alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7303

CHARLES RICHARD RILEY, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
RON ANGELONE, Director; GENE JOHNSON, DeputyDirector; WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Regional Administrator; GARY BASS, Records Manager, Court &Legal Section VDOC; M. WAYNE HUGGINS, Superintendent, Virginia Department of State Police; RECORDS MANAGER, of the Virginia Department ofState Police Central Criminal Records Exchange; VIRGINIA SECRETARY OF PUBLIC SAFETY; DAVE ROBINSON, Warden; E. B. WALKER, Assistant Warden of Operations; TAMMY ESTEP, former Assistant Warden of Programs; MARILYN HILL, former Operations Officer; MS. COLLETTE, Records Manager; NANCY MATTHEWS, Ombudsman; SERGEANT FRAME, Correctional Officer; SERGEANTMARSHALL; SERGEANT WATKINS, Correctional Officer; SERGEANT WALTON, Correctional Officer; SERGEANT COLES, Correctional Officer; P. GRAY, Personal Property Control Officer; CAPTAIN DILLARD, Correctional Officer; MR. NELSON, Disciplinary Hearings Officer; COUNSELOR D.HATCHER; CARL MANIS, Assistant Warden of Programs; ELIZA WILLIS, Treatment Program Supervisor; HARVEY ELLIS EISENBERG, Assistant U. S. Attorney; UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF THE VIRGINIADEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; C/O ALLEN, Correctional Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JACKSON, Personal Property Control Officer; C/O FOSTER, Correctional Officer; C/O SIMMS, CorrectionalOfficer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOHNSON, Correctional Officer; C/O BOOKER, Correctional Officer; C/O MCMILLION, Correctional Officer; C/O OAKS, Correctional Officer; LIEUTENANT2 FERGUSON, Correctional Officer; LIEUTENANT WADE, Correctional Officer; MAJOR VAUGHAN, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-01-36-AM)
Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 2, 2002
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Richard Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM:Charles Richard Riley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Riley v. Angelone , No. CA-01-36-AM (E.D. Va. July 10, 2001). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(all amounts except ratios are shown in millions)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                              YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                     ------------------------------------------
                                                      2004     2003     2002      2001    2000
                                                     ------   ------   -------   ------   -----
<S>                                                  <C>      <C>      <C>       <C>      <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations before
  income taxes and minority interest...............  $162.3   $(42.7)  $(132.5)  $(14.2)  $26.3
Less: Equity in earnings of 50%-or-less owned
  companies........................................    (4.5)    (1.1)     (0.5)     0.2      --
Add: Fixed charges net of capitalized interest.....    39.8     41.1      39.7     35.1    43.7
Add: Amortization expense of previously capitalized
  interest.........................................     1.4      1.3       1.1      0.4     0.1
                                                     ------   ------   -------   ------   -----
Total earnings.....................................   199.0     (1.4)    (92.2)    21.5    70.1
Fixed charges......................................    39.8     41.5      42.3     40.0    45.5
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.................     5.0       (a)       (a)      (a)    1.5
</Table>

---------------

(a) -- Earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges by $42.9 million, $134.5
    million, and $18.5 million in 2003, 2002 and 2001, respectively.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            1000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                          6000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (5000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-80706 and 33-65756) pertaining to the1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 1993 Director Stock Option Plan of OPTi Inc. of our report dated June 27, 2008 withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of OPTi Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 2008. 

 

Palo Alto, California 

June 27, 2008
# C_2023318EN.01000501.xml

| 8.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

7 September 2023

(2023/C 318/05)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0710 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 157,70 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4599 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85900 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,9095 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9557 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 143,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,4805 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,370 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 387,58 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5883 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9600 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 28,7347 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6767 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4625 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,3961 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8193 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4613 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 431,70 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 20,5218 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8488 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 413,08 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0107 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,822 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,128 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,3330 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,6934 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 89,0955 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0710

