alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed Ap ril 10 , 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01383

- CV

US BANK NATIONAL ASS OCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE SECU RITIES CORP., HOME E QUITY ASSET TRUST 20 04

- 4, HOME EQUITY PASS

- THROUGH CERTIFICATES , SERIES 2004

- 4 , Appellant

V.

DEMETRIA AMARO AND A LL OTHER OCCUPANTS O F 311 NORTH RAVINIA DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 75211 , Appellees

On Appeal from t he County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 12

- 04360

- A



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, O’Neill, and Brown Opinion by Justice O’Neill This is an appeal from a judgment for possession of property in a forcible detainer suit.

A ppellees move to dismiss for mootness . They assert they have vacated the property, and
appellant has confirmed they have. Accordingly, w e grant the motion, vacate the trial court’s
judgment, and dismiss the case as moot. See Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San Antonio , 198
S.W.3d 782, 788 (Tex. 2006).

131383F.P05 /Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., HOME EQUITY ASSET TRUST 2004

- 4, HOME EQUITY PASS

- THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004

- 4, Appellant

No. 0 5

- 13

- 01383

- CV V.

DEMETRIA AMARO AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 311 NORTH RAVINIA DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 75211, Appellees On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 12

- 04360

- A. Opinion delivered by Just ice O’Neill. Justices Bridges and Brown participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We ORDER that appellees Demetria Amaro and all other occupants of 311 North Ravinia Drive, Dallas, Texas 75211 recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant US Bank National Association, as Trustee for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp., Home Equity Asset Trust 2004

- 4, Home Equity Pass

- Through Certificates, Series 2004

- 4.

Judgment entered this 10th day of April, 2014.

/Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O’NEILL JUSTICE
Editorial Note on Part 1266
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1266 appear at 75 FR 76622, Dec. 9, 2010.

§ 1266.6 Fees. ( a ) *Fees in member products policy.* All fees charged by each Bank and any schedules or formulas pertaining to such fees shall be included in the Bank's member products policy required by § 917.4 of this title. Any such fee schedules or formulas shall be applied consistently and without discrimination to all members.
( b ) *Prepayment fees.* ( 1 ) Except where an advance product contains a prepayment option, each Bank shall establish and charge a prepayment fee pursuant to a specified formula which makes the Bank financially indifferent to the borrower's decision to repay the advance prior to its maturity date.
( 2 ) Prepayment fees are not required for: ( i ) Advances with original terms to maturity or repricing periods of six months or less;
( ii ) Advances funded by callable debt; or
( iii ) Advances which are otherwise appropriately hedged so that the Bank is financially indifferent to their prepayment.
( 3 ) The board of directors of each Bank, a designated committee thereof, or officers specifically authorized by the board of directors, may waive a prepayment fee only if such prepayment will not result in an economic loss to the Bank. Any such waiver must subsequently be ratified by the board of directors.
( 4 ) A Bank, in determining whether or not to waive a prepayment fee, shall apply consistent standards to all of its members.
( c ) *Commitment fees.* Each Bank may charge a fee for its commitment to fund an advance.
( d ) *Other fees.* Each Bank is authorized to charge other fees as it deems necessary and appropriate.
[58 FR 29469, May 20, 1993; 65 FR 8263, Feb. 18, 2000. Redesignated and amended at 65 FR 44429, July 18, 2000]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.167

June 28, 2000

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

Gentlemen:

We have read Item 4 of Form 8-K dated June 28, 2000, of Wilshire Technologies,
Inc. and are in agreement with the statements contained in the fourth paragraph
on page 2 herein. We have no basis to agree or disagree with other statements of
the registrant contained therein.


                                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF
                                    DELAWARE

Number                                                            Shares


                                FAC REALTY, INC.





Authorized Shares 1,000,000                           Par Value $25.00 per share

This certifies that     is the registered holder of    Shares of SERIES A
CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK transferable only on the books of the Corporation
by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate
properly endorsed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunder
affixed this     day of     A.D.      .


   /s/ Robin W. Malphrus                          /s/ C. Cammack Morton
        Secretary                                        President


                                  SEAL




<PAGE>
#### Patrick McDonald, Respondent, *v.*The City Trust Safe Deposit and Surety Co., Philadelphia, Appellant.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

October, 1900.)

Chattel mortgage — Form — When void as to judgment creditor — Notice.

