alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1253.7 Temporary approval of a new product. ( a ) The Director may approve a new product without first seeking public comment as described in § 1253.6 if: ( 1 ) In addition to the information required by § 1253.9(b), the Enterprise submits a specific request for temporary approval that describes the exigent circumstances that make the delay associated with a 30-day public comment period contrary to the public interest and the Director determines that exigent circumstances exist and that delay associated with first seeking public comment would be contrary to the public interest; or
( 2 ) Notwithstanding the absence of a request by the Enterprise for temporary approval, the Director determines on the Director's own initiative that there are exigent circumstances that make the delay associated with first seeking public comment contrary to the public interest.
( b ) The Director may impose terms, conditions, or limitations on the temporary approval to ensure that the new product offering is consistent with the factors in § 1253.6(d).
( c ) If the Director grants temporary approval, the Director will notify the Enterprise in writing of the Director's decision and include the period for which it is effective and any terms, conditions or limitations. Upon granting of temporary approval, FHFA will also publish the request for public comment to begin the process for permanent approval in accordance with § 1253.6.
( d ) If the Director denies a request for temporary approval, the Director will notify the Enterprise in writing of the Director's decision and will evaluate the new product in accordance with this section.
§ 23.425 Counseling and use of appraisal and counseling materials. ( a ) *Counseling.* A recipient shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of sex in the counseling or guidance of students or applicants for admission.
( b ) *Use of appraisal and counseling materials.* A recipient that uses testing or other materials for appraising or counseling students shall not use different materials for students on the basis of their sex or use materials that permit or require different treatment of students on such basis unless such different materials cover the same occupations and interest areas and the use of such different materials is shown to be essential to eliminate sex bias. Recipients shall develop and use internal procedures for ensuring that such materials do not discriminate on the basis of sex. Where the use of a counseling test or other instrument results in a substantially disproportionate number of members of one sex in any particular course of study or classification, the recipient shall take such action as is necessary to assure itself that such disproportion is not the result of discrimination in the instrument or its application.
( c ) *Disproportion in classes.* Where a recipient finds that a particular class contains a substantially disproportionate number of individuals of one sex, the recipient shall take such action as is necessary to assure itself that such disproportion is not the result of discrimination on the basis of sex in counseling or appraisal materials or by counselors.
AAM-12-361-E 

May 24, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10540 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0518 

Mr. James Hobbs 

MauiScape Helicopter Tours dba 

 Airborne Aviation 

P.O. Box 71 Lihue 

Lihue, Hawaii 96766 

Dear Mr. Hobbs: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated April 25, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of MauiScape Helicopter Tours dba Airborne Aviation (Airborne) for an exemption 

from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to 

allow Airborne to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing 

program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Airborne. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing 

programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of 
2 

safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was 

unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant MauiScape Helicopter Tours dba Airborne Aviation an 

exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Airborne to cover its safetysensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program, subject to the conditions and 

limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Airborne are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of 

the Airborne part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
#### § 59.100 Payment of grant award.

The amount of the grant award will be paid to the State or, if designated by the State representative, the State home for which such project is being carried out or any other State agency or instrumentality. Such amount shall be paid by way of reimbursement, and in such installments consistent with the progress of the project as the Chief Consultant, Geriatrics and Extended Care, may determine and certify for payment to the appropriate Federal institution. Funds paid under this section for an approved project shall be used solely for carrying out such project as so approved. As a condition for the final payment, the State must comply with the requirements of this part based on an architectural and engineering inspection approved by VA, must obtain VA approval of the final equipment list submitted by the State representative, and must submit to VA a completed VA Form 10-0388-13 (this form is available on the internet Web site provided in § 59.170). The equipment list and the completed VA Form 10-0388-13 must be submitted to the Chief Consultant, Geriatrics and Extended Care (114), VHA Headquarters; 810 Vermont Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20420.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1742, 8105, 8131-8137)

[73 FR 58880, Oct. 8, 2008]
#### H. E. CROOK CO. v. UNITED STATES

[59 C. Cls. 593; 270 U. S. 4]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*the Supreme Court deciding;

Where a contract for furnishing and installing heating plants in buildings to be erected for the Government by other contractors showed on its face that progress under it would be dependent on the progress of the buildings, and, though strictly limiting the time for the contractor’s performance, made no reference to delays by the Government save as grounds for time extensions to the contractor; and the contractor therein agreed to accept the contract price in full satisfaction for all work done under the contract, reduced by damages deducted for its delays and increased or reduced by the price of any changes ordered by the Government, and stipulated that the contract price should cover all expenses of any nature connected with the work to be done; *held,*that the Government was not bound to make good losses suffered by the contractor in performing the contract due to delays in completing the buildings.

