alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MICHELLE L. CLARK, 

FORMER WIFE,

Appellant,

v.

GARY L. CLARK, FORMER 

HUSBAND,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-0987

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 9, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John L. Miller, Judge.

E. Jane Brehany, Pensacola, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Michelle L. Clark appeals a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, 

challenging the trial court’s valuation of several marital assets and her award of two 
years’ bridge-the-gap alimony. We affirm on all issues raised, except as to the 

court’s treatment of the former husband’s Fidelity Investment Account #5219.

Regarding that asset, the court determined:

At the time of the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of 

Marriage, the account had a balance of $103,291.00. At 

the beginning of the marriage, the account had a balance 

of $107,239.00. Therefore, the account had a greater 

balance at the beginning of the marriage than it did at the 

time of the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of 

Marriage. Since there was no evidence that the account 

increased in value due to marital funds, the Court has no 

legal basis to designate a portion of this account as a 

marital asset.

The court did not err in using the petition filing date as the date for valuing the asset. 

Under section 61.075(7), Florida Statutes (2012), the date the petition for dissolution 

of marriage was filed is an appropriate date for classifying the parties’ assets as 

marital, and “[t]he date for determining value of assets . . . classified as marital is the 

date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances.” 

But the account statements in the record reflect a value of $149,009.76 on March 1, 

2013, $135,888.40 on March 31, 2013, and $103,290.62 on April 30, 2013. The 

petition for dissolution in this case was filed on March 8, 2013. It thus appears the 

trial court misread the account statements.

Therefore, we reverse that portion of the final judgment equitably distributing

the parties’ marital assets and liabilities, and remand to the trial court to determine 

the correct value of the former husband’s Fidelity Investment Account #5219, and 

2
to revise the equitable distribution scheme accordingly. In all other respects, the 

final judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.

PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.

3
# C_2021466EN.01000301.xml

| 18.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 466/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 466/3

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2021/C 466/03)

Image 1

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Andorra

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country: Andorra

Subject of commemoration: Our Lady of Meritxell

Description of the design: The foreground of the design depicts the reproduction of the Romanesque carving of Our Lady of Meritxell (patron saint of the Principality of Andorra), which dates back from the 11th and 12th centuries. The background of the design shows a partial reproduction of the basilica sanctuary where it is located, a graphic element symbolizing a flower, the name of the issuing country ‘ANDORRA’ and the years ‘1921-2021’. The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Estimated number of coins to be issued: 73 750

Date of issue: Last quarter of 2021

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

---
§ 59.70 Award of grants. ( a ) The Secretary, during the fiscal year for which a priority list is made under this part, will: ( 1 ) Award a grant for each application that has been approved under § 59.20, that is sufficiently high on the priority list so that funding is available for the application, that meets the additional application requirements in § 59.60, and that meets all other requirements under this part for obtaining a grant, or
( 2 ) Conditionally approve a grant for a project for which a State has submitted an application that substantially meets the requirements of this part if the State representative requests conditional approval and provides written assurance that the State will meet all requirements for a grant not later than 180 calendar days after the date of conditional approval. If a State that has obtained conditional approval for a project does not meet all of the requirements within 180 calendar days after the date of conditional approval, the Secretary will rescind the conditional approval and the project will be ineligible for a grant in the fiscal year in which the State failed to fully complete the application. The funds that were conditionally obligated for the project will be deobligated.
( b ) As a condition of receiving a grant, a State must make sufficient funds available for the project for which the grant is requested so that such project may proceed upon approval of the grant without further action required by the State (such as subsequent issuance of bonds) to make such funds available for such purpose. To meet this criteria, the State must provide to VA a letter from an authorized State budget official certifying that the State funds are, or will be, available for the project, so that if VA awards the grant, the project may proceed without further State action to make such funds available (such as further action to issue bonds). If the certification is based on an Act authorizing the project and making available the State's matching funds for the project, a copy of the Act must be submitted with the certification. To be eligible for inclusion in priority group 1 under this part, a State must make such funds available by August 1 of the year prior to the fiscal year for which the grant is requested. To otherwise be eligible for a grant and grant funds based on inclusion on the priority list in other than priority group 1, a State must make such funds available by July 1 of the fiscal year for which the grant is requested.
( c ) As a condition of receiving a grant, the State representative and the Secretary will sign three originals of the Memorandum of Agreement documents (one for the State and two for VA). A sample is in § 59.170.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1742, 8105, 8131-8137)
[66 FR 33847, June 26, 2001, as amended at 77 FR 10665, Feb. 23, 2012]
#### UNITED STATES v. WYCKOFF PIPE & CREOSOTING CO.

[59 C. Cls. 980; 271 U. S. 263]

Judgment was rendered against the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *reversed,*the Supreme Court deciding:

1. Where a contractor with the Government completed the job under the contract, reserving the right to claim damages due to long delays by the Government in performing its part, the measure of such damages was not the difference between the contract price and the higher market value of the work at time of performance, but the loss actually sustained by the contractor as the result of the delay.

