alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2013190EN.01009201.xml

| 11.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 190/92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 190/92

---

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 441/12/COL

of 29 November 2012

on the designation of new Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

HAVING REGARD to the Rules of Procedures of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, in particular, Article 15 thereof,

HAVING REGARD to Decision No 442/12/COL of the EFTA Surveillance Authority of 29 November 2012 on the function and terms of reference of the Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings, and in particular its Article 2,

Whereas:

In order to ensure the efficient conduct of competition proceedings and that the rights of parties to be heard is guaranteed in such proceedings, one or more Hearing Officers shall be designated,

The Member of the Authority with special responsibility for competition can decide that the Authority official shall continue to serve as a Hearing Officer in that case after the termination of his or her employment with the Authority,

Where a Hearing Officer is unable to act, his or her role shall be carried out by another Hearing Officer. If no Hearing Officer is able to act, the competent member of the College shall designate another competent Authority official, who is not involved in the case in question, to carry out the Hearing Officer’s duties,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Appointment of Hearing Officers

1.   Ms. Clémence Perrin and Ms. Auður Steinarsdóttir, Legal Officers, are appointed Hearing Officers for competition proceedings.

2.   If no Hearing Officer is able to act, the College Member with responsibility for competition is hereby empowered to designate another competent official of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, who is not involved in the case in question, to carry out the Hearing Officer’s duties.

Article 2

Repeal of previous Decisions

Decision No 554/08/COL and Decision No 7/10/COL of the EFTA Surveillance Authority are repealed and the services of former Hearing Officers are terminated.

Article 3

Information

The EFTA States and the European Commission shall be informed by a means of a copy of the Decision.

Article 4

Entry into force

This Decision takes effect on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 29 November 2012.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Oda Helen SLETNES

President

Sverrir Haukur GUNNLAUGSSON

College Member

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 1102

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part appear at 83 FR 43739, Aug. 28, 2018.

#### § 1102.39 Duty to cooperate.

In the course of the investigations and proceedings, the ASC (and its staff, with appropriate authorization) must provide parties or persons ample opportunity to work out problems by consent, by settlement, or in some other manner.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.58
[DIY HOME WAREHOUSE LETTERHEAD]

                                                                    30 July 1997

The Wholesale Club, Inc.
c/o Walmart Stores, Inc.
701 South Walton Blvd
Bentonville, AR 72716
attn:  Property Management

                                          RE DIY HOME WAREHOUSE SUBLEASE RENEWAL
                                                      WALMART FORMER SAM'S #6305
                                                                 BROOKPARK, OHIO


Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter constitutes our notice of renewal of the above-captioned sublease
for the renewal term coming up. Please at your earliest convenience acknowledge
where provided below and fax or mail back to me.



Sincerely,
                                                       Acknowledged by Sublessor
/s/ Reynold Hendrickson
Reynold Hendrickson
for DIY Home Warehouse

                                                    ----------------------------
                                                          Wholesale Club/Walmart
Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE TO THE

FOSSIL GROUP, INC. 2008 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

 

This AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE TO THE FOSSIL GROUP, INC. 2008 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN (this “Amendment”), dated as of March 1, 2015, is made and entered into by Fossil Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).  Terms used in this Amendment with initial capital letters that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Fossil Group, Inc. 2008 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, Article 10 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) may amend the Plan at any time;

 

WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan to modify the automatic annual grants made to Outside Directors under Article 7 of the Plan; and

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Article 10 of the Plan, the Company hereby amends the Plan as follows:

 

1.                                      Section 7.1 of the Plan is hereby amended, effective March 15, 2015, by replacing the reference in Section 7.1(a) to $120,000 with $130,000.

 

2.                                      Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with the provisions thereof.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first written above.

 

	
 
    	
FOSSIL   GROUP, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Kosta N. Kartsotis
    
	
 
    	
Name:   Kosta N. Kartsotis
    
	
 
    	
Title:   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Hannah L. Regan, as Administratrix, Etc., Respondent, *v.*The Prudential Insurance Co. of America, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York, entered upon a verdict rendered by a jury, and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Wm. O. Campbell, for appellant.

