alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1412.1 Scope. ( a ) This part limits and/or prohibits, in certain circumstances, the ability of Farm Credit System (System) institutions, their service corporations, subsidiaries and affiliates from making golden parachute and indemnification payments to institution-related parties (IRPs).
( b ) This part applies to System institutions in a troubled condition that seek to make golden parachute payments to their IRPs.
( c ) The limitations on indemnification payments apply to all System institutions, their service corporations, subsidiaries and affiliates regardless of their financial health.
MPD

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0030

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CORENA MARIE MOUNTAIN CHIEF,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 7-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including March 26, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 10 2023

03/10/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0030
§ 217.162 Mechanics of risk-weighted asset calculation. ( a ) If a Board-regulated institution does not qualify to use or does not have qualifying operational risk mitigants, the Board-regulated institution's dollar risk-based capital requirement for operational risk is its operational risk exposure minus eligible operational risk offsets (if any).
( b ) If a Board-regulated institution qualifies to use operational risk mitigants and has qualifying operational risk mitigants, the Board-regulated institution's dollar risk-based capital requirement for operational risk is the greater of: ( 1 ) The Board-regulated institution's operational risk exposure adjusted for qualifying operational risk mitigants minus eligible operational risk offsets (if any); or
( 2 ) 0.8 multiplied by the difference between: ( i ) The Board-regulated institution's operational risk exposure; and
( ii ) Eligible operational risk offsets (if any).
( c ) The Board-regulated institution's risk-weighted asset amount for operational risk equals the Board-regulated institution's dollar risk-based capital requirement for operational risk determined under sections 162(a) or (b) multiplied by 12.5.
§ 221.111 Contribution to joint venture as extension of credit when the contribution is disproportionate to the contributor's share in the venture's profits or losses. ( a ) The Board considered the question whether a joint venture, structured so that the amount of capital contribution to the venture would be disproportionate to the right of participation in profits or losses, constitutes an “extension of credit” for the purpose of this part.
( b ) An individual and a corporation plan to establish a joint venture to engage in the business of buying and selling securities, including margin stock. The individual would contribute 20 percent of the capital and receive 80 percent of the profits or losses; the corporate share would be the reverse. In computing profits or losses, each participant would first receive interest at the rate of 8 percent on his respective capital contribution. Although purchases and sales would be mutually agreed upon, the corporation could liquidate the joint portfolio if the individual's share of the losses equaled or exceeded his 20 percent contribution to the venture. The corporation would hold the securities, and upon termination of the venture, the assets would first be applied to repayment of capital contributions.
( c ) In general, the relationship of joint venture is created when two or more persons combine their money, property, or time in the conduct of some particular line of trade or some particular business and agree to share jointly, or in proportion to capital contributed, the profits and losses of the undertaking.
( d ) The incidents of the joint venture described in paragraph (b) of this section, however, closely parallel those of an extension of margin credit, with the corporation as lender and the individual as borrower. The corporation supplies 80 percent of the purchase price of securities in exchange for a net return of 8 percent of the amount advanced plus 20 percent of any gain. Like a lender of securities credit, the corporation is insulated against loss by retaining the right to liquidate the collateral before the securities decline in price below the amount of its contribution. Conversely, the individual—like a customer who borrows to purchase securities—puts up only 20 percent of their cost, is entitled to the principal portion of any appreciation in their value, bears the principal risk of loss should that value decline, and does not stand to gain or lose except through a change in value of the securities purchased.
( e ) The Board is of the opinion that where the right of an individual to share in profits and losses of such a joint venture is disproportionate to his contribution to the venture: ( 1 ) The joint venture involves an extension of credit by the corporation to the individual;
( 2 ) The extension of credit is to purchase or carry margin stock, and is collateralized by such margin stock; and
( 3 ) If the corporation is not a broker or dealer subject to Regulation T (12 CFR part 220), the credit is of the kind described by § 221.3(a).
Q1 2015 Exhibit 10.1 Resignation Letter






Exhibit 10.1


March 9, 2015






Mr. Dan Fogarty
1650 Fillmore #1804
Denver, CO  80206


Dear Dan:


This will confirm that you have resigned from Noodles & Company and that your last day as an employee of Noodles & Company, and as our Executive Vice President of Marketing, will be Friday, March 13, 2015.


We have agreed that we will transfer to you title to the A6 Audi you are currently driving as a company vehicle.


Also, you agree that you will be available to work with us on a consulting basis on transitional matters related to your function, as needed by us, but subject to your availability and only as mutually agreed.


You agree not to disparage Noodles & Company or its business, or any of its officers, directors, shareholders, franchisees, or employees.  Noodles & Company agrees not to disparage you.


We appreciate all you have done to build the Noodles & Company brand over the years and wish you all the best as you move on to new opportunities.
# Official Journal C 138/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 138 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6328 April 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 138

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6328 April 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 138/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9614 – OBB-TS/LTE) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 138/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9614 – OBB-TS/LTE) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 138/02 | Euro exchange rates — 27 April 2020 | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 138/02

Euro exchange rates — 27 April 2020

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 138/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9785 – EFL/DBK/Hama Polska) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2020/C 138/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9785 – EFL/DBK/Hama Polska) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
59–008 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–199 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (H.R. 2764) MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, 

AND RELATED PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 

30, 2008, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

JUNE 19, 2007.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, from the Committee on Rules 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 498] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 498, by a non-record vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2764) 

making appropriations for State, Foreign Operations, and Related 

Programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for 

other purposes, under an open rule. The resolution provides one 

hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 

The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of 

the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The resolution waives 

points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 

with clause 2 of rule XXI. During consideration of the bill for 

amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their 

amendments in the Congressional Record. The resolution provides 

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Finally, the 

resolution permits the Chair, during consideration of H.R. 2764 in 

the House, to postpone further consideration of the bill to a time 

designated by the Speaker. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill 

(except for clauses 9 and 10 of Rule XXI) includes a waiver of Rule 

XIII, clause 4(a), requiring a three-day layover of a committee report. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
2 

The waiver of clause 2 of rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill) 

against provisions in the bill is included because the bill contains 

unauthorized appropriations and legislative provisions. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Exhibit 32(b)

            CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with  the  IGENE  Biotechnology,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended
September  30,  2007, as filed with the Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on  the  date  hereof (the "Report"),  I,  Edward  J.
Weisberger,  Chief  Financial Officer  of  the  Company,  certify
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Section 1350, as  adopted  pursuant  to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the  best
of my knowledge:

     (1). The  Report  fully  complies  with  the requirements of
          Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934, as amended; and

     (2). The   information  contained  in  the   Report   fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  December 11, 2007       By: /S/ EDWARD J. WEISBERGER
                                   ______________________________
                                       EDWARD J. WEISBERGER
                                       Chief Financial Officer




A  signed original of this written statement required by  Section
906  has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission
or its staff upon request.
H. R. 2771

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New York City Watershed

Protection Program.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM.

Section 1443(d)(4) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C.

300j–2(d)(4)) is amended by striking ‘‘1997 through 2003’’ and

inserting ‘‘2003 through 2010’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
§ 169.2 Form of proxies. Every form of proxy shall conform to the following requirements: ( a ) The proxy shall be revocable at will by the person giving it. The power to revoke may not be conditioned on any event or occurrence or be otherwise limited; except that, in the case of a proxy relating to capital stock if such proxy is coupled with an interest, states such fact on its face, and is valid under the laws of the state in which it is to be exercised, such proxy may be made irrevocable to the extent permitted by such state law.
( b ) The proxy may not be part of any other document or instrument (such as an account card).
( c ) The proxy shall be clearly labeled “Revocable Proxy” in boldface type (at least as large as 18 point).
Order entered July 22, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00415-CV

VICTOR AND JAYME CANTU, Appellants

V.

JOHN AND DONNA MOSES, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 003-00761-2022

ORDER

By letter dated July 1, 2022, we directed appellants to file written 

verification they had requested the reporter’s record. Although we cautioned them 

that failure to comply within ten days could result in the appeal being submitted 

without that record, they have not complied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). 

Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See 

id.

As the clerk’s record has been filed, we ORDER appellants to file their brief 

on the merits no later than August 22, 2022.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
§ 1273.2 Authority of the OF. ( a ) *General.* The OF shall enjoy such incidental powers under section 12(a) of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1432(a)), as are necessary, convenient and proper to accomplish the efficient execution of its duties and functions pursuant to this part, including the authority to contract with a Bank or Banks for the use of Bank facilities or personnel in order to perform its functions or duties.
( b ) *Agent.* The OF, in the performance of its duties, shall have the power to act on behalf of the Banks in issuing consolidated obligations and in paying principal and interest due on the consolidated obligations, or other obligations of the Banks.
( c ) *Assessments.* The OF shall have authority to assess the Banks for the funding of its operations in accordance with § 1273.5 of this part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000793981
<NAME> WEALTH INTERNATIONAL, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         11375
<OTHER-SE>                                     (11375)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<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
1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1831

___________

Allen Payne; Debra Payne, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 7, 2004

Filed: October 13, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Allen and Debra Payne appeal the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment to the United States in this medical malpractice action brought under the

Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80 (FTCA). Upon de novo review, see

Meyers v. Neb. Health and Human Servs., 324 F.3d 655, 658-59 (8th Cir. 2003), we

agree that summary judgment was proper, because the undisputed evidence showed

that Allen was or should have been aware of his injury and its cause no later than

April 1, 1991, the date of a letter he sent to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
-2-

seeking increased benefits, see Motley v. United States, 295 F.3d 820, 822 (8th Cir.

2002) (FTCA claim for medical malpractice accrues when plaintiff actually knew, or

in exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, cause and existence of

injury). Even if Allen did not actually know of the probable cause of his injury on

that date, he would have discovered the probable cause in short order if he had

exercised reasonable diligence, and the undisputed evidence showed that he did not.

See United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 123-24 (1979) (plaintiff has

responsibility to seek advice in medical community once aware of harm and cause);

Garza v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 284 F.3d 930, 935 (8th Cir. 2002)

(suspicions of claim give rise to duty to inquire into existence of claim in exercise of

due diligence; determination of whether plaintiff acted reasonably is objective).

Because Allen knew or should have known of his injury and its probable cause more

than two years before January 1999, the Paynes’ January 1999 and March 2000

administrative claims to the VA were untimely, and their action is barred. See 28

U.S.C. § 2401(b) (plaintiffs must file claim with federal agency within 2 years of

accrual of tort claim). We agree with the district court that the Paynes did not show

any basis for equitable tolling.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
§ 1225.4 Standards and factors. ( a ) *Standard for imposing a temporary increase.* In making a determination to increase temporarily a minimum capital requirement for a regulated entity or entities, the Director will consider the necessity and consistency of such an increase with the prudential regulation and the safe and sound operations of a regulated entity. The Director may impose a temporary minimum-capital increase if consideration of one or more of the following factors leads the Director to the judgment that the current minimum capital requirement for a regulated entity is insufficient to address the entity's risks: ( 1 ) Current or anticipated declines in the value of assets held by a regulated entity; the amounts of mortgage-backed securities issued or guaranteed by the regulated entity; and, its ability to access liquidity and funding;
( 2 ) Credit (including counterparty), market, operational and other risks facing a regulated entity, especially where an increase in risks is foreseeable and consequential;
( 3 ) Current or projected declines in the capital held by a regulated entity;
( 4 ) A regulated entity's material non-compliance with regulations, written orders, or agreements;
( 5 ) Housing finance market conditions;
( 6 ) Level of reserves or retained earnings;
( 7 ) Initiatives, operations, products, or practices that entail heightened risk;
( 8 ) With respect to a Bank, the ratio of the market value of its equity to par value of its capital stock where the market value of equity is the value calculated and reported by the Bank as “market value of total capital” under 12 CFR 932.5(a)(1)(ii)(A); or
( 9 ) Other conditions as detailed by the Director in the notice provided under § 1225.3.
( b ) *Standard for rescission of a temporary increase.* In making a determination to rescind a temporary increase in the minimum capital level for a regulated entity or entities, whether in full or in part, the Director will consider the consistency of such a rescission with the prudential regulation and safe and sound operations of a regulated entity. The Director will rescind, in full or in part, a temporary minimum capital increase if consideration of one or more of the following factors leads the Director to the judgment that rescission of a temporary minimum-capital increase for a regulated entity is appropriate considering the entity's risks: ( 1 ) Changes to the circumstances or facts that led to the imposition of a temporary increase in the minimum capital levels;
( 2 ) The meeting of targets set for a regulated entity in advance of any capital or capital-related plan agreed to by the Director;
( 3 ) Changed circumstances or facts based on new developments occurring since the imposition of the temporary increase in the minimum capital level, particularly where the original problems or concerns have been successfully addressed or alleviated in whole or in part; or
( 4 ) Such other standard as the Director may consider as detailed by the Director in the notice provided under § 1225.3.