2. In computing such damages, *helé*that the contractor could not be allowed the difference between the cost of supplies bought and held for the work under the contract, and the higher market price they had acquired by the time when they were used in it, in the absence of evidence that this was the measure of the loss.

Mr. Justice BkaNdeis

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 24, 1926.
#### § 1075.100 Scope and purpose.

Section 1017(d)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1978 (12 U.S.C. 5497(d)) (Dodd-Frank Act) establishes the “Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund.” This part describes the conditions under which victims will be eligible for payments from the Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund and the amounts of the payments they may receive. This part also establishes procedures and guidelines for allocating funds from the Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund to classes of victims and distributing such funds to individual victims, and for allocating funds to consumer education and financial literacy programs. This part also establishes reporting requirements.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Returning Veterans RFA—Schedule and Preparations.                    

*Date:*                         March 2, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                        National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Marina Broitman, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6153, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-402-8152,                         *mbroitma@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 28, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-2393 Filed 2-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# C_2021473EN.01002201.xml

| 24.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 473/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 473/22

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2021/C 473/08)

Image 1

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Malta

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country: Malta

Subject of commemoration: Maltese prehistoric temples of Tarxien (of the series UNESCO World Heritage Site)

Description of the design: The design depicts a detail of the prehistoric structure. At the top is the inscription ‘TARXIEN TEMPLES 3600-2500 BC’. At the bottom is the name of the issuing country ‘MALTA’ and underneath it is the year of issuance ‘2021’.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued: 181 000

Date of issue: October 2021

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

---
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

# **CERTIFICATION SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Bernardo Vera, certifythat:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Corimon, C.A.;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements are made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

a)                                     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;

b)                                    evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as ofa date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the“Evaluation Date”); and

c)                                     presentedin this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness and disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or person performing the equivalent function):

 

a)                  allsignificant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichwould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal control; and

b)                 anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6.                   Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annualreport whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or inother factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent tothe date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions withregard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

Date:December 19, 2003

 

 

BernardoVera

ChiefExecutive Officer

 

----
#### UNITED STATES v. PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RY. CO. ET AL. PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RY. CO. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES

[61 C. Cls. 11; 271 U. S. *310]*

Judgment was rendered against the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was reversed, the Supreme Court deciding:

1. Under section 1 of the Federal control act and section 6 of the standard form of contracts made pursuant thereto between the Director General of Railways and the railroads taken over by the Government, whereby the Director General was either to *769pay out of the revenues derived from railway operations “ during the period of Federal control,” or save the company harmless from all taxes lawfully assessed under Federal or other governmental authority “for any part of said period,” except “ war taxes ” assessed against the company under the revenue act of 1917 or any act in addition thereto or amendment thereof, the obligation of the Director General to hear the normal income taxes of a railroad corporation was limited to those “ assessed for the period of Federal control,” and did not extend to income taxes under the revenue act of 1921, assessed for the year 1921, on income received by the company in that year (after termination of Federal control) from the Director General in compensation for the use of its properties during Federal control.

2. The divisions of income taxes prescribed by revenue act of 1918, section 230 (b), between the Director General of Railroads and railroad companies did not apply to income taxes imposed by revenue act of 1921, and the latter prescribed no such divisions.

Mr. Justice Butlee

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 24, 1926.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Republic of Singapore Signs the Artemis Accords

# 									Republic of Singapore Signs the Artemis Accords							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

March 28, 2022

In August 2021, as part of Vice President Kamala Harris’s trip to Singapore, the United States and Singapore agreed on the importance of creating a safe and transparent environment that facilitates space exploration, science, and commercial activities for all of humanity to enjoy. Vice President Harris and Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong discussed opportunities to expand bilateral cooperation in the field of space.

Today, as a product of that expanded dialogue and cooperation on space, Minister for Trade and Industry Gan Kim Yong signed the Artemis Accords on behalf of the Republic of Singapore in a ceremony in Washington, DC.  This important statement of commitment to the peaceful and safe exploration of space was welcomed by Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary J.R. Littlejohn and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy.

Led by the Department of State and NASA, the Artemis Accords are grounded in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and promote values-based cooperation and encourage responsible and safe behavior in space.  These principles for space exploration also underpin NASA’s Artemis Program, which seeks to land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon, while preparing to conduct a human mission to Mars.

Singapore is the 18th country to sign the Accords, joining Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  These nations are leading the world in operationalizing principles for the responsible exploration of space.

For further information on the Artemis Accords, visit https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis-accords/index.html.

For media inquiries, please contact OES-PA-DG@state.gov.

Tags

Artemis AccordsBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonSingaporeSpace

Back to Top