alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 8.35 Eligibility for those insured under 38 U.S.C. 1922(a) to purchase insurance under 38 U.S.C. 1922B after December 31, 2025.

An insured under a Legacy Service Disabled Veterans' Insurance policy shall be eligible to purchase VALife coverage after December 31, 2025, upon cancellation of his or her Legacy Service Disabled Veterans' Insurance policy and surrender of any cash value that his or her coverage has accrued in accordance with 38 CFR 8.11. The policyholder must also submit a statement in a form that is prescribed by the Secretary, which clearly indicates that the policyholder desires to terminate his or her existing life insurance coverage in order to apply for VALife and initiate the two-year waiting period imposed by 38 U.S.C. 1922B(c)(2) before such VALife coverage is in force.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1901-1929, 1981-1988)

(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection provisions in this section under control number 2900-0906)

[87 FR 73654, Dec. 1, 2022]
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2623 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the collection of copayments for all hospice care furnished by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2623 EH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON COLLECTION OF COPAY2 MENTS FOR ALL HOSPICE CARE FURNISHED 

3 BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

4 Title 38, United States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) in section 1710(f)(1), by inserting ‘‘(except 

6 if such care constitutes hospice care)’’ after ‘‘nurs7 ing home care’’; 

8 (2) in section 1710(g)(1), by inserting ‘‘(except 

9 if such services constitute hospice care)’’ after ‘‘med10 ical services’’; and 

11 (3) in section 1710B(c)(2), by striking subpara12 graph (B) and inserting after subparagraph (A) the 

13 following new subparagraph (B): 

14 ‘‘(B) to a veteran being furnished inpatient or 

15 outpatient hospice care by the Department; or’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2623 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit 

furnished by the Department of Veterans Affairs. the collection of copayments for all hospice care
NUMBER 13-18-00324-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

RAMSEY ORLANDO GUERRERO, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court

of San Patricio County, Texas.

O R D E R

Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Ramsey Orlando Guerrero, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court 

from his conviction in trial court cause number S-17-3327CR. The trial court’s 

certification of the defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have 

the right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a 

defendant has a right of appeal is not made a part of the record. Id. R. 25.2(d); see id. 

R. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. The purpose of the certification requirement is to efficiently sort 
2

appealable cases from non-appealable cases so that appealable cases can “move 

through the system unhindered while eliminating, at an early stage, the time and 

expense associated with non-appealable cases.” Greenwell v. Ct. of Apps. for the 

Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see Hargesheimer 

v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Within thirty days of date of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, 

Steven Gilmore, is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certification. If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant 

has a right to appeal, counsel is further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within 

thirty days of this notice, identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant 

has a right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 44.4; Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 

614–15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also, e.g., Carroll v. State, 119 S.W.3d 838, 841 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (certification form provided in appendix to 

appellate rules may be modified to reflect that defendant has right of appeal under 

circumstances not addressed by the form). The motion must include an analysis of the 

applicable case law, and any factual allegations therein must be true and supported by 

the record. See Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 614–15; cf. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 

316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that 

recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of 

record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting 

appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1,

10.2.
3

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

22nd day of June 2018.
# C_2022175EN.01000701.xml

| 29.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/7

---

Notice amending the notification of vacancy notice for Administrative Director (grade AD 14) of Eurojust – The Hague (the Netherlands) – 22/EJ/05

(Official Journal of the European Union C 129 of 22 March 2022)

(2022/C 175/04)

On page 17, last paragraph:

| for: | ‘The deadline for submission of applications is 28 April 2022 at midnight CET.’, |
| --- | --- |
| read: | ‘The deadline for submission of applications is 10 May 2022 at midnight CET.’. |

for:

‘The deadline for submission of applications is 28 April 2022 at midnight CET.’,

read:

‘The deadline for submission of applications is 10 May 2022 at midnight CET.’.

---
Exhibit 35.1





Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.








This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 14, 2021 (the “Agreement”) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2021-2 (the “Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith.  The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.





The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer.  I further certify as follows:





1. I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023, and its performance under the Agreement.





2. To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.








AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.





By:/s/ Connie CoffeyDated:March 4, 2024Connie CoffeyExecutive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
TS

- MF06Y4

S tructure of the new substance
#### § 1253.2 Definitions.