Henry W. Sykes (Abraham I. Elkus, of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Present: Conlan, Schuchman and Hascall, JJ.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Belize

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Belize			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Belize 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Belize

During the review period, the government made its enacted budget, end-of-year report, and information on debt obligations widely accessible to the general public, including online.  However, it did not publish an executive budget proposal within a reasonable period of time.   Information on debt obligations, except for state-owned enterprise debt not guaranteed by the government, were widely and easily accessible to the public, including online.  Publicly available budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams, including natural resource revenues.  Budget information was generally reliable.  Belize’s supreme audit institution did not publish audit reports within a reasonable period of time.  The criteria and procedures by which the national government awards contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction were specified in law and generally appeared to be followed in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available. Belize’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- publishing its executive budget proposal within a reasonable period of time; and
- ensuring the supreme audit institution audits the government’s executed budget and makes audit reports publicly available within a reasonable period of time.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Belize 

Tags

BelizeBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision 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
# C_2023086EN.01000901.xml

| 8.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/9

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

7 March 2023

(2023/C 86/08)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0665 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 145,21 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4426 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88968 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,2285 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9959 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 149,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,1935 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,495 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 377,38 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6898 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9178 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 20,1736 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6002 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4552 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,3719 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7229 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4357 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 392,09 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 19,5975 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3975 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 403,79 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7699 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,721 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,917 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,5224 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,2065 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 87,2625 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0665

JPY

Japanese yen

145,21

DKK

Danish krone

7,4426

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88968

SEK

Swedish krona

11,2285

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9959

ISK

Iceland króna

149,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,1935

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,495

HUF

Hungarian forint

377,38

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6898

RON

Romanian leu

4,9178

TRY

Turkish lira

20,1736

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6002

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4552

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,3719

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7229

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4357

KRW

South Korean won

1 392,09

ZAR

South African rand

19,5975

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3975

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 403,79

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7699

PHP

Philippine peso

58,721

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,917

BRL

Brazilian real

5,5224

MXN

Mexican peso

19,2065

INR

Indian rupee

87,2625

---

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

---
# Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea – United States Department of State
On March 2, 2015, the FAA received the following question from an individual via email:

When the proposed rules  on unmanned aircraft systems (issued February 15, 2015) are finalized, will a

bank that takes a security interest in an unmanned aircraft system, be required to file their security

documents with the FAA?  I could not see in the proposed rules that they affect the FAA’s regulation 14

CFR 49 (Recording of Aircraft Titles and Security Documents).  Your assistance with my question is

greatly appreciated.

The FAA responded by stating that, under 14 C.F.R. 49.1(a)(1), part 49 applies “the recording of certain

conveyances affecting title to, or any interest in ... [a]ny aircraft registered under 49 U.S.C. 44101‐

44104.”  Since a small unmanned aircraft is an aircraft that, under the proposed rules, would be

registered with the FAA pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44101‐44104, part 49 would apply to small unmanned

aircraft in the same manner as a manned aircraft.
July 6 , 2015

Mr. Paul Alley

12512 SE 72 nd Street

Newcastle, WA 98056

Dear Mr. Alley:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your April 9 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0938 ), but

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does no t comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further,

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, h ow it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional i nformation, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any ques tions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
§ 23.530 Marital or parental status. ( a ) *General.* A recipient shall not apply any policy or take any employment action: ( 1 ) Concerning the potential marital, parental, or family status of an employee or applicant for employment that treats persons differently on the basis of sex; or
( 2 ) Which is based upon whether an employee or applicant for employment is the head of household or principal wage earner in such employee's or applicant's family unit.
( b ) *Pregnancy.* A recipient shall not discriminate against or exclude from employment any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom.
( c ) *Pregnancy as a temporary disability.* Subject to § 23235(d), a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, recovery therefrom, and any temporary disability resulting therefrom as any other temporary disability for all job-related purposes, including commencement, duration, and extensions of leave, payment of disability income, accrual of seniority and any other benefit or service, and reinstatement, and under any fringe benefit offered to employees by virtue of employment.
( d ) *Pregnancy leave.* In the case of a recipient that does not maintain a leave policy for its employees, or in the case of an employee with insufficient leave or accrued employment time to qualify for leave under such a policy, a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, and recovery therefrom as a justification for a leave of absence without pay for a reasonable period of time, at the conclusion of which the employee shall be reinstated to the status that she held when the leave began or to a comparable position, without decrease in rate of compensation or loss of promotional opportunities, or any other right or privilege of employment.
HomeThe Secretary of StateRemarks & Releases...Republic of San Marino National Day

# 									Republic of San Marino National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

September 3, 2023

On behalf of the United States of America, I extend my warm wishes to the people of San Marino as they celebrate today’s Feast of Saint Marinus, and with it, the founding of the world’s oldest extant republic.

Over the centuries, the Republic of San Marino has served as an enduring example of self-governance and independence to freedom-loving people around the world.  The United States values its relationship with San Marino, defined by shared values and principles.  We look forward to continuing our work with San Marino on international trade and the promotion of democracy and human rights.

The United States is proud to count San Marino as a friend and partner and wishes the Sammarinese people a happy Feast of Saint Marinus and a successful year ahead.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsHuman Rights and DemocracyOffice of the SpokespersonSan MarinoThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### § 229.42 Exclusions.

The expeditious return (§§ 229.31(b) and 229.32(b)), notice of nonpayment (§ 229.31(c)), and same-day settlement (§ 229.36(d)) requirements of this subpart do not apply to a check drawn upon the United States Treasury, to a U.S. Postal Service money order, or to a check drawn on a state or a unit of general local government that is not payable through or at a bank.

[82 FR 27584, June 15, 2017]
§ 238.130 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply: *Advanced approaches* means the risk-weighted assets calculation methodologies at 12 CFR part 217, subpart E, as applicable.
*Baseline scenario* means a set of conditions that affect the U.S. economy or the financial condition of a covered company and that reflect the consensus views of the economic and financial outlook.
*Covered company* means a covered savings and loan holding company (other than a foreign banking organization) subject to this subpart.
*Planning horizon* means the period of at least nine consecutive quarters, beginning on the first day of a stress test cycle over which the relevant projections extend.
*Pre-provision net revenue* means the sum of net interest income and non-interest income less expenses before adjusting for loss provisions.
*Provision for credit losses* means: ( 1 ) With respect to a covered company that has adopted the current expected credit losses methodology under GAAP, the provision for credit losses, as would be reported by the covered company on the FR Y-9C in the current stress test cycle; and,
( 2 ) With respect to a covered company that has not adopted the current expected credit losses methodology under GAAP, the provision for loan and lease losses as would be reported by the covered company on the FR Y-9C in the current stress test cycle.
*Regulatory capital ratio* means a capital ratio for which the Board has established minimum requirements for the covered savings and loan holding company by regulation or order, including, as applicable, the company's regulatory capital ratios calculated under 12 CFR part 217 and the deductions required under 12 CFR 248.12; except that the company shall not use the advanced approaches to calculate its regulatory capital ratios.
*Scenarios* are those sets of conditions that affect the U.S. economy or the financial condition of a covered company that the Board determines are appropriate for use in the supervisory stress tests, including, but not limited to, baseline and severely adverse scenarios.
*Severely adverse scenario* means a set of conditions that affect the U.S. economy or the financial condition of a covered company and that overall are significantly more severe than those associated with the baseline scenario and may include trading or other additional components.
*Stress test cycle* means the period beginning on January 1 of a calendar year and ending on December 31 of that year.
*Subsidiary* has the same meaning as in § 225.2(o) of this chapter.
§ 1253.11 Preservation of authority. The Director's exercise of the Director's authority pursuant to the prior approval authority for products under 12 U.S.C. 4541, and this regulation, in no way restricts: ( a ) The safety and soundness authority of the Director over all new and existing products or activities; or
( b ) The authority of the Director to review all new and existing products or activities to determine that such products or activities are consistent with the authorizing statute of an Enterprise.
NUMBER 13-20-00114-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant,

v.

MYRA ALEJANDRA LUNA, Appellee.

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

of Cameron County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, the State of Texas, by and through the District Attorney in and for 

Cameron County, Texas, has filed a motion for stay of proceedings in the above cause.

On February 10, 2020, the trial court granted a motion to suppress evidence. The State 

has filed a notice of appeal and has requested a stay in the trial court’s proceedings 

pending disposition of its appeal. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. § 44.01(a)(5), (e) 
2

The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion for stay of proceedings, is

of the opinion that said motion should be granted. The motion for stay is hereby 

GRANTED, and the trial court's proceedings are hereby ordered STAYED pending 

disposition of the State’s appeal. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

3rd day of March 2020.
#### LOUISVILLE BEDDING CO. v. UNITED STATES HUDSON BAY KNITTING CO. v. UNITED STATES

[59 C. Cls. 226, 967; 269 U. S. 533]

Judgments were rendered in favor of the United States-in the court below. On appeal it was' decided:

*Per curiam:*

These two appeals, allowed before the going' into eifect of the act of February 13, 1925, revising the *746jurisdiction of this court, abolishing appeals from the Court of Claims and requiring that review may be had of its judgments only by certiorari, abundantly show the wisdom of the change. They invoke no substantial question of law, they did not merit and did not elicit a formal opinion from the Court of Claims, and they do not call for one here. The appeals are accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the Court of Claims is *affirmed.*

Decided October 26, 1925.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6677

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICK STEVENS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-462, CA-03-363-6) Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 16, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Stevens, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Patrick Stevens seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stevens has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED