alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Caroline R. Steiffel et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Charles Tolhurst et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

September, 1900.)

Pleading — Rule as to striking out for irrelevancy and redundancy.

Where a semblance of a defense is set up in an answer its sufficiency will not be determined on a motion to strike out parts of it as irrelevant and redundant, the rule being that matter will not be stricken out for that reason, upon such a motion, unless the plaintiff is actually aggrieved by such matter.

If the court can see the meaning of the allegations in a pleading with ordinary certainty, they are not indefinite.

Motion to strike out parts of answer as irrelevant and redundant.

Tracy & Lane, for motion.

Holt *&*Gaillard, and F. L. Eckerson, opposed.

Gildersleeve, J.

The motion is to strike out portions of the answers of the several defendants as irrelevant and redundant. The rule is that where there is a semblance of a cause of action or defense set up in a pleading, its sufficiency cannot be determined on a motion to strike it out as redundant or irrelevant. See Walter v. Fowler, 85 N. Y. 621. In the case of Park & Sons Co. v. National Druggists’ Assn., 30 App. Div. 510, Mr. Justice Rumsey uses the following language, viz.: “ Ordinarily, a person should be left free to frame his own pleadings so far as the rules of good pleading will permit, and matter which is claimed to be irrelevant or redundant should be stricken out only when the moving party is actually aggrieved by it.” Also, in the case of Williams v. Folsom, 32 N. Y. St. Repr. 455, Mr. Justice Brady held that “ the disposition of a motion to strike out portions of pleadings as irrelevant is discretionary, and such a motion should be granted only where *470no doubt exists of the irrelevancy charged and where there is evidence that the retention of the matter would embarrass the opposite party in his prosecution or defense.” Again, in the action of Finger v. City of Kingston, 29 N. Y. St. Repr. 703, Mr. Justice Landon held that *“*The courts will not favor motions to strike out allegations of a pleading as irrelevant unless the irrelevancy is clear and the danger of false issues something more than barely possible.” Also in the case of Lugar v. Byrnes, 15 Civ. Pro. 72, the late General Term of this Department, in a *per curiam*opinion, held that, “ notwithstanding allegations of a complaint might be properly stricken out as irrelevant and redundant, an order denying a motion for that relief will not be reversed on appeal where it does not appear that harm or injustice will be done to the defendant by the retention of such allegations.” Applying these principles to the case at bar, I am inclined to the opinion that the motion should be denied. As for the other motion, to compel defendants to make their answers “ more definite and certain by separately stating and numbering their separate defenses,” the rule is that if the court can see the meaning of the allegations with ordinary certainty, they are not indefinite. McDonald v. Green, 28 Misc. Rep. 56. I am of opinion that the relief asked for is unnecessary* and that the motion should be denied.

Motion denied.
#### Daniel Leslie HARTMAN *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 75-133

530 S.W. 2d 366

Opinion delivered December 15, 1975

*Harold Hall,*Public Defender, for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *Jackson Jones,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Frank Holt, Justice.

Appellant Hartman and three others, Emerson, Roberts, and Whitehead, were convicted by the court, sitting as a jury, of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 82-2617 (Supp. 1973). They were sentenced to five years imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Appellant’s sole point for reversal *1019is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict as to Hartman’s participation. We cannot agree when we consider the evidence, which is substantial, in the light most favorable to the appellee as we must do on appeal. *Haynie*v. *State,*257 Ark. 542, 518 S.W. 2d 492 (1975).

Undercover agents testified they made a deal with Roberts to purchase twenty pounds of marijuana. Roberts advised them that he could make delivery at a certain time and at a designated location. The two agents picked Roberts up at his home and proceeded to this site where Emerson and Hartman arrived in a car driven by Emerson. The officers refused Emerson’s request to go somewhere else to get the marijuana. Thereupon, Emerson and Hartman left with Emerson driving and advising “they” would be back. They returned a short time later in another car, driven by Emerson, with Hartman in the front seat and Whitehead sitting in the back seat. The occupants then got out of the car. Emerson and Hartman went to the trunk of the car where they “looked into” and “fooled around with the trunk.” Emerson removed a box from his car trunk and put it onto his car seat where it was examined by the officer and then transferred by Emerson to the undercover agent’s car. Thereupon, the officers arrested the appellant and his codefendants. There was no money exchanged during the transaction. There was no testimony that the defendant Hartman talked to the officers, drove either of the cars involved, or transferred the marijuana from one car to the other.

The distinction between accessories and principals has been abolished in all criminal cases and accessories are punished as principals. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-118 (Repl. 1964). *Murrah*v. *State,*253 Ark. 432, 486 S.W. 2d 897 (1972). In the case at bar, the evidence is amply sufficient from which the trial court, the trier of the facts, could reasonably infer that the appellant, being present on two occasions, was an active participant in the alleged offense.

Affirmed.
§ 204.127 Nondepository participation in “Federal funds” market. ( a ) The Board has considered whether the use of *interdepository institution loan participations* (*IDLPs*) which involve participation by third parties other than depository institutions in Federal funds transactions, comes within the exemption from *deposit* classification for certain obligations owed by a depository institution to an institution exempt in § 204.2(a)(1)(vii)(A) of Regulation D. An IDLP transaction is one through which an institution that has sold Federal funds to a depository institution, subsequently *sells* or participates out that obligation to a nondepository third party without notifying the obligated institution.
( b ) The Board's interpretation regarding Federal funds transactions (12 CFR 204.126) clarified that a depository institutions's liability must be issued to an exempt institution described in § 204.2(a)(1)(vii)(A) of Regulation D for its own account in order to come within the nondeposit exemption for interdepository liabilities. The Board regards transactions which result in third parties gaining access to the Federal funds market as contrary to the exemption contained in § 204.2(a)(1)(vii)(A) of Regulation D regardless of whether the nondepository institution third party is a party to the initial transaction or thereafter becomes a participant in the transaction through purchase of all or part of the obligation held by the *selling* depository institution.
( c ) The Board regards the notice requirements set out in 12 CFR 204.126 as applicable to IDLP-type transactions as described herein so that a depository institution *selling* Federal funds must provide to the purchaser— ( 1 ) Notice of its intention, at the time of the initial transaction, to sell or participate out its loan contract to a nondepository third party, and
( 2 ) Full and prompt notice whenever it (the *selling* depository institution) subsequently sells or participates out its loan contract to a non-depository third party.
[52 FR 47695, Dec. 16, 1987]
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2647

To provide for nuclear disarmament and economic conversion in accordance 

with District of Columbia Initiative Measure Number 37 of 1992. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2003

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, 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 provide for nuclear disarmament and economic conversion 

in accordance with District of Columbia Initiative Measure Number 37 of 1992.

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 ‘‘Nuclear Disarmament 

5 and Economic Conversion Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND 

7 ECONOMIC CONVERSION. 

8 The United States Government shall—
2

•HR 2647 IH 

1 (1) disable and dismantle all its nuclear weap2 ons and refrain from replacing them at any time 

3 with any weapons of mass destruction; 

4 (2) redirect resources that are currently being 

5 used for nuclear weapons programs to use—

6 (A) in converting all nuclear weapons in7 dustry employees, processes, plants, and pro8 grams smoothly to constructive, ecologically 

9 beneficial peacetime activities during the 3 

10 years following the effective date of this Act, 

11 and 

12 (B) in addressing human and infrastruc13 ture needs such as housing, health care, edu14 cation, agriculture, and environmental restora15 tion, including alternative fuel sources; 

16 (3) undertake vigorous good faith efforts to 

17 eliminate war, armed conflict, and all military oper18 ations; and 

19 (4) actively promote policies to induce all other 

20 countries to join in these commitments for world 

21 peace and security. 

22 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

23 This Act shall take effect when the President certifies 

24 to the Congress that all foreign countries possessing nu25 clear weapons have established legal requirements com-
3

•HR 2647 IH 

1 parable to those set forth in section 2 and those require2 ments have taken effect.

Æ
# C_2022374EN.01001501.xml

| 30.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/15

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

29 September 2022

(2022/C 374/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 0,9706 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 140,46 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4365 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89485 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,9580 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9538 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 140,10 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,4518 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,687 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 421,93 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,8570 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9481 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 18,0000 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4982 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3294 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 7,6192 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7040 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,3961 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 388,34 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,4466 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9223 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5280 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 735,97 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4992 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,860 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,946 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,2521 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,5779 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,3140 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

0,9706

JPY

Japanese yen

140,46

DKK

Danish krone

7,4365

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89485

SEK

Swedish krona

10,9580

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9538

ISK

Iceland króna

140,10

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,4518

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,687

HUF

Hungarian forint

421,93

PLN

Polish zloty

4,8570

RON

Romanian leu

4,9481

TRY

Turkish lira

18,0000

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4982

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3294

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

7,6192

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7040

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,3961

KRW

South Korean won

1 388,34

ZAR

South African rand

17,4466

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9223

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5280

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 735,97

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4992

PHP

Philippine peso

56,860

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,946

BRL

Brazilian real

5,2521

MXN

Mexican peso

19,5779

INR

Indian rupee

79,3140

---

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

---
#### § 1271.20 Access to confidential regulatory information.

Each Bank shall ensure that access to the confidential regulatory information stored at its facility is limited to those with a need to know such information and that employees with access maintain the confidentiality of the confidential regulatory information in accordance with the Bank's own procedures for maintaining the confidentiality of its members' privileged or non-public information.
# C_2023180EN.01001401.xml

| 23.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/14

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

22 May 2023

(2023/C 180/05)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0822 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 149,64 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4478 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86846 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,3765 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9700 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 151,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,7765 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,676 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 374,73 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5133 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9737 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 21,4629 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6294 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4618 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4696 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7232 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4554 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 423,76 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 20,9137 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6067 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 100,33 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9218 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,353 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,282 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,4056 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,3742 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 89,6710 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0822

JPY

Japanese yen

149,64

DKK

Danish krone

7,4478

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86846

SEK

Swedish krona

11,3765

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9700

ISK

Iceland króna

151,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,7765

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,676

HUF

Hungarian forint

374,73

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5133

RON

Romanian leu

4,9737

TRY

Turkish lira

21,4629

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6294

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4618

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4696

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7232

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4554

KRW

South Korean won

1 423,76

ZAR

South African rand

20,9137

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6067

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 100,33

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9218

PHP

Philippine peso

60,353

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

37,282

BRL

Brazilian real

5,4056

MXN

Mexican peso

19,3742

INR

Indian rupee

89,6710

---

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

---
# C_2021432EN.01000201.xml

| 26.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

25 October 2021

(2021/C 432/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1603 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,88 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4399 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84380 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,0000 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0666 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 149,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7098 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,734 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 365,84 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6187 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9475 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 11,2232 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5505 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4347 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0191 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6235 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5633 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 357,30 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,1563 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4142 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5273 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 452,15 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8170 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,814 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 81,1067 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,423 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,5405 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,4551 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 87,2160 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1603

JPY

Japanese yen

131,88

DKK

Danish krone

7,4399

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84380

SEK

Swedish krona

10,0000

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0666

ISK

Iceland króna

149,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7098

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,734

HUF

Hungarian forint

365,84

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6187

RON

Romanian leu

4,9475

TRY

Turkish lira

11,2232

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5505

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4347

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0191

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6235

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5633

KRW

South Korean won

1 357,30

ZAR

South African rand

17,1563

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4142

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5273

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 452,15

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8170

PHP

Philippine peso

58,814

RUB

Russian rouble

81,1067

THB

Thai baht

38,423

BRL

Brazilian real

6,5405

MXN

Mexican peso

23,4551

INR

Indian rupee

87,2160

---

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

---
IB 

Union Calendar No. 164

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2714

[Report No. 108–285] 

To reauthorize the State Justice Institute. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2003

Mr. SMITH of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2003

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

A BILL

To reauthorize the State Justice Institute.

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 ‘‘State Justice Institute 

5 Reauthorization Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 2714 RH 

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 Section 215 of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 

3 (42 U.S.C. 10713) is amended to read as follows: 

4 ‘‘AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

5 ‘‘SEC. 215. There are authorized to be appropriated 

6 to carry out the purposes of this title, $7,000,000 for each 

7 of fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Amounts ap8 propriated for each such year are to remain available until 

9 expended.’’. 

10 SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS. 

11 (a) STATUS OF INSTITUTE.—Section 205(c) of the 

12 State Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10704(c)) 

13 is amended by adding at the end the following new para14 graph: 

15 ‘‘(3) The Institute may purchase goods and services 

16 from the General Services Administration in order to carry 

17 out its functions.’’. 

18 (b) STATUS AS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE

19 UNITED STATES.—Section 205(d)(2) of the State Justice 

20 Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10704(d)(2)) is amended 

21 by inserting ‘‘, notwithstanding section 8914 of such title’’ 

22 after ‘‘(relating to health insurance)’’. 

23 (c) MEETINGS.—Section 204(j) of the State Justice 

24 Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10703(j)) is amended 

25 by inserting ‘‘(on any occasion on which that committee 
3

•HR 2714 RH 

1 has been delegated the authority to act on behalf of the 

2 Board)’’ after ‘‘executive committee of the Board’’. 
Union Calendar No. 164

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2714

[Report No. 108–285] 

A BILL

To reauthorize the State Justice Institute. 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2003

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
1

F i s h 

C r e e k 

T i n g m

i a

k s i q v i k R i v e r 

K i

k i a

k r o r a k 

R i v e r 

K o g o s u k r u k 

R i v e r 

J u d y

Cr e e k 

Migu akiak R. 

C o l v i l l e 

Ikpikp

uk 

River 

R

i

v

e

r 

Nuiqsut 

Umiat 

Atigaru Point 

Cape Halkett 

H a r r i s o n 

B

a y 

B e a u f o r t 

S e a 

1 E 

9 

2 

8 

4 

6 

9 N 

t 

A R C T I C O C E A N

Cape Simpson 

Sm ith Bay 

Pitt Poin

15 N

4 3 2 1 W 12 11 10 8 7 6 5

T e s h e k p u k L a k e Kogru R. 14

13

12

10

2 3 4 5

3 1 W 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

5

3

2

1 N 

2 3 4 1 W 1 E 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

1 S 

BEARDED SEAL 3

Bearded Seal Sighting 4

0 6 12

Miles 

5

Source: USDOI MMS and Naval Ocean Systems Center, 2002

Map 3-28. Bearded Seal Sightings Offshore of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

(1979 - 1999) 

11 

7 

2
Order entered May 20, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00210-CV

TIMOTHY G. MARTIN AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 608 MEADOW LANE, 

ALLEN, TEXAS 75002, Appellants

V.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, A/K/A FANNIE MAE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 003-00897-2013

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated March 24, 2015, we 

notified the official court reporter for County Court at Law No. 3 that the reporter’s record was 

overdue. We directed the court reporter to file the record within thirty days. To date, we have 

not received any response. 

Accordingly, we ORDER Court Reporter Denise Condran to file, within FIFTEEN 

DAYS of the date of this order, either (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written verification that no 

hearings were recorded; or (3) written verification that appellants have not requested or made 

payment arrangements for the record. We notify appellants that if we receive verification the 

reporter’s record has not been requested, paid for, or arrangements have not been made to pay 
for the reporter’s record, we will order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE