alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1209.17 Time computations. ( a ) *General rule.* In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed under this part, the date of the act or event that commences the designated period of time is not included. Computations shall include the last day of the time period, unless the day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday. When the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday, the period of time shall run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday. Intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays are included in the computation of time. However, when the time period within which an act is to be performed is 10 days or less, not including any additional time allowed for in paragraph (c) of this section, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays are not included.
( b ) *When papers are deemed to be filed or served.* ( 1 ) Filing or service are deemed to be effective: ( i ) In the case of personal service or same day reliable commercial delivery service, upon actual service;
( ii ) In the case of U.S. Postal Service or reliable commercial overnight delivery service, or first class, registered, or certified mail, upon deposit in or delivery to an appropriate point of collection;
( iii ) In the case of transmission by electronic media, as specified by the authority receiving the filing, in the case of filing; or
( iv ) In the case of transmission by electronic media or facsimile, when the device through which the document was sent provides a reliable indicator that the document has been received by the opposing party, in the case of service.
( 2 ) The effective filing and service dates specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section may be modified by the Director or the presiding officer, or by agreement of the parties in the case of service.
( c ) *Calculation of time for service and filing of responsive papers.* Whenever a time limit is measured by a prescribed period from the service of any notice, pleading or paper, the applicable time limits shall be calculated as follows: ( 1 ) If service was made by delivery to the U.S. Postal Service for longer than overnight delivery service by first class, registered, or certified mail, add three calendar days to the prescribed period for the responsive pleading or other filing.
( 2 ) If service was personal, or was made by delivery to the U.S. Postal Service or any reliable commercial delivery service for overnight delivery, add one calendar-day to the prescribed period for the responsive pleading or other filing.
( 3 ) If service was made by electronic media transmission or facsimile, add one calendar-day to the prescribed period for the responsive pleading or other filing—unless otherwise determined by the Director or the presiding officer *sua sponte,* or upon motion of a party in the case of filing or by prior agreement among the parties in the case of service.
# EUR-Lex - E2001J0004 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# E2001J0004

**Judgment of the Court of 30 May 2002 in Case E-4/01: Request for an Advisory Opinion from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court): Karl K. Karlsson hf. and The Icelandic State (State alcohol monopoly — incompatibility with Article 16 EEA — State liability in the event of a breach of EEA law — Conditions of liability) **

*
Official Journal C 177 , 25/07/2002 P. 0007 - 0007 *

Judgment of the Court

of 30 May 2002

in Case E-4/01: Request for an Advisory Opinion from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court): Karl K. Karlsson hf. and The Icelandic State

State alcohol monopoly - incompatibility with Article 16 EEA - State liability in the event of a breach of EEA law - Conditions of liability

(2002/C 177/07)

In Case E-4/01: request to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur for an Advisory Opinion in the case pending before it concerning the questions of whether the State monopoly on the import and wholesale distribution of alcoholic beverages in force in Iceland until 1 December 1995 was incompatible with the EEA Agreement, and, if so, whether a prospective importer of alcoholic beverages is entitled to compensation from the State for financial loss incurred as a result of that monopoly, the Court, composed of Thór Vilhjálmsson, President, Carl Baudenbacher and Per Tresselt (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave a judgment on 30 May 2002, the operative part of which declares as follows:

1. The maintenance after 1 January 1994 of a State monopoly on the import of alcoholic beverages is incompatible with Article 16 EEA.

2. An EEA State will, under the EEA Agreement, be liable to a prospective importer of alcoholic beverages for loss or damage incurred as a result of the maintenance of a State monopoly on the import of alcoholic beverages, provided that the conditions for State liability are fulfilled. Where those conditions are fulfilled, compensation by the State for such loss and damage must be based on national liability law. The rules on compensation laid down by national law must not be less favourable than those relating to similar domestic claims and must not be framed so as to make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to obtain compensation.

3. It is, in principle, for the national court to decide whether the conditions for State liability are fulfilled. In that assessment, the following considerations are to be taken into account: (1) Article 16 EEA is intended to confer rights on individuals; (2) the breach of Article 16 EEA is sufficiently serious to entail liability; (3) whether there is a direct causal link between the breach of Article 16 EEA and any damage sustained, is for the national court to decide.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001014669
<NAME> STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,307
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  119,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,341)
<INVENTORY>                                     78,915
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               220,771
<PP&E>                                         771,978
<DEPRECIATION>                               (339,151)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 745,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          129,692
<BONDS>                                        781,180
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (258,516)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   745,233
<SALES>                                        506,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               506,190
<CGS>                                          472,963
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  472,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,881
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (64,698)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (20,694)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (44,004)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (44,004)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
42379.

#### HILL v. THE STATE.

Submitted October 3, 1966

Decided October 11, 1966

Rehearing denied October 27, 1966

*528
      *Ralph L. Crawford,*for appellant.

*Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Solicitor, Tom A. Edenfield,*for appellee.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

“ (a) When a search warrant and the affidavit upon which it is issued do not recite sufficient facts upon which a determination of probable cause could be made by the issuing magistrate, the burden is on the State to show that sufficient facts were submitted before the magistrate to establish the existence of probable cause, (b) To support a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, there must be presented by oath or affirmation to the issuing magistrate some of the underlying circumstances causing the officer applying for the warrant to believe that there is probable cause to search the premises and, if the officer relies on an informant, some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that his informant was reliable.” *Marshall v. State,*113 Ga. App. 143 (1) (147 SE2d 666). The evidence presented by the State as to the facts testified to before the magistrate were sufficient to authorize the issuance of such warrant.

During cross examination of one of the State’s witnesses the defendant elicited testimony that the defendant was advised of his right to refuse to answer any questions and that the defendant did thereafter refuse to answer any questions. The answers were directly responsive to the questions asked by the defendant’s counsel and under decisions exemplified by *Scott v. State,*57 Ga. App. 187 (194 SE 844); *Mickle v. Moore,*188 Ga. 444, 448 (4 SE2d 217), it was not error to refuse to grant the defendant’s motion for mistrial based on the testimony elicited by the movant.

*529Under the decision in *Jefferson v. State,*101 Ga. App. 308 (5) (113 SE2d 500), it was not error for the trial court to refuse the request of the jury to have the testimony of one of the State’s witnesses and that of the defendant “replayed” (the oral testimony having been recorded by the court reporter). Particularly is this true where the transcribed testimony is very lengthy. In the present case the testimony of the State’s witness and that of the defendant constituted approximately sixty-six pages of the record.

Nor did the trial court commit error in instructing the jury, after the above request to again hear the testimony was denied, that the testimony of the State’s witness and the defendant was quite lengthy and requested that they deliberate further and see if they could reach a verdict without the playback as the hour was late. See *Yancy v. State,*173 Ga. 685 (5) (160 SE 867); *McKibben v. State,*187 Ga. 651 (3) (2 SE2d 101).

The evidence authorized the verdict. See *Nicholas v. State,*114 Ga. App. 306 (151 SE2d 168).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         223,213
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,678,778
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,080,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          580,850
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,500,020
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,080,870
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           (3,774,280)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,274,566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,048,846)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,048,846)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0






</TABLE>
§ 238.8 Safe and sound operations, and Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement. ( a ) *Savings and loan holding company policy and operations.* ( 1 ) A savings and loan holding company shall serve as a source of financial and managerial strength to its subsidiary savings associations and shall not conduct its operations in an unsafe or unsound manner.
( 2 ) Whenever the Board believes an activity of a savings and loan holding company or control of a nonbank subsidiary (other than a nonbank subsidiary of a savings association) constitutes a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness, or stability of a subsidiary savings association of the savings and loan holding company and is inconsistent with sound banking principles or the purposes of HOLA or the Financial Institutions Supervisory Act of 1966, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1818(b) *et seq.*), the Board may require the savings and loan holding company to terminate the activity or to terminate control of the subsidiary, as provided in section 10(g)(5) of the HOLA.
( b ) The Board's Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement (12 CFR part 225, appendix C) (Policy Statement) applies to savings and loan holding companies as if they were bank holding companies. To qualify or rely on the Policy Statement, savings and loan holding companies must meet all qualifying requirements in the Policy Statement as if they were a bank holding company. For purposes of applying the Policy Statement, the term “nonbank subsidiary” as used in the Policy Statement refers to a subsidiary of a savings and loan holding company other than a savings association or a subsidiary of a savings association.
( c ) The Board may exclude any savings and loan holding company, regardless of asset size, from the Policy Statement under paragraph (b) of this section if the Board determines that such action is warranted for supervisory purposes.
[Reg. LL, 76 FR 56532, Sept. 13, 2011, as amended at 85 FR 12426, Mar. 2, 2020]
# C_2023272EN.01000201.xml

| 1.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

31 July 2023

(2023/C 272/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1023 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 156,73 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4529 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85765 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,5895 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9619 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 144,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,1805 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,900 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 386,93 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4070 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9349 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 29,7126 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6436 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4566 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5966 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7773 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4660 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 405,49 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 19,5511 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8808 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 622,65 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9703 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,522 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,732 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,2031 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,4088 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 90,6690 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1023

JPY

Japanese yen

156,73

DKK

Danish krone

7,4529

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85765

SEK

Swedish krona

11,5895

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9619

ISK

Iceland króna

144,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,1805

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,900

HUF

Hungarian forint

386,93

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4070

RON

Romanian leu

4,9349

TRY

Turkish lira

29,7126

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6436

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4566

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5966

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7773

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4660

KRW

South Korean won

1 405,49

ZAR

South African rand

19,5511

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8808

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 622,65

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9703

PHP

Philippine peso

60,522

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

37,732

BRL

Brazilian real

5,2031

MXN

Mexican peso

18,4088

INR

Indian rupee

90,6690

---

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

---
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2937

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

48 South Broadway in Nyack, New York, as the ‘‘John G. Dow Post 

Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2003

Mr. ENGEL (for himself, Mrs. LOWEY, and Mrs. KELLY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 48 South Broadway in Nyack, New York, 

as the ‘‘John G. Dow Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. JOHN G. DOW POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 48 South Broadway in Nyack, 

6 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘John 

7 G. Dow Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2

•HR 2937 IH 

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the John G. Dow Post 

3 Office Building.

Æ
RPAI-2015-3.31-EX 10.1




Exhibit 10.1


RETAIL PROPERTIES OF AMERICA, INC.
AMENDMENT TO RETENTION AGREEMENT


This Amendment to Retention Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into by and between Steven P. Grimes (“Executive”) and Retail Properties of America, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), effective as of February 19, 2015.
RECITALS
A.On February 19, 2013, Executive and Company entered into that certain Retention Agreement (the “Retention Agreement”) by and between Executive and Company providing inter alia for certain payments to Executive in the event of the termination of Executive’s employment.
B.The structure of the Company’s bonus program has changed since the date of the execution of the Retention Agreement, and the Company and Executive desire to amend the Retention Agreement to reflect the changes in such structure.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1.Amendment of Retention Agreement.  Section 3(a) of the Retention Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
(a)    Cash Severance (Non-Change in Control).  Executive shall receive on the sixtieth (60th) day following the Termination Date a lump sum cash amount (less applicable withholdings) equal to the sum of (i) twelve (12) months of Executive’s base salary at the rate then in effect (without giving effect to any reduction in the base salary rate amounting to Good Reason), (ii) an amount equal to 100% of the dollar amount of the Executive’s annual bonus (including 100% of the target cash and equity components), calculated based on the annual bonus for the year in which Executive’s employment was terminated (or the prior year if a target annual bonus (both cash and equity) award amount hadn’t yet been established for such year) that would be paid (or granted) to Executive if Executive’s employment had not terminated and if all performance-based milestones were achieved at 100% of the target level by both the Company and Executive (the “Target Bonus”), and (iii) all annual bonus amounts earned during the year in which the termination occurs through the most recently completed fiscal quarter prior to the termination date but otherwise remaining unpaid as of the Termination Date.
2.Conflicts.  In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the Retention Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall supersede and control.  In all other respects, the Retention Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has executed this Amendment, in the case of the Company by its duly authorized officer, as of the day and year set forth below.
Retail Properties of America, Inc.




	
					
	By:
	/s/ Dennis K. Holland
	 
	Date:
	2/19/15

	 
	Executive Vice President,
	 
	 
	 

	 
	General Counsel and Secretary
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Executive
	 
	 
	 

	 
	/s/ Steven P. Grimes
	 
	Date:
	2/19/15

	 
	Steven P. Grimes
EXHIBIT 32.1

          CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
         (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)


       In   connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of   Werner
Enterprises,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q  for  the  period
ending  March 31, 2010 (the "Report"), filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission, I, Gregory L.  Werner,  President  and
Chief  Executive 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; and

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



May 4, 2010                        /s/ Gregory L. Werner
-----------                        -------------------------------------
                                   Gregory L. Werner
                                   President and Chief Executive Officer