alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-01-0210-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	JULY 26, 2001

	______________________________

	IN THE INTEREST OF PATRICE OVETA BALLARD, 

	ITAVIA CARZETTE BALLARD, MERCEDES MARIE LANDERS,

	GORDAN BALLARD AND JOHN BALLARD

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 223RD DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

	NO. 31,563; HONORABLE LEE WATERS, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	On May 15, 2001, a copy of a Notice of Appeal in cause No. 31,563 in the 223rd District Court of Gray County, Texas (the trial court), was filed with the clerk of this court.  The document gives notice that appellant Connie Ballard desires to appeal from a judgment signed on April 23, 2001.  Following the granting of an extension of time by this court, appellant filed an Affidavit of Indigency with the appellate clerk on May 30, 2001.  Appellee Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services filed a contest to the affidavit of indigency.  

	Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1(h)(4), this appeal is abated and remanded to the trial court.  The trial court is directed to set and conduct a hearing in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1(i).   	

	The trial court is directed to: (1) conduct any necessary hearings; (2) make and file appropriate findings of fact, conclusions of law, and cause them to be included in a Clerk’s Record on Remand; (3) enter orders granting appropriate relief; (4) cause the hearing proceedings to be transcribed and included in a reporter’s record; and (5) have a record of the proceedings made to the extent any of the proceedings, findings, conclusions or orders are not included in a Clerk’s Record on Remand or the reporter’s record.  In the absence of a request for extension of time from the trial court, the Clerk’s Record on Remand, reporter’s record of the hearing and proceedings pursuant to this order, and any additional proceeding records, including any orders, findings, conclusions and recommendations, are to be sent so as to be received by the clerk of this court not later than September 7, 2001. 	

									Per Curiam

Do not publish.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2587 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2587

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 11, 2007

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 555 South 3rd Street Lobby in Memphis, Tennessee, as the ``Kenneth 
                 T. Whalum, Sr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. KENNETH T. WHALUM, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 555 South 3rd Street Lobby in Memphis, Tennessee, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Kenneth T. Whalum, Sr. Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Kenneth T. 
Whalum, Sr. Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 10, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.

                               By Jorge E. Sorensen,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
126 STAT. 336 PUBLIC LAW 112–114—MAY 15, 2012 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2767: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 157 (2011): Dec. 12, 13, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 158 (2012): Apr. 26, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–114 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8 West 

Silver Street in Westfield, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘William T. Trant Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. WILLIAM T. TRANT POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 8 West Silver Street in Westfield, Massachusetts, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘William T. Trant Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘William T. Trant Post Office Building’’. 

Approved May 15, 2012. 

May 15, 2012 

[H.R. 2767] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
#### § 1610.1 General authority.

The collections under this part are made pursuant to the authority contained in 12 U.S.C. 5343(a) and (c)(1) and 5344(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                        568,000
<SECURITIES>                                4,325,900
<RECEIVABLES>                                 115,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            5,009,700
<PP&E>                                     18,058,500
<DEPRECIATION>                              4,499,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             18,581,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         862,800
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                 17,623,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               18,581,200
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,741,500
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 521,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              122,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               774,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           774,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  774,700
<EPS-BASIC>                                      1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.19



</TABLE>
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1123, -1137

INFORMATICA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Cross Appellant,

v.

BUSINESS OBJECTS DATA INTEGRATION, INC. (formerly known as Ac ta Technology, Inc.),

Defendant-Appellant.

Lynn H. Pasahow , Fenwick & West, LLP, of Mountain View, California, argued for the plaintiff-cross appellant. With her on the brief were J. David Hadden

, Darren E. Donnelly

, Carolyn Chang ; and Heather N. Mewes and David D. Schumann , of San Francisco, California. Of counsel were David M. Lacy Kusters , Fenwick & West, LLP, of San Francisco, California and Ryan A. Tyz , Fenwick & West, LLP, of Mountain View,

California.

Daniel J. Furniss , Townsend and Townsend and Cr ew LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for defendant-appellan t. With him on the brief was Gregory S.

Gilchrist

.

Appealed from: United States District Cour t for the Northern District of California

Magistrate Judge El izabeth D. LaporteNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1123, -1137

INFORMATICA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Cross Appellant,

v.

BUSINESS OBJECTS DATA INTEGRATION, INC. (formerly known as Ac ta Technology, Inc.),

Defendant-Appellant.



# Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United St ates District Court for the

Northern District of California

In CASE NO(S). 02-CV-03378.

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam: (MAYER, GAJARSA and PROST, Circuit Judges ):

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATE:_ November 17,2008

_ __ /s/ Jan

_ Horbaly

______ Jan Horbaly, Clerk
# State and Local Taxation of Foreign Employees of Public International Organizations – United States Department of State
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1412 CA 12-00738**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

CAROL FOTI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

ROBERT ROMEYN NOFTSIER, JR., ALICE NOFTSIER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

CAPONE LAW FIRM, LLP, WATERTOWN (ANDREW NICHOLAS CAPONE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

CONBOY, MCKAY, BACHMAN & KENDALL, LLP, WATERTOWN (STEPHEN W. GEBO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Lewis County (Charles C. Merrell, A.J.), dated September 29, 2011. The order granted plaintiff an easement by necessity across the property of defendants Robert Romeyn Noftsier, Jr. and Alice Noftsier.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### § 150.220 Are any other account reviews required?

At least once every calendar year, you must conduct a review of all assets of each fiduciary account for which you have investment discretion. In this review, you must evaluate whether the assets are appropriate, individually and collectively, for the account.
Exhibit 4(e)(4)
   2006 Indenture Trustee
      
   1




---



##### 



Guarantor:
Pennsylvania Logos, LLC, a
Pennsylvania limited liability companyBy: Its Managing Member,
Interstate Logos, L.L.C., a Louisiana
limited liability company
By: Its Managing Member,
Lamar Media Corp., a Delaware
corporationBy:
    /s/ Keith A. IstreKeith A. Istre, Executive Vice-President/Chief Financial Officer Attest:By:
    /s/ James R. McIlwainJames R. McIlwain, SecretaryAccepted:
THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST
COMPANY, N.A., as TrusteeBy:
    /s/ Christie LeppertTitle: Assistant Vice President 2
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1717

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Luis Antonio Flores-Dominguez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 5, 2007

Filed: November 8, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Luis Antonio Flores-Dominguez challenges the 120-month prison sentence the

district court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams

or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), and 846. Flores-Dominguez’s counsel has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court should

have had discretion to sentence Flores-Dominguez below the mandatory minimum

notwithstanding his ineligibility for a safety-valve reduction, and that his sentence is
-2-

unreasonable. We conclude that Flores-Dominguez’s sentence is not unreasonable

because 120 months was the statutory minimum. See United States v. Gregg, 451

F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir.

2003). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment of the district

court is affirmed. 

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      40,646,988
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,350,915
<ALLOWANCES>                                   419,609
<INVENTORY>                                 17,025,234
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            77,413,964
<PP&E>                                      33,423,852
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,952,744
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             197,045,960
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,047,786
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     1,144,973
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 181,570,894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               197,045,960
<SALES>                                     89,311,537
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            89,311,537
<CGS>                                       31,860,593
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,860,593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                31,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             238,366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             36,564,298
<INCOME-TAX>                                13,953,404
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         22,610,894
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                22,610,894
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .77
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022078EN.01000201.xml

| 18.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

17 February 2022

(2022/C 78/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1370 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,84 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4398 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83493 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5930 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0466 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 141,60 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,1225 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,383 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 356,08 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5065 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9432 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 15,4945 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5786 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4439 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8692 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6950 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5278 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 360,70 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,9893 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2060 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5330 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 291,53 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7612 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,314 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 86,3880 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,537 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,8495 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,0367 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,2935 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1370

