alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1076.101 Claims against a Bureau employee based on negligence, wrongful act or omission. ( a ) *Procedure for filing claims.* A claimant, or the claimant's duly authorized agent or legal representative may present a claim against a Bureau employee based on negligence, or wrongful act or omission, as specified in 28 CFR 14.3. Claimant or claimant's duly authorized agent or legal representative must file with the General Counsel of the Bureau a completed Claim for Damage or Injury (*Standard Form 95*), together with appropriate evidence and information, as specified in 28 CFR 14.4. Standard Form 95 may be obtained at *http://www.justice.gov/civil/docs_forms./SF-95.pdf ,* or from the CFPB. Claimants also may submit a claim in the form of a letter or any other writing, a written statement, an audio file, a Braille or electronic document, and/or a video, as long as the submission contains all of the requirements of an administrative claim specified in 28 CFR part 14. Claims should be mailed or delivered to the General Counsel, Legal Division, CFPB, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, or emailed to *CFPB_tortclaims@cfpb.gov .*
( b ) *Determination of claims* — ( 1 ) *Delegation of authority to determine claims.* The General Counsel, and such employees of the Legal Division as the General Counsel may designate are authorized to consider, ascertain, adjust, determine, compromise, and settle claims pursuant to the FTCA, as amended, and the regulations contained in 28 CFR part 14 and in this section.
( 2 ) *Disallowance of claims.* If the General Counsel, or the General Counsel's designee, denies a claim, the General Counsel or designee shall notify the claimant, or the claimant's duly authorized agent or legal representative.
February 3, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

REGINALD BROUSSARD, Appellant

NO. 14-13-01020-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
----- Forwarded by Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/18/2011 03:08 PM

-----

From: Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Jim Eddinger/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US

Date: 02/09/2011 08:01 AM

Subject: OMB Response: Oxidation Catalyst Cost Changes from proposal

Cortney,

For existing major sources:

Estimated oxidation catalysts in the proposal analysis were:

TAC - $150 million

TCI - $253 million

The TAC of oxidation catalysts in the final analysis is:

TAC - $216 million

TAC - $509 million

Should have cost breakouts by subcategory to you shortly.

Thanks!

Brian
1 

Filed 10/30/13 P. v. Bowen CA3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

(Sutter) 

---- 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

ERIC CHRISTOPHER BOWEN, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

C073939 

(Super. Ct. No. CRF111257) 

 Appointed counsel for defendant Eric Christopher Bowen has asked this court to 

review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. 

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would 

result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. 

 We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of 

the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) 
2 

BACKGROUND

In February 2011, then 11-year-old C.T. told her mother that defendant had been 

sexually assaulting her. C.T. reported defendant had made her orally copulate him and 

forced her to have anal sex. The sexual assaults started when C.T. was five years old. 

 An information charged defendant with sodomy of a child 10 years old or younger 

(Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a); undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code), 

oral copulation with a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b)), and lewd and 

lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 years old (§ 288, subd. (a)). 

Defendant pleaded no contest to lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. In exchange 

for the plea, the trial court granted defendant probation. 

 In the ensuing year, the trial court found defendant violated his probation twice. 

After the second violation, the trial court denied further probation and sentenced 

defendant to a term of eight years in state prison and awarded 533 days of presentence 

credits. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1273.5.) 

DISCUSSION

 We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 

436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 

30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and 

we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination 

of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more 

favorable to defendant. 
3 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

 HULL , J. 

We concur: 

 BLEASE , Acting P. J. 

 MURRAY , J.
# C_2023178EN.01000301.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

18 May 2023

(2023/C 178/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0813 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 149,08 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4477 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86890 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,3609 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9735 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 151,50 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,7370 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,683 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 373,87 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5430 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9708 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 21,3964 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6285 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4568 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4640 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7323 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4544 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 442,07 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 20,9693 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,5983 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 089,38 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9053 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,324 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,116 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,3612 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,1460 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 89,2915 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0813

JPY

Japanese yen

149,08

DKK

Danish krone

7,4477

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86890

SEK

Swedish krona

11,3609

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9735

ISK

Iceland króna

151,50

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,7370

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,683

HUF

Hungarian forint

373,87

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5430

RON

Romanian leu

4,9708

TRY

Turkish lira

21,3964

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6285

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4568

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4640

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7323

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4544

KRW

South Korean won

1 442,07

ZAR

South African rand

20,9693

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,5983

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 089,38

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9053

PHP

Philippine peso

60,324

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

37,116

BRL

Brazilian real

5,3612

MXN

Mexican peso

19,1460

INR

Indian rupee

89,2915

---

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

---
# C_2009150EN.01001201.xml

| 2.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 150/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 150/12

---

Action brought on 30 April 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-5/09)

2009/C 150/13

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 30 April 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, BELGIUM.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

| 1. | By failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to, inter alia, at point 7b of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64(1) of that Act and under Article 7 EEA
  and |
| --- | --- |

1.

By failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to, inter alia, at point 7b of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64(1) of that Act and under Article 7 EEA

and

| 2. | The Republic of Iceland bear the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Republic of Iceland bear the costs of these proceedings.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

| — | the present case concerns the non-implementation of a reinsurance directive, |
| --- | --- |

—

the present case concerns the non-implementation of a reinsurance directive,

| — | the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not provided any indication that it has implemented the directive into Icelandic law, |
| --- | --- |

—

the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not provided any indication that it has implemented the directive into Icelandic law,

| — | the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not disputed that it has not implemented the directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not disputed that it has not implemented the directive.

---
# International Expositions – United States Department of State

- Congratulations to Belgrade, Serbia for Winning Expo 2027 Vote Office of the SpokespersonThe United States congratulates the city of Belgrade and the government of Serbia for winning the bid to host Expo 2027 at today’s vote at the 172nd General Assembly meeting of the Bureau of International Expositions (BIE) in Paris, France.While we are disappointed that Expo 2027 will not be held in the United States, we are proud of the Minnesota Bid Committee&#8217;s strong proposal that addressed the universal, timely themes of global health and sustainability.  We are grateful for the tireless support of our champions on Capitol Hill – namely, Senator Amy Klobuchar and the Minnesota Congressional delegation – and those across the administration who ensured we made our strongest possible case.The Department looks forward to participating in Expo 2027 and working with other U.S. cities and states interested in bidding to host a future World’s Fair.  We also look forward to continuing our work with the BIE and other important partners ahead of Expo 2025 in Osaka, Japan.
- U.S. Support for the Minnesota Bid to Host Expo 2027 Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateOn June 21 in Paris the United States will present to the member states of the Bureau International des Expositions (BIE) our bid to bring an international expo to Minnesota ahead of the selection vote.  With a projected 14 million visits, it will serve as a gateway to the heartland of America.The U.S. bid, and theme of “Healthy People, Healthy Planet &#8211; Wellness and Wellbeing for All,” has never been more timely.  In addition to offering nations of the world an unrivaled forum to expand business, trade, and tourism opportunities, our theme will spur conversations on cutting edge innovations in healthcare, green tech, and agriculture—convening the global community around international health and protecting our planet.The state of Minnesota is the ideal choice to host, as it is home to the world’s largest health tech cluster, Medical Alley, and the nation’s top-rated hospital, Mayo Clinic.  The region boasts one of the country’s most diverse economies and ranks first per capita among the 30 largest U.S. metro areas in concentration of Fortune 500 companies.  The proposed U.S. site is “expo ready” with world-class and environmentally sustainable infrastructure, and easily accessible by nearby Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.The United States is eager to host Expo 2027 in Minnesota to convene international partners to work together in pursuit of innovative solutions to some of our most pressing shared challenges for our people and our planet.I encourage all BIE member states to vote for the U.S. bid to host the Specialized World Expo in 2027 in Minnesota.
§ 208.120 Authority, purpose, and scope. ( a ) *Authority.* This subpart is issued by the Board under section 7 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1817(a)(3) and (12), and section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 324.
( b ) *Purpose and scope.* This subpart informs a state member bank where it may obtain forms and instructions for reports of conditions and implements 12 U.S.C. 1817(a)(12) to allow reduced reporting for a covered depository institution when such institution makes its reports of condition for the first and third calendar quarters of a year.
Exhibit 32.1

                              FRONTIER ENERGY CORP.
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350



         The undersigned, Fred DaSilva, in his capacities as President and
Acting Chief Financial Officer of Frontier Energy Corp. does hereby certify that
the Form 10-QSB of Frontier Energy Corp. for the quarter ended June 30, 2006
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information
contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Frontier Energy Corp.

         This certification is given by the undersigned solely for the purpose
of 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein.


         Executed this 21st day of August, 2006.