For purposes of this part:

*Activity* means a business line, business practice, offering, or service, including a guarantee, a financial instrument, consulting or marketing, that the Enterprise provides to the market either on a standalone basis or as part of a business line, business practice, offering, or service.

*Authorizing statute* means the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act, as applicable.

*Credit risk* is the potential that a borrower or counterparty will fail to meet its obligations in accordance with agreed terms. Credit risk includes the decline in measured quality of a credit exposure that might result in increased capital costs, provisioning expenses, or a reduction in economic return.

*Days* means calendar days.

*Market risk* means the risk that the market value, or estimated fair value if the market value is not available, of an Enterprise's portfolio will decline as a result of changes in interest rates, foreign exchange rates, or equity or commodity prices.

*New activity* has the meaning provided in § 1253.3.

*New product* has the meaning provided in § 1253.4.

*Operational risk* means the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people, or systems, or from external events, including all direct and indirect economic losses related to legal liability. Operational risk includes reputational risk, which is the potential for substantial negative publicity regarding an Enterprise's business practices.

*Pilot* means an activity that has a limited term and scope for purposes of evaluating the viability of the activity. A pilot may also be referred to as a testing initiative, test and learn, temporary authorization, or by other names.
# C_2022084EN.01000201.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/2

---

Taking of the oath by new Members of the General Court

(2022/C 84/02)

Following their appointment as Judges at the General Court for the period from 22 December 2021 to 31 August 2025 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 21 December 2021 (1), Ms Suzanne Kingston and Mr Damjan Kukovec took the oath before the Court of Justice on 13 January 2022.

Following his appointment as Judge at the General Court for the period from 22 December 2021 to 31 August 2022 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 21 December 2021 (2), Mr Ioannis Dimitrakopoulos took the oath before the Court of Justice on 13 January 2022.

---

(1)  OJ L 458, 22.12.2021, p. 519.

(2)  OJ L 458, 22.12.2021, p. 519.

---
# Official Journal L 4/7 Ja

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 4 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 497 January 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 4

English edition

Legislation

Volume 497 January 2006

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 17/2006 of 6 January 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 18/2006 of 6 January 2006 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of countries and territories (1) | 3 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 19/2006 of 6 January 2006 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 as regards Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products originating in Jordan | 7 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 20/2006 of 6 January 2006 amending the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 7 January 2006 | 10 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

Commission Regulation (EC) No 17/2006 of 6 January 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 18/2006 of 6 January 2006 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of countries and territories (1)

3

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 19/2006 of 6 January 2006 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 as regards Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products originating in Jordan

7

Commission Regulation (EC) No 20/2006 of 6 January 2006 amending the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 7 January 2006

10

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# C_2022458EN.01000101.xml

| 1.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 458/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 458/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

30 November 2022

(2022/C 458/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0376 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 144,28 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4366 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86488 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,9345 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9854 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 147,10 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,2648 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,338 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 408,40 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6635 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9245 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 19,3333 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5425 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4021 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,0944 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6634 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4180 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 365,14 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,5768 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3437 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5490 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 271,81 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6147 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,697 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,588 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,5063 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,0111 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,4215 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0376

JPY

Japanese yen

144,28

DKK

Danish krone

7,4366

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86488

SEK

Swedish krona

10,9345

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9854

ISK

Iceland króna

147,10

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,2648

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,338

HUF

Hungarian forint

408,40

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6635

RON

Romanian leu

4,9245

TRY

Turkish lira

19,3333

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5425

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4021

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,0944

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6634

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4180

KRW

South Korean won

1 365,14

ZAR

South African rand

17,5768

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3437

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5490

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 271,81

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6147

PHP

Philippine peso

58,697

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,588

BRL

Brazilian real

5,5063

MXN

Mexican peso

20,0111

INR

Indian rupee

84,4215

---

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

---
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 22-30418

Summary Calendar

____________

Morgan Ratley, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Karla Beck; Craig Webre; Cantrell Davis, 

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:21-CV-2362

______________________________

Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

Morgan Ratley, a pretrial detainee in the Lafourche Parish 

Correctional Complex, appeals the dismissal of his Section 1983 civil rights 

complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). 