A writing in the words “ To secure the' payment of a note of $200, given this day to Patrick McDonald, payable on demand, I hereby sell and assign ten of my carriage horses now in my possession in my stable, 163 and 165 West 132d St. The use of said horses I am to have and enjoy until I fail to pay the note, upon three days’ notice or grace of payment ”. (Signed) “ John F. Cammann ”, does not identify the mortgaged property sufficiently, and, when not accompanied by a change of possession and not filed, is void as to subsequent judgment creditors of the mortgagor even where they have knowledge of its existence.

Appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict, awarding the return of personal property, etc., and from an order denying a new trial.

Dayton & Swift (Joseph Rosenzweig, of counsel), for appellant.

David M. Neuberger, for respondent.

Hascall, J.

In this case the plaintiff had the usual verdict in replevin awarding possession of certain personal property, fixing the value at $500, and assessing the damages for detention at six cents.

The basis of the action was a memorandum writing in these words:

“ To secure the payment of a note of $200, given this day to Patrick McDonald, payable on demand, I hereby sell and assign ten of my carriage horses now in my possession in my stable, 163 and 165 West 132d St. The use of said horses I am to have and enjoy until I fail to pay the note, upon three days’ notice or grace of payment.

> “ John F. Cammann.”

*645A subsequent judgment, against Cammann in favor of one Harlam, resulted in a levy by the sheriff under execution upon the horses, their claim by this plaintiff, a bond of indemnity to the sheriff to prevent delivery, a suit against the sheriff and subsequent substitution of the indemnitor, this defendant, in the sheriff’s stead. The proofs upon the trial were insufficient to sustain the verdict. The cause was tried upon the theory that the paper above set out was a chattel mortgage, or amounted to such as between the parties. It was not such as against a creditor. It was not filed. It did not sufficiently describe the property to prevent confusion; it was not accompanied by change of possession, and might, if upheld as to form, enable the parties, by collusion, to defeat any *bona fide*creditor from securing a hen to which he would otherwise be entitled. Even if it be contended that the paper were valid as to form, it became absolutely void as to creditors, even those with knowledge, because it was not filed. Laws of 1897, chap. 418; 143 N. Y. 476. Since these views, if correct, do not necessitate further examination or discussion of points urged upon the argument, no extension of this opinion need be pursued.

Judgment and order appealed from should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Conlan, J., concurs.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
§ 79.25 Applications for legal services grants. ( a ) To apply for a legal services grant, an applicant must submit to VA a complete legal services grant application package, as described in the NOFO. A complete legal services grant application package includes the following: ( 1 ) A description of the legal services to be provided by the applicant and the identified need for such legal services among eligible veterans;
( 2 ) A description of how the applicant will ensure that services are provided to eligible veterans, including women veterans;
( 3 ) A description of the characteristics of eligible veterans who will receive legal services provided by the applicant;
( 4 ) An estimate with supporting documentation of the number of eligible veterans, including an estimate of the number of eligible women veterans, who will receive legal services provided by the applicant;
( 5 ) A plan for how the applicant will use at least ten percent of the grant funds to serve eligible women veterans;
( 6 ) Documentation describing the experience of the applicant and any identified subcontractors in providing legal services to eligible veterans;
( 7 ) Documentation relating to the applicant's ability to coordinate with any identified subcontractors;
( 8 ) Documentation of the applicant's capacity to effectively administer a grant under this section that describes the applicant's: ( i ) Accounting practices and financial controls;
( ii ) Capacity for data collection and reporting required under this part; and
( iii ) Experience administering other Federal, State, or county grants similar to the Grant Program under this part.
( 9 ) Documentation of the managerial capacity of the applicant to: ( i ) Coordinate the provision of legal services by the applicant or by other organizations on a referral basis;
( ii ) Assess continuously the needs of eligible veterans for legal services;
( iii ) Coordinate the provision of legal services with services provided by VA;
( iv ) Customize legal services to the needs of eligible veterans; and
( v ) Comply with and implement the requirements of this part throughout the term of the legal services grant.
( 10 ) Documentation that demonstrates that adequate financial support will be available to carry out the legal services for which the grant is sought consistent with the application; and
( 11 ) Any additional information as deemed appropriate by VA.
( b ) Subject to funding availability, grantees may submit an application for renewal of a legal services grant if the grantee's program will remain substantially the same. To apply for renewal of a legal services grant, a grantee must submit to VA a complete legal services grant renewal application package, as described in the NOFO.
( c ) VA may request in writing that an applicant or grantee, as applicable, submit other information or documentation relevant to the legal services grant application.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Aug. 25, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-13394

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00109-CR-1-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

JOE HILLS, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

_________________________

(August 25, 2008)

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Michael N. Loebl, counsel for Joe Hills, Jr. in this direct criminal appeal, has
2

moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493

(1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Hills’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 51579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1729-000]

Connectiv Mid Merit, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

September 29, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Connectiv Mid Merit, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is October 19, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail [email protected]. 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24117 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
# C_2023023EN.01000801.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 23/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 23/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

20 January 2023

(2023/C 23/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0826 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 140,86 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4391 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87600 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,1655 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9962 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 154,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,7135 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,922 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 395,88 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7100 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9258 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 20,3566 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5619 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4583 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4775 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6852 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4311 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 336,47 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 18,5770 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3425 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 367,67 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6395 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,958 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,455 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,6271 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,4865 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 87,8170 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0826

JPY

Japanese yen

140,86

DKK

Danish krone

7,4391

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87600

SEK

Swedish krona

11,1655

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9962

ISK

Iceland króna

154,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,7135

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,922

HUF

Hungarian forint

395,88

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7100

RON

Romanian leu

4,9258

TRY

Turkish lira

20,3566

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5619

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4583

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4775

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6852

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4311

KRW

South Korean won

1 336,47

ZAR

South African rand

18,5770

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3425

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 367,67

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6395

PHP

Philippine peso

58,958

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

35,455

BRL

Brazilian real

5,6271

MXN

Mexican peso

20,4865

INR

Indian rupee

87,8170

---

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

---
§ 1806.102 Relationship to other CDFI Fund programs. ( a ) *Restrictions using BEA Program Award in conjunction with other awards.* ( 1 ) Restrictions are in place on applying for, receiving, and using BEA Program Awards in conjunction with awards under other programs administered by the CDFI Fund.
( 2 ) Other programs include, but not limited to, the Capital Magnet Fund, the CDFI Program, the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, the Native American CDFI Assistance Program, and the New Markets Tax Credit Program, are as set forth in the applicable notice of funding opportunity or Notice of Allocation Availability.
( b ) *Prohibition against double funding.* ( 1 ) Qualified Activities may not include transactions funded in whole or in part with award proceeds from another CDFI Fund program or Federal program.
( 2 ) An Applicant that is a CDFI may not receive a BEA Program Award, either directly or through a community partnership if it has: ( i ) Received a CDFI Program award within the preceding 12-month period, or has a CDFI Program application pending; or
( ii ) Ever received a CDFI Program award based on the same activity during the same semiannual period for which the institution seeks a BEA Program Award.
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2649 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2008 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To make amendments to the Reclamation Projects 

Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992. 

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


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

HR 2649 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lake Hodges Surface 

3 Water Improvement and Reclamation Act of 2008’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

6 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102– 

7 575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by 

8 inserting after section 16ll the following: 

9 ‘‘SEC. 16ll. LAKE HODGES SURFACE WATER IMPROVE10 MENT AND RECLAMATION PROJECT. 

11 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera12 tion with the Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Cali13 fornia, is authorized to participate in the design, planning, 

14 and construction of projects to treat, reclaim, and reuse 

15 impaired surface water from Lakes Hodges in San Diego 

16 County, California. 

17 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the costs 

18 of the projects authorized by this section shall not exceed 

19 25 percent of the total cost. 

20 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide 

21 funds for the operation or maintenance of a project au22 thorized by this section.’’. 

23 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

24 in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and 

25 Adjustment Act of 1992 is amended by inserting after the 

26 item relating to section 163ll the following: 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

HR 2649 RFS

‘‘Sec. 163ll. Lake Hodges surface water improvement and reclamation 

project.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 20, 2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Central African Republic

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Central African Republic			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Central African Republic 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Central African Republic

During the review period, the government made its enacted budget and quarterly reports publicly available online.  It did not publish an executive budget proposal or an end-of-year report within a reasonable period of time.  Limited information on debt obligations was publicly available, including for state-owned enterprises.  Publicly available budget documents provided a fairly complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams, with the exception of allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises.  The Central African Republic’s supreme audit institution did not audit the government’s executed budget and was not authorized to publish reports.  The criteria and procedures by which the national government awards contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction were specified in law, but the government exercised limited control over natural resource extraction and laws were not consistently followed in practice. The Central African Republic’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- publishing an executive budget proposal and an end-of-year report within a reasonable period of time;
- providing more detail on allocations to, earnings from, and debt holdings of state-owned enterprises in budget documents;
- having the supreme audit institution audit the government’s executed budget and publish its audit reports within a reasonable period of time;
- consistently following in practice laws for awarding natural resource extraction contracts; and
- ensuring information on natural resource awards is accurate, complete, and publicly available.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Central African Republic 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsCentral African RepublicDivision for International Finance and Development

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future