alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2715 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include heavier vehicles 

in the limitation on the depreciation of certain luxury automobiles. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2007 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. EMANUEL, and Ms. 

SCHWARTZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include 

heavier vehicles in the limitation on the depreciation of 

certain luxury automobiles. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF HEAVIER VEHICLES IN LIMITA4 TION ON DEPRECIATION OF CERTAIN LUX5 URY AUTOMOBILES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

7 280F(d)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defin8 ing passenger automobile) is amended by striking clauses 

9 (i) and (ii) and inserting the following new clauses: 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 2715 IH

1 ‘‘(i) which is primarily designed or 

2 which can be used to carry passengers over 

3 public streets, roads, or highways (except 

4 any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or 

5 rails), and 

6 ‘‘(ii) which is rated at 14,000 pounds 

7 unloaded gross vehicle weight or less.’’. 

8 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

9 280F(d)(5) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ 

10 at the end of clause (ii), by redesignating clause (iii) as 

11 clause (iv), and by inserting after clause (ii) the following 

12 new clause: 

13 ‘‘(iii) any vehicle which— 

14 ‘‘(I) is designed for more than 9 

15 individuals in seating rearward of the 

16 driver’s seat, 

17 ‘‘(II) is equipped with an open 

18 cargo area, or a covered box not read19 ily accessible from the passenger com20 partment, of at least 72.0 inches in 

21 interior length, or 

22 ‘‘(III) has an integral enclosure, 

23 fully enclosing the driver compartment 

24 and load carrying device, does not 

25 have seating rearward of the driver’s 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•HR 2715 IH

1 seat, and has no body section pro2 truding more than 30 inches ahead of 

3 the leading edge of the windshield, 

4 and’’. 

5 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (b) of 

6 section 179 of such Code is amended by striking para7 graph (6). 

8 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

10 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Acadia
Realty Trust
White Plains, New York

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-157886, 333-31630, 333-139950, 333-114785 and
333-126712) and Form S-8 (Nos. 33-95966, 333-87993 and 333-106758) of Acadia
Realty Trust of our reports dated February 28, 2011, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, and the
effectiveness of Acadia Realty Trusts internal control over financial
reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K.

BDO USA,
LLP
New York, New York

February 28, 2011

---
#### § 1402.11 Current index.

The Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation will make available for public inspection and copying a current index to provide identifying information as to any matter required by 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2)(C) to be made available or published in the Federal Register. Because of the anticipated infrequency of requests for material required to be indexed, it is determined that the publication of the index in the Federal Register is unnecessary and impracticable. However, the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation will provide a copy of such index to a member of the public upon request therefor at a cost not in excess of the direct cost of duplication.
#### § 1807.601 Uniform Administrative Requirements.

The Uniform Administrative Requirements apply to all CMF Awards.
# C_2023134EN.01000101.xml

| 17.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2023/C 134/01)

Last publication

OJ C 127, 11.4.2023

Past publications

OJ C 121, 3.4.2023

OJ C 112, 27.3.2023

OJ C 104, 20.3.2023

OJ C 94, 13.3.2023

OJ C 83, 6.3.2023

OJ C 71, 27.2.2023

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
# C_2022093EN.01000501.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

25 February 2022

(2022/C 93/05)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1216 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 129,64 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4418 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83740 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5848 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0398 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 140,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,9756 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,660 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 365,28 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6369 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9479 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 15,4799 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5541 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4325 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7578 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6651 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5176 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 346,44 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,0315 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0828 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5535 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 088,71 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7107 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,549 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 92,5673 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,441 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,7380 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,9145 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,3470 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1216

JPY

Japanese yen

129,64

DKK

Danish krone

7,4418

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83740

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5848

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0398

ISK

Iceland króna

140,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,9756

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,660

HUF

Hungarian forint

365,28

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6369

RON

Romanian leu

4,9479

TRY

Turkish lira

15,4799

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5541

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4325

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7578

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6651

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5176

KRW

South Korean won

1 346,44

ZAR

South African rand

17,0315

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0828

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5535

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 088,71

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7107

PHP

Philippine peso

57,549

RUB

Russian rouble

92,5673

THB

Thai baht

36,441

BRL

Brazilian real

5,7380

MXN

Mexican peso

22,9145

INR

Indian rupee

84,3470

---

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

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4484
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANDRES ESTRADA, Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-4804
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PRIMITIVO ABEJA VEGA, a/k/a Roberto Lopez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00363-JAB) Submitted: July 11, 2007 Decided: July 20, 2007 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.- 2 - Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John A. Dusenbury, Jr., OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina; Benjamin D. Porter, MORROW, ALEXANDER & PORTER, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellants. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Randall Stuart Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Andres Estrada and Primitivo Abeja Vega appeal their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming there are no meritorious issues on appeal, but raising the question of whether the sentences were reasonable. Neither Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no error, we affirm. We find Appellants’ ranges of imprisonment were properly calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines. Thus, their sentences at the low end of the Guidelines range of imprisonment were reasonable. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006). Pursuant to Anders , we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences. We require counsel to inform the clients, in writing, of their right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If a client requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes 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- 4 - argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED
#### § 1010.200 Instructions for Statement of Record, Additional Information and Documentation.

The Additional Information and Documentation portion of the Statement of Record shall contain the statements and documents required in §§ 1010.208 through 1010.219. Each section number and its associated heading and each paragraph letter or number and their associated subheadings or captions must appear in this portion. Following each heading, subheading, or caption printed in this portion, the registrant shall insert an appropriate response. If a heading, subheading, or caption does not apply to the subdivision, it shall be followed by the words “not applicable”. Immediately after the page(s) on which the section number and answers for that section appear, insert the information or documents which support that section. In addition to the statements and documentation expressly required there shall be added any further material, information, documentation and certifications as may be necessary in the public interest and for the protection of purchasers or to cause the statements made to be not misleading in the light of the circumstances under which they are made.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10995

Summary Calendar

JAMES BELL MCCOY, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:09-CV-405

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

James Bell McCoy, Sr., Texas prisoner # 1299701, proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis, appeals the denial of his motion to recuse the district judge 

who presided over two matters in which McCoy challenged a state-court 

conviction. The court denied the motion because the case was closed and on 

appeal to this court.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 10, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10995 Document: 00512591729 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2014
No. 13-10995

“[T]he filing of a valid notice of appeal from a final order of the district 

court divests that court of jurisdiction to act on the matters involved in the 

appeal, except to aid the appeal, correct clerical errors, or enforce its 

judgment”. Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 751 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). McCoy filed his motion to recuse after 

filing notices of appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and the 

denial of his motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 

Accordingly, the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the recusal motion. 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-10995 Document: 00512591729 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2014
#### § 1807.907 Limitation on liability.

The liability of the CDFI Fund and the United States Government arising out of any CMF Award shall be limited to the amount of the CMF Award. The CDFI Fund shall be exempt from any assessments and other liabilities that may be imposed on controlling or principal shareholders by any Federal law or the law of any State. Nothing in this section shall affect the application of any Federal tax law.
42202, 42203.

#### BARLOW v. RUSHIN; and vice versa.

Submitted September 12, 1966

Decided September 20, 1966.

*G. B. King,*for appellant.

*Durden & Durden, Adié N. Durden, Jr.,*for appellee.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. “Errors alleged to have been in the charge, but to which there was no exception as provided in *Code Ann.*§ 70-207 (a, b), will not generally be held harmful as a matter of law, and will not be considered unless it appears that a gross injustice is about to result or has resulted, directly attributable to the alleged errors.” *Nathan v. Dun*can, 113 Ga. App. 630 (6) (149 SE2d 383); *Georgia Power Co. v. Maddox,*113 Ga. App. 642 (149 SE2d 393); *Southern R. Co. v. Grogan,*113 Ga. App. 451, 458 (148 SE2d 439).

2. All of the enumerations of error in the main appeal address themselves to the court’s charge to which no objection was made before verdict, and since such alleged errors in the charge, if error, could not be deemed to fall in the category described in § 17 (c) of the Act of 1965 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 31; *Code Ann.*§ 70-207 (c)), no reversible error is shown by the main appeal.

*Judgment affirmed on main appeal; cross appeal dismissed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
Kiakakrorak

R iver 

K o gosukruk R iv er 

Fish

Creek 

Judy

C re e

k 

Tu n alik

River 

To p ag oruk 

Inaru River 

Kuk 

Riv er 

Co l v il e 

Ikpikpuk 

River 

Meade 

Co l v il l e 

Meade River 

River 

River 

Ri v e r 

R i v e r 

Maybe Creek 

Titaluk River 

Nuiqsut 

Umiat 

Atigaru Point 

Har rison

Bay 

Tangent Point 

Be a uf ort S ea 

Point Barrow 

Dease Inlet 

Peard ay 

Ch uk c hi S e a 

Kasegaluk 

Lagoon 

Cape

Point 

B

A R C T I C O C E A N 

Barrow 

Walakpa Bay 

Cape Si Point Frankli mpson n Pitt

Point Belcher Admiralt Smith Bay Bay

y 

Halkett

Wainwright 

Teshekpuk Lake

Icy Cape Atqasuk

Point Lay 

SUBSISTENCE AREAS BY COMMUNITY 

Nuiqsut Community Harvest Area 

Atqasuk Commuity Harvest Area 

Barrow Community Harvest Area l

Native Corporations Surface Ownership 

0 6 12 18

Miles 

Source: Pedersen 1979; Hoffman, Libbey, and Spearman 1988; and SRBA, 1989a.

Map 3-35. Barrow, Atqasuk, and Nuisut Community Subsistence Areas in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
#### § 1271.7 Rights, powers, responsibilities, duties, and liabilities.

To the extent it is not inconsistent with other provisions of this subpart, the Uniform Commercial Code governs the rights, powers, responsibilities, duties, and liabilities of Banks in the exercise of their authority under this subpart. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “bank,” as used in the Uniform Commercial Code and clearinghouse rules, includes Banks and their members and eligible institutions.
#### Rodger DYER *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 75-58

527 S.W. 2d 622

Opinion delivered September 8, 1975

*495
      *Bill E. Ross,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *Robert A. Newcomb,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Frank Holt, Justice.

This appeal results from the denial of appellant’s petition for postconviction relief. He was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1970. There was no appeal. In 1972, appellant filed a Rule 1 petition alleging violation of certain constitutional rights. The trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing pursuant to the provisions of our Criminal Procedure Rule 1 (C). Ark. Stat. Ann. Vol. 3A (Supp. 1973) p. 127. There was no appeal from that ruling. Two years later, appellant filed a second Rule 1 petition asserting the same violations of his constitutional rights as previously alleged plus additional allegations. The court denied the second petition without an evidentiary hearing according to the provisions of Rule 1 (C): i.e., after reviewing the motion in conjunction with all the official records, files and transcripts. This appeal follows the denial of the second Rule 1 petition.

Appellant first presents the argument “that in order to satisfy [his] constitutional right to assistance of counsel at all stages of the criminal proceedings an attorney should be appointed in each Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 proceeding even though” the trial court is authorized to proceed, as here, pursuant to paragraph (C). This issue was determined adversely to appellant in *Winberry*v. *State,*256 Ark. 65, 505 S.W. 2d 497 (1973). There we said. “**** the court was not obliged to appoint counsel for appellant when the court determined there was no necessity for an evidentiary hearing.” Appellant, however, insists that we should repudiate and overrule this recent case because it is contrary to our state and federal constitution. We disagree and adhere to our decision. There is no constitutional right to appointed *496counsel in state postconviction proceedings. *Noble*v. *Sigler,*351 Fed. 2d 673 (8th Cir. 1965), cert. denied 385 U.S. 853, 87 S. Ct. 98, 17 L. Ed. 2d 81 (1966). There is was further said that these “**** proceedings are civil rather than criminal in nature ****.” However, our Rule 1 (D) provides that an indigent is entitled to counsel whenever there is an evidentiary hearing or an appeal, as here, from the denial of a postconviction petition.

Appellant next asserts that it was reversible error not to permit him to be present at the original Rule 1 hearing as was requested in his petition. Again, we reiterate that a petitioner does not have the right to be present whenever his petition for postconviction relief can, as here, be processed pursuant to paragraph (C) of our Rule 1. *Robertson*v. *State,*252 Ark. 333, 478 S.W. 2d 878 (1972); and *Grayer*v. *State,*242 Ark. 640, 414 S.W. 2d 870 (1967).

Affirmed.
§ 1215.14 Procedure in the event of an adverse FHFA determination. ( a ) *Procedure for seeking reconsideration of FHFA's determination.* A demanding or requesting party seeking reconsideration of FHFA's rejection of a demand or request, or of any restrictions on receiving records, information, or testimony, may seek reconsideration of the rejection or restrictions as follows: ( 1 ) *Notice of Intention to Petition for Reconsideration.* The aggrieved demanding or requesting party may seek reconsideration by filing a written Notice of Intention to Petition for Reconsideration (Notice) within 10 business days of the date of FHFA's determination. The Notice must identify the petitioner, the determination for which reconsideration is being petitioned, and any dates (such as deposition, hearing, or court dates) that are significant to petitioner. The Notice must be served in accordance with § 1215.7.
( 2 ) *Petition for Reconsideration.* Within five business days of filing Notice, the petitioner must file a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) in accordance with § 1215.7. The Petition must contain a clear and concise statement of the basis for the reconsideration with supporting authorities. Determinations about petitions for reconsideration are within the discretion of the FHFA Director, and are final.
( b ) *Prerequisite to judicial review.* Pursuant to section 704 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 704, a petition to FHFA for reconsideration of a final determination made under the authority of this part is a prerequisite to judicial review.
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 Annual Report of Barings Private Credit Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2021 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ian Fowler, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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.





/s/ IAN FOWLERIan FowlerCo-Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 23, 2022
# C_2022114EN.01000501.xml

| 10.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/5

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2022/C 114/04)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

EPSO/AD/399/22 – Administrators in the field of Audit (AD 7)

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 114 A of 10 March 2022.

Further information can be found on the EPSO Internet: https://epso.europa.eu/

---
U.S .Depor t ment of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 

### RECORD OF CONVERSATION CON:CACT INFORMA11ION B OO Independence Ave . . S W Wash i nglon . DC . 20 59 1 

### Date of Conversation: _ J _

t _ ll "'-

y_

3 _ 0 ..:... , _

2

_ 0

_ 1 4

_ ________________ ___ _ 

### Company: Hartzell Propeller, Inc. 

### Contact Name: Mr. Richard Edinger 

### DocketNumber: FAA-2013-0982 Phone:

### ~ Phone Number: _ 9 _3

_

7 _

- _ 2

_ 1_ 4

_ -6

_

5 _ 4 _ 4 _ ___ __ _ __________ _ Email: 

# 0 Email Address: 

## - - - ----------- - ---- - -----

Visit: 

# 0 Location: Subject: Details: 

## - ----------- --- ----- - - --- Request for Addit iona l In fo rm atio n Spoke with Mr. E din ge r t o provide additional information to the docket exp lain in g ho w thi s req u es t i s in th e interest of th e public. Conclusion or Action Taken: Mr. Edin ge r agreed to prov id e th e additional information. FAA EMPLOYEE INFORMA 'F ION .,. NAME OFFICE DATE SIGNATURE Kath er in e H a l

ey Office of Rulemaking , ARM-203 Jul y 30 , 2014

# ~~ 

# - .&:>
#### § 1203.27 Review by FHFA.

Within 30 days after the adjudicative officer issues an initial decision under § 1203.26, either the applicant or agency counsel may request the Director to review the initial decision of the adjudicative officer. The Director may also decide, at his or her discretion, to review the initial decision. If review is ordered, the Director must issue a final decision on the application for award or remand the application for award to the adjudicative officer for further proceedings under § 1203.25.
#### § 17.3126 Disapproving HISA benefits applications.

VA will disapprove a HISA benefits application if the complete HISA benefits application does not meet all of the criteria outlined in § 17.3125(a). Notification of the decision provided to the beneficiary will include the basis for the disapproval and notice to the beneficiary of his or her right to appeal.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 7104)