JPY

Japanese yen

130,84

DKK

Danish krone

7,4398

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83493

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5930

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0466

ISK

Iceland króna

141,60

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,1225

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,383

HUF

Hungarian forint

356,08

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5065

RON

Romanian leu

4,9432

TRY

Turkish lira

15,4945

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5786

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4439

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8692

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6950

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5278

KRW

South Korean won

1 360,70

ZAR

South African rand

16,9893

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2060

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5330

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 291,53

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7612

PHP

Philippine peso

58,314

RUB

Russian rouble

86,3880

THB

Thai baht

36,537

BRL

Brazilian real

5,8495

MXN

Mexican peso

23,0367

INR

Indian rupee

85,2935

---

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

---
§ 1022.31 Limits on redisclosure of information. ( a ) *Scope.* This section applies to any person, except for a person excluded from coverage of this part by section 1029 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 137.
( b ) *Limits on redisclosure.* If a person described in paragraph (a) of this section receives medical information about a consumer from a consumer reporting agency or its affiliate, the person must not disclose that information to any other person, except as necessary to carry out the purpose for which the information was initially disclosed, or as otherwise permitted by statute, regulation, or order.
§ 1233.3 Reporting. ( a ) *Timeframe for reporting.* ( 1 ) A regulated entity shall submit to the Director a timely written report upon discovery by the regulated entity that it has purchased or sold a fraudulent loan or financial instrument, or suspects a possible fraud relating to the purchase or sale of any loan or financial instrument.
( 2 ) In addition to submitting a report in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, in any situation that would have a significant impact on the regulated entity, the regulated entity shall immediately report any fraud or possible fraud to the Director by telephone or electronic communication.
( b ) *Format for reporting.* ( 1 ) The report shall be in such format and shall be filed in accordance with such procedures that the Director may prescribe.
( 2 ) The Director may require a regulated entity to provide such additional or continuing information relating to such fraud or possible fraud that the Director deems appropriate.
( 3 ) A regulated entity may satisfy the reporting requirements of this section by submitting the required information on a form or in another format used by any other regulatory agency, provided it has first obtained the prior written approval of the Director.
( c ) *Retention of records.* A regulated entity or entity-affiliated party shall maintain a copy of any report submitted to the Director and the original or business record equivalent of any supporting documentation for a period of five years from the date of submission.
( d ) *Nondisclosure.* ( 1 ) A regulated entity or entity-affiliated party may not disclose to any person that it has submitted a report to the Director pursuant to this section, unless it has first obtained the prior written approval of the Director.
( 2 ) The restriction in paragraph (d)(1) of this section does not prohibit a regulated entity from— ( i ) Disclosing or reporting such fraud or possible fraud pursuant to legal requirements, including reporting to appropriate law enforcement or other governmental authorities; or
( ii ) Taking any legal or business action it may deem appropriate, including any action involving the party or parties connected with the fraud or possible fraud.
( e ) *No waiver of privilege.* A regulated entity does not waive any privilege it may possess under any applicable law as a consequence of reporting fraud or possible fraud under this part.
---

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 Silverado Gold Mines
Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ending May 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Garry L. Anselmo, Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

| | /s/ Garry L. Anselmo       
| | ---------------------------
| | Garry L. Anselmo           
| | Principal Executive Officer
| |                            
| | July 15, 2008              

---
#### § 77.1 Purpose and scope.

This section establishes the Grants for Adaptive Sports Programs for Disabled Veterans and Disabled Members of the Armed Forces program. Under this program, VA may provide grants to eligible entities to plan, develop, manage, and implement programs to provide adaptive sports activities for disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 521A)
§ 1251.3 Prohibition on pass-through of cost of allocation; enforcement. ( a ) *In general.* No Enterprise shall re-direct or pass through the cost of any allocation to the Housing Trust Fund or the Capital Magnet Fund required pursuant to section 1337(a) of the Safety and Soundness Act, 12 U.S.C. 4567(a), through increased charges or fees, or decreased premiums, or in any other manner, to the originators of mortgages purchased or securitized by the Enterprise.
( b ) *Enforcement.* Compliance by each Enterprise with the foregoing prohibition shall be enforced under subpart 3 of part B of the Safety and Soundness Act, 12 U.S.C. 4581-89.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10** 
**- 1916** 

GREG GIVENS , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v.
WILLIAM CRISWELL; REBECCA RANDOLPH; JOHN DOE, 1, individually and collectively ,
Defendants

– Appellees ,
and

MAIN STR EET BANK; UNITED BANK, d/b/a United National Bank; UNITED BANK

- DUNBAR, d/b/a United National Bank; ROSELYN J. CANTINI, United Bank; OHIO COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA, Ohio County Prosecutor Office; WHEELING POLICE DEPARTMENT ,
Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 5:08

- cv
- 00025

- FP S

- JSK )

Submitted : April 21, 2011 Decided: April 26, 2011

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Greg Givens, Appellant Pro Se. Lee Murray Hall, JENKINS FENSTERMAKER, PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia; Keith C. Gamble, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virgin ia; James Thomas McClure, GOMPERS, MCCARTHY & MCCLURE, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Greg Givens appeals the district court ’ s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Givens v. Criswell , No. 5:08

- cv
- 00025

- FPS

- JSK (N.D. W. Va.
July 22, 2010) . We dispense with oral argum ent because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED