alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 299A/11 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 299A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5811 September 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 299A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5811 September 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 299A/01 | Publication of a vacancy for the Executive Director of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), Malta (Temporary Agent — Grade AD 14) — COM/2015/20010 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2015/C 299A/01

Publication of a vacancy for the Executive Director of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), Malta (Temporary Agent — Grade AD 14) — COM/2015/20010

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
§ 1240.51 Introduction and exposure measurement. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) To calculate its risk-weighted asset amounts for equity exposures, an Enterprise must use the Simple Risk-Weight Approach (SRWA) provided in § 1240.52.
( 2 ) An Enterprise must treat an investment in a separate account (as defined in § 1240.2) as if it were an equity exposure to an investment fund.
( b ) *Adjusted carrying value.* For purposes of §§ 1240.51 and 1240.52, the adjusted carrying value of an equity exposure is: ( 1 ) For the on-balance sheet component of an equity exposure, the Enterprise's carrying value of the exposure;
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( 3 ) For the off-balance sheet component of an equity exposure that is not an equity commitment, the effective notional principal amount of the exposure, the size of which is equivalent to a hypothetical on-balance sheet position in the underlying equity instrument that would evidence the same change in fair value (measured in dollars) given a small change in the price of the underlying equity instrument, minus the adjusted carrying value of the on-balance sheet component of the exposure as calculated in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and
( 4 ) For a commitment to acquire an equity exposure (an equity commitment), the effective notional principal amount of the exposure is multiplied by the following conversion factors (CFs): ( i ) Conditional equity commitments with an original maturity of one year or less receive a CF of 20 percent.
( ii ) Conditional equity commitments with an original maturity of over one year receive a CF of 50 percent.
( iii ) Unconditional equity commitments receive a CF of 100 percent.
42135.

#### GORDON et al. v. JOHNSON et al.

Argued July 6, 1966

Decided July 13, 1966

Rehearing denied July 28, 1966.

Deen, Judge.

The plaintiff, Mrs. Hall, sustained property damage as the result of a collision between a tractor-trailer owned by Hunt and operated by Gordon and an automobile owned by Johnson and operated by his wife. The jury returned a verdict against the Johnsons and in favor of Hunt and Gordon. The trial court granted a new trial “as to all of the parties in the case” on a motion for new trial filed by the Johnsons only, and overruled a plea in bar filed by Hunt and Gordon, contending that the case should not be re-tried as against them. *Held:*

This case is controlled by *Brissette v. Munday,*222 Ga. 162 (149 SE2d 110) where it is held: “Where the jury in a tort action against two alleged tortfeasors, who were sued jointly and severally, found a verdict against one defendant only, and that defendant appealed from the denial of his motion for new trial, it was error for the Court of Appeals in its decision on that appeal to grant a new trial against the co-defendant of the appellant.” Indubitably, it follows that the trial court erred in requiring Hunt and Gordon, the appellants here, to participate in a retrial of the case.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*

*208*Memory, Barnes & Memory, S. F. Memory, Jr.,*for appellants.

*Bennett, Pedrick & Bennett, Wilson G. Pedrick, Emmett P. Johnson,*for appellees.
§ 1208.51 Definitions. The following terms apply to this subpart D— *Debt or claim* means an amount of money, funds or property which has been determined by FHFA to be due to the Federal Government from any person, organization, or entity, except another Federal agency. ( 1 ) A debt becomes eligible for tax refund offset procedures if: ( i ) It cannot currently be collected pursuant to the salary offset procedures of 5 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1);
( ii ) The debt is ineligible for administrative offset or cannot be collected currently by administrative offset; and
( iii ) The requirements of this section are otherwise satisfied.
( 2 ) All judgment debts are past due for purposes of this subpart D. Judgment debts remain past due until paid in full.
*Debtor* means a person who owes a debt or a claim. The term “person” includes any individual, organization or entity, except another Federal agency.
*Dispute* means a written statement supported by documentation or other evidence that all or part of an alleged debt is not past due or legally enforceable, that the amount is not the amount currently owed, that the outstanding debt has been satisfied, or in the case of a debt reduced to judgment, that the judgment has been satisfied or stayed.
*Notice* means the information sent to the debtor pursuant to § 1208.53. The date of the notice is that date shown on the notice letter as its date of issuance.
*Tax refund offset* means withholding or reducing a tax refund payment by an amount necessary to satisfy a debt owed by the payee(s) of a tax refund payment.
*Tax refund payment* means any overpayment of Federal taxes to be refunded to the person making the overpayment after the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) makes the appropriate credits.
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



The undersigned Chief Executive
Officer of SMART FOR LIFE, INC. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2021 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
has executed this statement on March 31, 2022.



| | /s/ Ryan F. Zackon                                       
| | ---------------------------------------------------------
| | Ryan F. Zackon                                           
| | Chief Executive Officer
    (Principal Executive Officer)



A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to Smart for Life, Inc. and will be retained by Smart for Life, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The forgoing certification is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
# C_2022157EN.01001501.xml

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/15

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

8 April 2022

(2022/C 157/05)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0861 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,87 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4372 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83355 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2768 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0155 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 139,60 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5080 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,479 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 375,66 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6437 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9425 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 16,0237 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4552 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3675 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5134 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5849 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4801 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 333,12 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,9968 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9115 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5490 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 601,96 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5850 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,990 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,488 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,1583 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,8729 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 82,3890 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0861

JPY

Japanese yen

134,87

DKK

Danish krone

7,4372

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83355

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2768

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0155

ISK

Iceland króna

139,60

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5080

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,479

HUF

Hungarian forint

375,66

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6437

RON

Romanian leu

4,9425

TRY

Turkish lira

16,0237

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4552

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3675

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5134

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5849

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4801

KRW

South Korean won

1 333,12

ZAR

South African rand

15,9968

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9115

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5490

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 601,96

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5850

PHP

Philippine peso

55,990

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,488

BRL

Brazilian real

5,1583

MXN

Mexican peso

21,8729

INR

Indian rupee

82,3890

---

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

---
§ 1203.20 Filing and service of the application for award and related papers. ( a ) An application for an award of fees and other expenses must be filed no later than 30 days after the final disposition of the underlying adversary adjudication.
( b ) An application for award and other papers related to the proceedings on the application for award must be filed and served on all parties in the same manner as papers are filed and served in the underlying adversary adjudication, except as otherwise provided in this part.
( c ) The computation of time for filing and service of the application of award and other papers must be computed in the same manner as in the underlying adversary adjudication.
§ 128.11 Nondiscriminatory appraisal and underwriting. ( a ) *Appraisal.* No savings association may use or rely upon an appraisal of a dwelling which the savings association knows, or reasonably should know, is discriminatory on the basis of the age or location of the dwelling, or is discriminatory per se or in effect under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 or the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
( b ) *Underwriting.* Each savings association shall have clearly written, non-discriminatory loan underwriting standards, available to the public upon request, at each of its offices. Each association shall, at least annually, review its standards, and business practices implementing them, to ensure equal opportunity in lending.
Note to § 128.11 :
*See also,* § 128.9(b), (c)(6), and (c)(7).
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6927

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RASHEEN WESTON , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Cameron McGowan Currie , Senior District Judge. ( 3:15

- cr - 00087

- CMC

- 1; 3:19

- cv - 00746

- CMC )

Submitted : October 15, 2019 Decided: October 18, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Rasheen Weston, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rasheen Weston seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificat e of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasona ble jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. On direct appeal from Weston’s u nderlying criminal judgment, this court rejected his claims challenging the validity of three of his predicate conviction s under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2012)

. United States v. Weston , 681 F. App’x 235, 236

- 38 (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 15

- 4744). In his § 2255 motion, Weston rehashed the same arguments that this court fully considered on direct appeal. Absent a “change in the law that warrants .

. . reconsideration,” United States v. Roane , 378 F.3d 382, 396 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004), a prisoner typically “cannot circumvent a proper ruling on direct appeal by

re - raising the same challenge in a § 2255 motion,” United States v. Dyess , 730 F.3d 354, 360 (4th Cir. 2013) (ellipsis and internal quotati on marks omitted). Because Weston3 identifies no such change in the law, we conclude that the district court’s decision not to revisit these previously adjudicated claims is not debatable

. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2729 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2729

To amend the Public Health Service Act to extend preventive-health and 
           research programs with respect to prostate cancer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2007

  Mr. LoBiondo (for himself, Mr. Holden, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. 
   Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Burton of 
    Indiana, Mr. Sestak, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Holt, and Mr. 
  Marshall) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Public Health Service Act to extend preventive-health and 
           research programs with respect to prostate cancer.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Prostate Cancer Research and 
Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

    (a) Preventive Health Measures.--Section 317D of the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247b-5) is amended by striking subsection (l)(1) 
and inserting the following:
            ``(1) In general.--For the purpose of carrying out this 
        section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
        may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
        2012.''.
    (b) National Institutes of Health.--Section 417A of the Public 
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285a-7) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
    ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For purposes of carrying 
out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012. Such 
authorization of appropriations shall be in addition to the 
authorization of appropriations established in section 402A(a).''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2605 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2605

      To nullify the effect of section 4 of Executive Order 13279.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2003

Mr. Scott of Virginia (for himself, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Frank 
    of Massachusetts, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. 
Grijalva, Mr. Wynn, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Farr, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Payne, Ms. 
Lee, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Case, Mr. Watt, Mr. Davis of Alabama, 
Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Davis of 
Illinois, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Clyburn, and Mr. 
    Owens) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the 
    Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To nullify the effect of section 4 of Executive Order 13279.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 4 of 
Executive Order 13279 (67 Fed. Reg. 77141) shall not have any legal 
effect.
                                 <all>
```
May 11, 1999 

       Securities and Exchange Commission 
       450 Fifth Street, N.W. 
       Washington, D.C. 20549 

            Re:  Vitro Diagnostics, Inc. 
                    Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending April 30, 1999
                    SEC file no.  0-17378 

       Dear Sir or Madam:

       Transmitted herewith through the EDGAR system is Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended April 30, 1999 for Vitro Diagnostics, Inc.  Should you have any
questions or comments concerning this matter please contact the undersigned
at 303-794-2000.



       Sincerely, 



       Roger Hurst 
       President 


<PAGE>
#### § 21.9710 Pursuit.

Except for an eligible individual seeking tuition assistance top-up or reimbursement for taking an approved licensing or certification test, an individual's educational assistance depends upon his or her pursuit of a program of education. Verification of this pursuit is accomplished by various certifications.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3323(c))
PUBLIC LAW 112–132—JUNE 13, 2012 126 STAT. 379 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3261: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012): 

June 7, considered and passed Senate. 

June 8, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–132 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To allow the Chief of the Forest Service to award certain contracts for large 

air tankers. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. WAIVER. 

Notwithstanding the last sentence of section 3903(d) of title 

41, United States Code, the Chief of the Forest Service may award 

contracts pursuant to Solicitation Number AG–024B–S–11–9009 

for large air tankers earlier than the end of the 30-day period 

beginning on the date of the notification required under the first 

sentence of section 3903(d) of that title. 

Approved June 13, 2012. 

Time period. 

June 13, 2012 

[S. 3261] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.2400 Applicability of modernized review system. ( a ) *Applicability.* The modernized review system defined in 38 CFR 19.2(b) applies to all claims, requests for reopening of finally adjudicated claims, and requests for revision based on clear and unmistakable error: ( 1 ) For which VA issues notice of an initial decision on or after the effective date of the modernized review system as provided in 38 CFR 19.2(a); or
( 2 ) Where a claimant has elected review of a legacy claim under the modernized review system as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) *Legacy claims.* A legacy claim is a claim, or request for reopening or revision of a finally adjudicated claim, for which VA provided notice of a decision prior to the effective date of the modernized review system and the claimant has not elected to participate in the modernized review system as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Election into the modernized review system.* For claims governed by this part, pursuant to election by a claimant, the modernized review system applies where: ( 1 ) *Rapid appeals modernization program election.* A claimant with a legacy appeal elects to opt-in to the modernized review system on or after November 1, 2017, as part of a program authorized by the Secretary pursuant to section 4 of Public Law 115-55; or
( 2 ) *Election after receiving a statement of the case.* A claimant with a legacy appeal elects to opt-in to the modernized review system, following issuance, on or after the effective date of the modernized system, of a VA Statement of the Case or Supplemental Statement of the Case, by filing for a review option under the new system in accordance with § 3.2500 on a form prescribed by the Secretary within the time allowed for filing a substantive appeal under 38 CFR 19.52(b) and other applicable provisions in part 19 of this chapter.
( d ) *Effect of election.* Once an eligible claimant elects the modernized review system with respect to a particular claim, the provisions of 38 CFR parts 3, 19, and 20 applicable only to legacy claims and appeals no longer apply to that claim.
[84 FR 171, Jan. 18, 2019, as amended at 84 FR 4336, Feb. 15, 2019]
# C_2022398EN.01000202.xml

| 17.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/2

---

Election of the President of the General Court

(2022/C 398/03)

Meeting on 16 September 2022, the Judges of the General Court, in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure, elected Mr Marc van der Woude President of the General Court, for the period from 16 September 2022 to 31 August 2025.

---