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 25, 1926.
#### § 1263.10 Ten percent requirement for certain insured depository institution applicants.

An insured depository institution applicant that is subject to the 10 percent requirement of section 4(a)(2)(A) of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1424(a)(2)(A)) and § 1263.6(b) shall be deemed to comply with that requirement if, based on the applicant's most recent regulatory financial report filed with its appropriate regulator, the applicant has at least 10 percent of its total assets in residential mortgage loans, except that any assets used to secure mortgage-backed securities as described in paragraph (5) of the definition of “residential mortgage loan” set forth in § 1263.1 shall not be used to meet this requirement.
# C_2021344EN.01000301.xml

| 27.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

26 August 2021

(2021/C 344/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1767 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 129,60 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4366 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85718 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2413 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0789 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 148,60 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,3615 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,546 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 349,18 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5779 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9318 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 9,8450 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6206 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4838 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,1625 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6882 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5920 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 373,36 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,5420 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6285 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4885 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 996,28 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9363 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,803 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 87,0756 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,525 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,1506 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,9001 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 87,2340 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1767

JPY

Japanese yen

129,60

DKK

Danish krone

7,4366

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85718

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2413

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0789

ISK

Iceland króna

148,60

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,3615

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,546

HUF

Hungarian forint

349,18

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5779

RON

Romanian leu

4,9318

TRY

Turkish lira

9,8450

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6206

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4838

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,1625

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6882

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5920

KRW

South Korean won

1 373,36

ZAR

South African rand

17,5420

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6285

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4885

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 996,28

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9363

PHP

Philippine peso

58,803

RUB

Russian rouble

87,0756

THB

Thai baht

38,525

BRL

Brazilian real

6,1506

MXN

Mexican peso

23,9001

INR

Indian rupee

87,2340

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 01-4462



#  S HELLY L EEA NDERSON , J R ., a/k/a Shelly Anderson,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.

(CR-00-934) Submitted: January 24, 2002 Decided: February 8, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Kenneth Witherspoon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION PER CURIAM: Shelly Lee Anderson, Jr., pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute greater than 500 grams but less than five kilograms of cocaine and was sentenced to sixty months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Anderson’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raises two issues: whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and whether Anderson was properly sentenced. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. First, we do not find that the district court committed reversible error in conducting its Rule 11 colloquy with Anderson at the plea hearing. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h) (noting that any variance from Rule 11 that does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded); United States v. Goins , 51 F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir. 1995) (stating review standard). Second, we find no error in Anderson’s sentence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Pinckney , 938 F.2d 519, 522 (4th Cir. 1991). We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders , and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. A NDERSON
# C_2022182EN.01001301.xml

| 4.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/13

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

3 May 2022

(2022/C 182/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0556 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,06 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4403 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84130 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3978 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0272 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 137,60 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,9090 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,662 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 382,15 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6925 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9475 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 15,6941 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4825 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3570 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2838 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6366 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4605 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 335,64 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,8303 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9759 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5555 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 288,47 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5956 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,455 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,387 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,3143 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,5025 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,8420 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0556

JPY

Japanese yen

137,06

DKK

Danish krone

7,4403

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84130

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3978

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0272

ISK

Iceland króna

137,60

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,9090

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,662

HUF

Hungarian forint

382,15

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6925

RON

Romanian leu

4,9475

TRY

Turkish lira

15,6941

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4825

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3570

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2838

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6366

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4605

KRW

South Korean won

1 335,64

ZAR

South African rand

16,8303

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9759

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5555

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 288,47

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5956

PHP

Philippine peso

55,455

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,387

BRL

Brazilian real

5,3143

MXN

Mexican peso

21,5025

INR

Indian rupee

80,8420

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
§ 20.1302 Rule 1302. Death of appellant during pendency of appeal before the Board. ( a ) *General.* An appeal pending before the Board of Veterans' Appeals when the appellant dies will be dismissed without prejudice. A person eligible for substitution under § 3.1010 of this chapter may file with the agency of original jurisdiction a request to substitute for the deceased appellant. If the agency of original jurisdiction grants the request to substitute, the case will assume its original place on the docket pursuant to Rule 800, paragraph (f) (§ 20.800(f)) or, for legacy appeals, Rule 902, paragraph (a)(2) (§ 20.902(a)(2)). If the agency of original jurisdiction denies the request to substitute and the person requesting to substitute appeals that decision to the Board, the appeal regarding eligibility to substitute will assume the same place on the docket as the original claim pursuant to Rule 800, paragraph (f) (§ 20.800(f)) or, for legacy appeals, Rule 902, paragraph (a)(2) (§ 20.902(a)(2)).
( b ) *Exception.* ( 1 ) If a hearing request is pending pursuant to Rule 704 (§ 20.704) when the appellant dies, the agency of original jurisdiction may take action on a request to substitute without regard to whether the pending appeal has been dismissed by the Board, if the request is submitted in accordance with § 3.1010 of this chapter.
( 2 ) If the agency of original jurisdiction grants the request to substitute, the Board of Veterans' Appeals can then take the testimony of the substitute at a hearing held pursuant to Rules 700 through 717 (§§ 20.700 through 20.717). If the substitute desires representation at the hearing, he or she must appoint a representative prior to the hearing pursuant to § 14.631(g) of this chapter.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5121A, 7104(a)).
[79 FR 52984, Sept. 5, 2014, as amended at 84 FR 191, Jan. 18, 2019]
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.21

                                          [LOGO OF KONOVER PROPERTY TRUST, INC.]

MEMORANDUM

To:   Dan Kelly

From: Michael Maloney

CC:   Human Resources

Date: 3/25/2002

Re:   Your Employment Letter Dated December 29, 2000 ("Employment Letter")

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At its March 7, 2002 meeting, the Company's Board directed me to assure you of
the following, in light of the terms of the Employment Letter.

Despite the exclusion of "LF Strategic Realty Investors II L.P. and its
affiliates" (hereinafter collectively "Lazard") from the definition of "Change
of Control" appearing in the Employment Letter, the Board agrees that if Lazard
takes the Company private, such will indeed be a Change of Control for purposes
of the Employment Letter. To the extent the terms of the Employment Letter would
preclude you from receiving benefits under paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof in the
event that Lazard takes the Company private, the Board is willing to modify the
Employment Letter as to that particular scenario. Nonetheless, to be clear, the
Board is not waiving any other rights, terms or conditions of the Employment
Letter and such remain in effect.

Nothing in this memorandum should be construed as a statement that Lazard is or
is not taking the Company private. There are many alternatives available to the
Board and no course of action has been determined at this point.

If you have any questions, please contact me.


Page 1
#### § 1292.4 Targeted Community Lending Plan.

Each Bank shall develop and adopt an annual Targeted Community Lending Plan pursuant to § 1290.6 of this chapter.
§ 1253.8 Substantially similar activities. ( a ) An Enterprise shall notify FHFA of its intent to commence an activity that is substantially similar to any of the following activities at least 15 days prior to offering the activity: ( 1 ) The automated loan underwriting system of an Enterprise that was in existence as of July 30, 2008, including any enhancement, alteration, or modification to the technology, operating system, or software to operate the automated loan underwriting system;
( 2 ) Any enhancement, alteration, or modification to mortgage terms and conditions or underwriting criteria relating to mortgages that are purchased or guaranteed by an Enterprise, provided that such activity does not alter the underlying transaction so as to include services or financing, other than residential mortgage financing; or
( 3 ) A new product that the Director has approved for either Enterprise under § 1253.6(a) through (f) or § 1253.7 or a new product that is otherwise available to either Enterprise under § 1253.6(h).
( b ) The Director may determine that an activity is substantially similar to an activity described in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, if the activity is: ( 1 ) A technology system that applies mortgage terms and conditions or underwriting criteria to residential mortgages that are purchased or guaranteed by an Enterprise; or
( 2 ) An enhancement, alteration, or modification to the technology, operating system, or software to operate a technology system described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( c ) The Director may determine that an activity is substantially similar to an activity described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if the activity: ( 1 ) Requires the same or a similar resource, type of data, policy, process, and infrastructure;
( 2 ) Entails the same or similar levels of credit risk, market risk, and operational risk to the Enterprise; and
( 3 ) Involves the same or a similar category of borrower, investor, counterparty, and collateral.
( d ) The notification is not required to be a notice of new activity. The notification shall include the name and a complete and specific description of the activity, as well as an explanation of why the Enterprise believes the activity qualifies as a substantially similar activity under paragraph (a) of this section.
( e ) Public notice and comment is not required in connection with offering substantially similar activities.
( f ) If the Director determines an activity is not a substantially similar activity, the Enterprise must submit a notice of new activity under § 1253.5 or a request for prior approval of a new product under § 1253.6 and may not proceed or continue with the activity except pursuant to the requirements in this part.
----

# Virtual CD-ROM/Floppy Disk Library

      -  Home
      -  About
      -  Search
      -  List All

## Search Virtual CD-ROM/Floppy Disk Library

      - ICR treatment study database for MS Access 97  Displays the results of the disinfection byproduct precursor removal studies conducted under EPA's information collection rule (ICR).  EP 1.104:T 71/CD

----

IU Bloomington Libraries

           Comments: libgpd@indiana.edu

  			Hosted by the IU Digital Library Program

----

        - Copyright  © 				    
2012
 				The Trustees of  Indiana University
        - Copyright Complaints
        - Libraries Privacy Policy
        - Accessibility Help