JPY

Japanese yen

157,70

DKK

Danish krone

7,4599

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85900

SEK

Swedish krona

11,9095

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9557

ISK

Iceland króna

143,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,4805

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,370

HUF

Hungarian forint

387,58

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5883

RON

Romanian leu

4,9600

TRY

Turkish lira

28,7347

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6767

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4625

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,3961

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8193

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4613

KRW

South Korean won

1 431,70

ZAR

South African rand

20,5218

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8488

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 413,08

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0107

PHP

Philippine peso

60,822

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

38,128

BRL

Brazilian real

5,3330

MXN

Mexican peso

18,6934

INR

Indian rupee

89,0955

---

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

1

Source

---
§ 204.126 Depository institution participation in “Federal funds” market. ( a ) Under § 204.2(a)(1)(vii)(A), there is an exemption from Regulation D for member bank obligations in nondeposit form to another bank. To assure the effectiveness of the limitations on persons who sell Federal funds to depository institutions, Regulation D applies to nondocumentary obligations undertaken by a depository institution to obtain funds for use in its banking business, as well as to documentary obligations. Under § 204.2(a)(1)(vii) of Regulation D, a depository institution's liability under informal arrangements as well as those formally embodied in a document are within the coverage of Regulation D.
( b ) The exemption in § 204.2(a)(1)(vii)(A) applies to obligations owed by a depository institution to a domestic office of any entity listed in that section (the *exempt institutions*). The *exempt institutions* explicitly include another depository institution, foreign bank, Edge or agreement corporation, New York Investment (article XII) Company, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, Minbanc Capital Corp., and certain other credit sources. The term *exempt institutions* also includes subsidiaries of depository institutions: ( 1 ) That engage in businesses in which their parents are authorized to engage; or
( 2 ) The stock of which by statute is explicitly eligible for purchase by national banks.
( c ) To assure that this exemption for liabilities to exempt institutions is not used as a means by which nondepository institutions may arrange through an exempt institution to *sell* Federal funds to a depository institution, obligations within the exemption must be issued to an exempt institution for its own account. In view of this requirement, a depository institution that *purchases* Federal funds should ascertain the character (not necessarily the identity) of the actual *seller* in order to justify classification of its liability on the transaction as *Federal funds purchased* rather than as a deposit. Any exempt institution that has given general assurance to the purchasing depository institution that sales by it of Federal funds ordinarily will be for its own account and thereafter executes such transactions for the account of others, should disclose the nature of the actual lender with respect to each such transaction. If it fails to do so, the depository institution would be deemed by the Board as indirectly violating section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation D.
[52 FR 47695, Dec. 16, 1987]
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2822

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude working capital 

in applying the accumulated earnings tax. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2003

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina 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 exclude 

working capital in applying the accumulated earnings tax.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Accumulated Earnings 

5 Tax Modification Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WORKING CAPITAL EXCLUDED FROM ACCUMU7 LATED EARNINGS TAX. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 537 of 

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

10 at the end the following new paragraph: 
2

•HR 2822 IH 

1 ‘‘(6) WORKING CAPITAL.—The reasonably an2 ticipated needs of a business shall include working 

3 capital for the business in an amount that is not less 

4 than the sum of the cost of goods, operating ex5 penses, taxes, and interest expense that the business 

6 incurred during the prior taxable year.’’

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

9 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

CORRECTED JUDGMENT RENDERED 

AUGUST 26, 2015

NO. 03-14-00080-CV

Gattis Electric, Inc., Appellant

v.

Theresa Marie Mann, Individually and as Guardian of the Person and Estate of 

James Lawhon, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on December 20, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Gattis 

Electric, Inc. shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.

It is further ordered that Theresa Marie Mann, Individually and as Guardian of the Person and 

Estate of James Lawhon, recover from the supersedeas bond filed by Gattis Electric, Inc., and its 

surety, Western Surety Company, the amount of the judgment rendered above, including all costs 

and interest during the pendency of this appeal, as determined by the court below, up to but not 
in excess of the supersedeas amount of $584,625.00, after payment of which the surety is 

