. *Kruger,*279 App. Div. 808.) Nolan, P. J., MacCrate, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.
§ 270.17d-3 Exemption relating to certain joint enterprises or arrangements concerning payment for distribution of shares of a registered open-end management investment company. An affiliated person of, or principal underwriter for, a registered open-end management investment company and an affiliated person of such a person or principal underwriter shall be exempt from section 17(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(d)) and rule 17d-1 thereunder (17 CFR 270.17d-1), to the extent necessary to permit any such person or principal underwriter to enter into a written agreement with such company whereby the company will make payments in connection with the distribution of its shares, *Provided,* That: ( a ) Such agreement is made in compliance with the provisions of § 270.12b-1; and
( b ) No other registered management investment company which is either an affiliated person of such company or an affiliated person of such a person is a party to such agreement.
[45 FR 73905, Nov. 7, 1980]
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

 

I, Rajesh Kalathur, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of John Deere Owner Trust 2019-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.             I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.             All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association (as indenture trustee).

 

 
| Date: January 24,   2020 | By:    | */s/   Rajesh Kalathur*                                     |
|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |   | Rajesh Kalathur                                             |
|                          |   | President of John Deere   Capital Corporation (as Servicer) |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(C) OF THE U.S.SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED**

 

I, Jason W. Cohenour, certify that:

 

1.               I havereviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Sierra Wireless, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

 

 

Date:  March 23,2006

 

 
| /s/  JASON W. COHENOUR   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Jason  W. Cohenour       |
| Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
p.1 

OAR Box 1672 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Documenf Number: 

c£/4)ll-C-15 

Docket Number: 

A-98-13 

Printed 9/30/2008 11:01:00 AM Sheet 44 of 132 
P.2 

A-9M3 

II-C-J 5 

From: Self <PES1RTP/GLAFLAM> 

To: billnacd@aol.com 

Subject: Organic Liquids Rule 

Copies to: STEVE SHEDD <SHEDD.STEVE@epamail.epa.gov>, PES1RTP/BHA 

Date sent: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:56:52 -0500 (EST) 

Bill Allmond 

NACD 

Bill, 

It was good talking to you yesterday and I welcome you as a 

participant in the EPA's HAP rule development for Organic Liquids 

Distribution. As you requested, I have attached a copy ofthe 

presentation from the first Roundtable meeting (WordPerfect formatlet me know if you have trouble retrieving it). It will give you an 

idea of where we are going and some types of information we need. 

As a reminder, our next industry/Work Team meeting will be on March 

24th, at 9:00 am in Durham, North Carolina. We will be sending out 

more information in the next week or so. 

After you review the attached materials, I would appreciate the 

chance to discuss the inclusion of a representative group of the 

larger NACD companies (terminaling and/or packaging) on our survey 

mailing list. We are also planning a trip (probably to Texas and 

Oklahoma) to visit some facilities (early April?). Perhaps there is a 

member company or two in that area that could show us their operations 

(our main interest is in a larger liquid mixing and/or packaging 

facility). 

Since our schedule is tight with regard to finalizing the survey, I 

will call you in the next few days to discuss these items further. 

Regards, 

Greg LaFlam 

PES, Inc. 

Greg LaFlam - 1 - Mon, 13 Apr 199814:50:21
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

══════════ 

### No. 1 7

- 0 724

══════════ 

### R EY 

### G ARZA 

### , P ETITIONER 

### ,

v. 

### R OXANA 

### R EGALADO 

### H ARRISON AND 

### J OSEPH 

### S ANTELLANA 

### , I NDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

### R EPRESENTATIVE OF THE 

### E STATE OF 

### J ONATHEN 

### A NTHONY 

### S ANTELLANA 

### , D ECEASED 

### , R ESPONDENT S

══════════════════ ════════════════════════ O N P ETITION FOR R EVIEW FROM THE C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F OURT EENTH D ISTRICT OF T EXAS

══════════════════ ════════════════════════ J USTICE B OYD , joined by J USTICE L EHRMANN , concurring. I agree with the Court’s analysis and join its opinion and judgment. I write separately only to emphasize that the Court does not decide or address whether this action “could have been brought” against the City of Navasota. Section 101.106(f) requires dism issal if this suit is “[1] filed against an employee of a governmental unit [2] based on conduct within the general scope of that employee’s employment and if [3] it could have been brought under this chapter against the governmental unit.” T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE § 101.106(f). The first requirement is indisputably satisfied on this record. The Court correctly holds that the facts satisfy the second requirement as well , but it does not address the third requirement because

— as the Court notes

— the plainti ffs do not dispute that they could have brought this wrongful

- death suit against Garza’s employer, the City of Navasota. Ante at ___. Because the plaintiffs do not challenge the third2

requirement, we do not address that issue and instead hold only that the suit is based on Garza’s conduct within the general scope of his employment as a police officer.

_____________________ Jeffrey S. Boyd Justice
Opinion delivered: May 24 , 2019
Horne International,
Inc.



EXHIBITS



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION



The undersigned hereby certifies, for the
purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, in his/her capacity as an officer of Horne International, Inc. (“Horne”), that, to the best of his/her
knowledge and belief, the quarterly report of Horne International, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2013, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Horne International,
Inc.



|Date: November 14, 2013 | By: | /s/    John E. Donahue                                  | 
|----------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                        |     | John E. Donahue                                         | 
|                        |     | Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Accounting Officer) | 



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 statement has been provided
to Horne International, Inc. and will be retained by Horne International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cornell Bethune, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 544]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), dated February 10, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski and Green, JJ.
#### Town of Hempstead, Respondent, v. Irving Listengart, Defendant, and Henry Felton et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 DIRECTV Holdings LLC (the "Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chase Carey, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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 Corporation.

|/s/CHASE CAREYChase Carey
President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|November 4, 2005                                                |  | 

---



QuickLinks