He contends that his claims concerning his 28-month confinement in 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 18, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30418 Document: 00516716720 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2023
No. 22-30418

2

administrative segregation, without the requisite procedural safeguards, 

were not patently frivolous.

We review dismissals as frivolous for an abuse of discretion. Berry v. 

Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999). With the benefit of liberal 

construction, see Jennings v. Towers Watson, 11 F.4th 335, 341 (5th Cir. 2021),

Ratley’s pro se Section 1983 complaint contained allegations having an 

arguable basis in law and fact. See Berry, 192 F.3d at 507. Specifically, 

Ratley’s allegation that he has been in administrative segregation for 28 

months — without justification or explanation —constituted an arguable 

basis in law and fact that a protected liberty interest requiring procedural due 

process protections was violated. Butler v. S. Porter, 999 F.3d 287, 296 (5th 

Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 766 (2022) (citation omitted). 

Additionally, his allegation that he was placed in administrative 

segregation solely because of his “charge” or “bond” sets forth an arguable 

basis in law and fact that his confinement is impermissible pretrial 

punishment or is arbitrary, rather than reasonably related to a legitimate 

penological purpose. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535–39 (1979). The 

district court abused its discretion when it concluded the claims are frivolous. 

We VACATE the dismissal of Ratley’s complaint and REMAND

to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Case: 22-30418 Document: 00516716720 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2023
§ 1271.3 General provisions. The Banks are authorized to: ( a ) Engage in, be agents or intermediaries for, or otherwise participate or assist in, the processing, collection, and settlement of checks, drafts, or any other negotiable or nonnegotiable items and instruments of payment drawn on eligible institutions or Bank members; and
( b ) Be drawees of checks, drafts, and other negotiable and nonnegotiable items and instruments issued by eligible institutions or Bank members.
# C_2018384EN.01000101.xml

| 24.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 384/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9079 — Advent International Corporation/KN Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 384/01)

On 15 October 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9079. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9079. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### In re Scattergood

*Isadore A. Shrager,*for appellant.

*Bernard I. Shovlin,*for Commonwealth.

November 26, 1956.

MacNeille, P. J.,

John K. Scattergood, one of the partners trading as Blenheim Motors, has appealed from the order of the Secretary of Revenue suspending his certificate of appointment as an official inspection station for the inspection of motor vehicles, under The Vehicle Code of May 1, 1929, P. L. 905, and its amendments.

At the hearing before the court it developed that the basis for the suspension was that on April 27,° 1955, a representative of the Pennsylvania State Police visited the inspection station and there discovered that four new unbilled motor vehicles bore certificates of inspection and approval when, in fact, *529the headlamps were not properly aimed in accordance with the regulations. The certificates affixed to the four motor vehicles bore the dates of April 19, March 10, March 10 and February 8, 1955. One Anthony John Bevilacqua, an employe of Blenheim Motors at that time, and the only employe then authorized to make official inspections, testified that he had inspected the headlamps on the respective dates and had found them in proper order when he authorized the affixing of the certificates. Bevilacqua, however, pleaded guilty before a magistrate to a violation of section 813 (/) of the act and was fined $25 and costs. He is no longer in appellant’s employ.

Section 813(b) of the act, which authorizes suspension of certificate of appointment of official inspection stations by the Secretary of Revenue, provides that: “if the servant or employe of any such inspection station shall, without the authorization, knowledge, or consent of his employer, violate any of the provisions of this act in reference to the inspection of vehicles, such violation or violations shall not be the cause of the suspension of the certificate of appointment, as herein provided, but such employe shall be subject to prosecution' as hereinafter provided”.

The employe has been prosecuted under the provisions of the act, but there is no evidence in the record before us from which we could fairly find that the employer had knowledge of the violations at the time they were committed, or that the employer authorized or consented to them. In fact, counsel for the Commonwealth expressly concedes that the employer did not know that any inspection certificates were on any cars. We are obliged to hold, therefore, that there is not sufficient evidence before us to justify a suspension of the certificate of appointment.

*530
      *Order*

And now, November 26, 1956, the order of the Secretary of Revenue of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, suspending the certificate of appointment of John K. Seattergood as an official inspection station for the inspection of motor vehicles, is vacated and set aside, and it is directed that the said' certificate be restored to said John K. Seattergood.