released from further liability.
§ 217.33 Off-balance sheet exposures. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) A Board-regulated institution must calculate the exposure amount of an off-balance sheet exposure using the credit conversion factors (CCFs) in paragraph (b) of this section.
( 2 ) Where a Board-regulated institution commits to provide a commitment, the Board-regulated institution may apply the lower of the two applicable CCFs.
( 3 ) Where a Board-regulated institution provides a commitment structured as a syndication or participation, the Board-regulated institution is only required to calculate the exposure amount for its pro rata share of the commitment.
( 4 ) Where a Board-regulated institution provides a commitment, enters into a repurchase agreement, or provides a credit-enhancing representation and warranty, and such commitment, repurchase agreement, or credit-enhancing representation and warranty is not a securitization exposure, the exposure amount shall be no greater than the maximum contractual amount of the commitment, repurchase agreement, or credit-enhancing representation and warranty, as applicable.
( b ) *Credit conversion factors* — ( 1 ) *Zero percent CCF.* A Board-regulated institution must apply a zero percent CCF to the unused portion of a commitment that is unconditionally cancelable by the Board-regulated institution.
( 2 ) *20 percent CCF.* A Board-regulated institution must apply a 20 percent CCF to the amount of: ( i ) Commitments with an original maturity of one year or less that are not unconditionally cancelable by the Board-regulated institution; and
( ii ) Self-liquidating, trade-related contingent items that arise from the movement of goods, with an original maturity of one year or less.
( 3 ) *50 percent CCF.* A Board-regulated institution must apply a 50 percent CCF to the amount of: ( i ) Commitments with an original maturity of more than one year that are not unconditionally cancelable by the Board-regulated institution; and
( ii ) Transaction-related contingent items, including performance bonds, bid bonds, warranties, and performance standby letters of credit.
( 4 ) *100 percent CCF.* A Board-regulated institution must apply a 100 percent CCF to the amount of the following off-balance-sheet items and other similar transactions: ( i ) Guarantees;
( ii ) Repurchase agreements (the off-balance sheet component of which equals the sum of the current fair values of all positions the Board-regulated institution has sold subject to repurchase);
( iii ) Credit-enhancing representations and warranties that are not securitization exposures;
( iv ) Off-balance sheet securities lending transactions (the off-balance sheet component of which equals the sum of the current fair values of all positions the Board-regulated institution has lent under the transaction);
( v ) Off-balance sheet securities borrowing transactions (the off-balance sheet component of which equals the sum of the current fair values of all non-cash positions the Board-regulated institution has posted as collateral under the transaction);
( vi ) Financial standby letters of credit; and
( vii ) Forward agreements.
# C_2022395EN.01000201.xml

| 14.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

13 October 2022

(2022/C 395/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 0,9739 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 142,94 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4385 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86513 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,0098 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9725 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 140,50 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,3525 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,569 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 430,65 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,8303 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9355 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 18,1041 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5495 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3443 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 7,6440 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7314 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,3949 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 392,71 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,8173 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9945 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5310 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 952,86 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5691 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,352 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,843 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,1214 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,4442 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,9981 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

0,9739

JPY

Japanese yen

142,94

DKK

Danish krone

7,4385

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86513

SEK

Swedish krona

11,0098

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9725

ISK

Iceland króna

140,50

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,3525

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,569

HUF

Hungarian forint

430,65

PLN

Polish zloty

4,8303

RON

Romanian leu

4,9355

TRY

Turkish lira

18,1041

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5495

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3443

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

7,6440

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7314

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,3949

KRW

South Korean won

1 392,71

ZAR

South African rand

17,8173

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9945

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5310

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 952,86

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5691

PHP

Philippine peso

57,352

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,843

BRL

Brazilian real

5,1214

MXN

Mexican peso

19,4442

INR

Indian rupee

79,9981

---

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

---
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****General management plan /wilderness study.**
 
Newsletters: One | Two | Three | Summaryand Comment
 
SuDoc Number:I 29.79/3-2:
Item Number:0651-B-12 (online)
CGP systemNumber:0651-B-12 (online)
 
January 24, 2018
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10920 Conference Calendar

__________________ SHAWN ERIC McGEE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus JIM BOWLES; JIM MILLS; JACK CRUMP; BRUCE R. SHERBERT, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CV-355-D
- - - - - - - - - - April 23, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Shawn Eric McGee has appealed the district court's denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. A trial court is not required to appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless exceptional circumstances exist. Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). A district court has the discretion to appoint counsel for aNo. 95-10920 -2- plaintiff proceeding pro se if doing so would advance the proper administration of justice. Id . at 213. Although the district court did not specifically consider the four factors cataloged in Ulmer , the record negates the necessity for specific findings. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dept. , 811 F.2d 260, 262 (5th Cir. 1986). A review of the record and McGee's appellate brief show that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to appoint counsel for him in this case. AFFIRMED.