                                    /s/   Fred DaSilva
                                    --------------------------
                                    Fred DaSilva
                                    President and Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                    Principal Financial Officer
§ 1071.105 Allowable fees and other expenses. ( a ) Subject to the limitations in paragraph (b) of this section, awards will be based on rates customarily charged, in the locale of the hearing, by persons engaged in the business of acting as attorneys, agents and expert witnesses, even if the services were made available without charge or at a reduced rate to the applicant.
( b ) No award for the fee of any attorney or agent under this rule may exceed the hourly rate specified in 5 U.S.C. 504(b)(1)(A). No award to compensate an expert witness may exceed the reasonable rate at which the Bureau pays witnesses with similar expertise. However an award may also include the reasonable expenses of the attorney, agent or witness as a separate item, if the attorney, agent or witness ordinarily charges clients separately for such expenses.
( c ) In determining the reasonableness of the fee sought for an attorney, agent or expert witness, the adjudicative officer shall consider the following: ( 1 ) If the attorney, agent or witness is in private practice, his or her customary fee for similar services, or, if an employee of the applicant, the fully allocated cost of the services;
( 2 ) The prevailing rate for similar services in the community in which the attorney, agent or witness ordinarily performs services;
( 3 ) The time actually spent in the representation of the applicant;
( 4 ) The time reasonably spent in light of the difficulty or complexity of the issues in the proceeding; and
( 5 ) Such other factors as may bear on the value of the services provided.
( d ) The reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, project or similar matter prepared on behalf of a party may be awarded, to the extent that the charge for the services does not exceed the prevailing rate for similar services, and the study or other matter was necessary for preparation of the applicant's case.
( e ) An award of fees or expenses under the Act is limited to fees and expenses incurred after initiation of the adversary adjudication and, with respect to excessive demands, the fees and expenses incurred in defending against the excessive portion of the demand.
# C_2012044EN.01000501.xml

| 16.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/5 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------ |

---

Publication of Sogn og Fjordane County Council’s notification of tender procedure pursuant to Article 7.2 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 1191/69 and (EEC) No 1107/70

2012/C 44/04

| 1. | Name and address of the competent authority:
Sogn og Fjordane County Council Department of transport services Askedalen 2 6863 Leikanger NORWAY | Sogn og Fjordane County Council | Department of transport services | Askedalen 2 | 6863 Leikanger | NORWAY |
| -------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | ----------- | -------------- | ------ |
| Sogn og Fjordane County Council | | | | | | |
| Department of transport services | | | | | | |
| Askedalen 2 | | | | | | |
| 6863 Leikanger | | | | | | |
| NORWAY | | | | | | |

| 2. | Type of award envisaged:
Open tender procedure |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------- |

| 3. | Services and areas potentially covered by the award:
Local/regional passenger services by bus, covering the areas of Stryn, Hornindal, Eid, Vågsøy and Selje municipalities in Sogn og Fjordane county. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

---
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Reward Offers for Information to Bring DarkSide Ransomware Variant Co-Conspirators to Justice

# 									Reward Offers for Information to Bring DarkSide Ransomware Variant Co-Conspirators to Justice							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

November 4, 2021

The U.S. Department of State announces a reward offer of up to $10,000,000 for information leading to the identification or location of any individual(s) who hold(s) a key leadership position in the DarkSide ransomware variant transnational organized crime group. In addition, the Department is also offering a reward offer of up to $5,000,000 for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction in any country of any individual conspiring to participate in or attempting to participate in a DarkSide variant ransomware incident.

The DarkSide ransomware group was responsible for the Colonial Pipeline Company ransomware incident in May 2021, which led to the company’s decision to proactively and temporarily shut down the 5,500-mile pipeline that carries 45 percent of the fuel used on the East Coast of the United States. In offering this reward, the United States demonstrates its commitment to protecting ransomware victims around the world from exploitation by cyber criminals. The United States looks to nations who harbor ransomware criminals that are willing to bring justice for those victim businesses and organizations affected by ransomware.

This reward is offered under the Department of State’s Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program (TOCRP).

The Department manages the TOCRP in close coordination with our federal law enforcement partners as part of a whole of government effort to disrupt and dismantle transnational organized crime globally, including cybercrime. More than 75 transnational criminals and major narcotics traffickers have been brought to justice under the TOCRP and the Narcotics Rewards Program (NRP) since 1986. The Department has paid more than $135 million in rewards to date.

For more information on the ransomware variant listed above and the TOCRP and NRP, please see Department of State INL AntiCrime Rewards Program.

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsCrimeCyber SecurityOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
<PAGE>
UNUM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
FORM 10-Q
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996

EXHIBIT 12

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                                         Three Months Ended  Nine Months Ended
                                             September 30,     September 30,
                                            ----------------- ----------------

(Unaudited - Dollars in millions)           1996     1995     1996    1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earnings:
  Income from continuing operations
   before income taxes                    $ 63.4   $  91.1    $272.0  $297.1
  Add:  Fixed charges                       12.9      12.8      39.6    34.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earnings as adjusted                      $ 76.3    $103.9    $311.6  $332.0



Fixed charges:
   Interest expense                       $  9.9    $ 10.2    $ 30.6  $ 26.8
   Interest portion of rent expense          3.0       2.6       9.0     8.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total fixed charges                       $ 12.9    $ 12.8    $ 39.6  $ 34.9



Ratio of earnings to fixed charges           5.9       8.1       7.9     9.5
=============================================================================

For purposes of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges, earnings
as adjusted consist of income from continuing operations before income taxes
and fixed charges.  Fixed charges consist of interest expense and the
estimated interest portion of rent expense.