alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 252.16 Reports of stress test results. ( a ) *Reports to the Board of stress test results* — ( 1 ) *General.* A state member bank must report the results of the stress test to the Board in the manner and form prescribed by the Board, in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2) of this section.
( 2 ) *Timing.* For each stress test cycle in which a stress test is conducted: ( i ) A state member bank that is a covered company subsidiary must report the results of the stress test to the Board by April 5, unless that time is extended by the Board in writing; and
( ii ) A state member bank that is not a covered company subsidiary must report the results of the stress test to the Board by July 31, unless that time is extended by the Board in writing.
( b ) *Contents of reports.* The report required under paragraph (a) of this section must include the following information for the baseline scenario, severely adverse scenario, and any other scenario required under § 252.14(b)(3): ( 1 ) A description of the types of risks being included in the stress test;
( 2 ) A summary description of the methodologies used in the stress test; and
( 3 ) For each quarter of the planning horizon, estimates of aggregate losses, pre-provision net revenue, provision for credit losses, net income, and regulatory capital ratios;
( c ) *Confidential treatment of information submitted.* The confidentiality of information submitted to the Board under this subpart and related materials shall be determined in accordance with applicable exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)) and the Board's Rules Regarding Availability of Information (12 CFR part 261).
[Reg. YY, 79 FR 64045, Oct. 27, 2014, as amended at 84 FR 4245, Feb. 14, 2019; 84 FR 59101, Nov. 1, 2019; 85 FR 15604, Mar. 18, 2020]
§ 214.4 Agreements with foreign banks, bankers, or States, and participation in foreign accounts. ( a ) No Federal Reserve Bank shall enter into any agreement, contract, or understanding with any foreign bank or banker or with any group of foreign banks or bankers or with any foreign State without first obtaining the permission of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
( b ) When any Federal Reserve Bank, with the approval of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, has opened an account for any foreign bank or banker or group of foreign banks or bankers or for any foreign State, or has entered into any agreement, contract, or understanding with reference to opening or maintaining such an account, or with reference to any other matter or matters, any other Federal Reserve Bank may participate in such account, or in such agreement, contract, or understanding, and in operations and transactions performed therein or pursuant thereto, with the approval of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000795196
<NAME> JOHN HANCOCK REALTY INCOME FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,939,993
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,939,993
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,939,993
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          363,990
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,576,003
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,939,993
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,582
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  217,538
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (152,956)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (152,956)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (152,956)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.65)


</TABLE>
# C_2022424EN.01003902.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/39

---

Action brought on 6 September 2022 — RC v Commission

(Case T-553/22)

(2022/C 424/51)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: RC (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, advogadas)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final, of 4 December 2020, on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (Madeira Free Zone — Scheme III); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final, of 4 December 2020, on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (Madeira Free Zone — Scheme III);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

| 1. | The first plea in law relates to the fulfilment of the requirements for the compatibility of the Zona Franca da Madeira — Regime III, namely the source of the earnings and the creation and maintenance of jobs in the region. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law relates to the fulfilment of the requirements for the compatibility of the Zona Franca da Madeira — Regime III, namely the source of the earnings and the creation and maintenance of jobs in the region.

| 2. | The second plea in law relates to the allegedly unjustified delay in the Commission’s response. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law relates to the allegedly unjustified delay in the Commission’s response.

| 3. | The third plea in law relates to the alleged failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third plea in law relates to the alleged failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons.

| 4. | The fourth plea in law relates to the right to a fair hearing. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth plea in law relates to the right to a fair hearing.

| 5. | The fifth plea in law relates to the protection of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The fifth plea in law relates to the protection of legitimate expectations.

| 6. | The sixth plea in law relates to the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The sixth plea in law relates to the principle of legal certainty.

---
§ 222.41 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart and appendix E of this part, the following definitions apply: ( a ) *Accuracy* means that information that a furnisher provides to a consumer reporting agency about an account or other relationship with the consumer correctly: ( 1 ) Reflects the terms of and liability for the account or other relationship;
( 2 ) Reflects the consumer's performance and other conduct with respect to the account or other relationship; and
( 3 ) Identifies the appropriate consumer.
( b ) *Direct dispute* means a dispute submitted directly to a furnisher (including a furnisher that is a debt collector) by a consumer concerning the accuracy of any information contained in a consumer report and pertaining to an account or other relationship that the furnisher has or had with the consumer.
( c ) *Furnisher* means an entity that furnishes information relating to consumers to one or more consumer reporting agencies for inclusion in a consumer report. An entity is not a furnisher when it: ( 1 ) Provides information to a consumer reporting agency solely to obtain a consumer report in accordance with sections 604(a) and (f) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act;
( 2 ) Is acting as a “consumer reporting agency” as defined in section 603(f) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act;
( 3 ) Is a consumer to whom the furnished information pertains; or
( 4 ) Is a neighbor, friend, or associate of the consumer, or another individual with whom the consumer is acquainted or who may have knowledge about the consumer, and who provides information about the consumer's character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living in response to a specific request from a consumer reporting agency.
( d ) *Identity theft* has the same meaning as in 16 CFR 603.2(a).
( e ) *Integrity* means that information that a furnisher provides to a consumer reporting agency about an account or other relationship with the consumer: ( 1 ) Is substantiated by the furnisher's records at the time it is furnished;
( 2 ) Is furnished in a form and manner that is designed to minimize the likelihood that the information may be incorrectly reflected in a consumer report; and
( 3 ) Includes the information in the furnisher's possession about the account or other relationship that the Board has: ( i ) Determined that the absence of which would likely be materially misleading in evaluating a consumer's creditworthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living; and
( ii ) Listed in section I.(b)(2)(iii) of appendix E of this part.
<PAGE>   1
                                       75

Exhibit - 23.1 Consent of Accountants

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Mariner Health Group, Inc. on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-67628, 33-77762, 33-78880,
33-99642, and 333-2780) of our report dated February 10, 1998 on our audits of
the financial statements of Mariner Health Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1996 and 1997 and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 1997, which report is included in this Annual Report Form 10-K


Boston, Massachusetts                     /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
March 30, 1997
# C_2023084EN.01000801.xml

| 7.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/8

---

Publication of a vacancy for a Chief Competition Economist at grade AD 14

Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP)

Engagement of a Temporary Agent under Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants

COM/2023/10427

(2023/C 84/04)

The European Commission has published a vacancy notice (reference COM/2023/10427) for the function of Chief Competition Economist in the Directorate-General for Competition (grade AD 14).

To consult the text of the vacancy notice in 24 languages and to submit your application, please visit this dedicated webpage on the European Commission’s website: https://europa.eu/!v63qnF

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          14,831,000
<SECURITIES>                                    19,976,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,133,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        36,193
<INVENTORY>                                          1,316
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,651,000
<PP&E>                                          64,667,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,858,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 113,462,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,967,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           295,000
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   113,462,000
<SALES>                                         11,254,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,279,000
<CGS>                                            3,302,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,471,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     4,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  37,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,222,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,228,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,994,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,994,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .13




</TABLE>
42718.

#### BROWN v. TRITON, INC. et al.

*Jordan, P. J., Been and Quillian, JJ., concur.*

Submitted April 5, 1967

Decided May 25, 1967.

*Clyde W. Chapman, William A. Moncrief,*for appellant.

Per Curiam.

This is an action for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment (Chapters 105-8 and 105-9 of the Code) against an individual and his employer, a corporation. The liability of the corporation is predicated solely on the allegation in each count that the corporation by its conduct ratified the acts of the individual who was a manager of one of its service stations. The petition alleged that the individual defendant caused a warrant to be issued and the plaintiff arrested on a charge of larceny, as alleged in one count of the petition of “$60 from defendant’s service station.” The deposition of the plaintiff shows that the charge against him was based on the mysterious disappearance of money while the station in question was open for business. The affidavit of a corporate officer, based on personal knowledge, that the individual manager under his contract of employment was totally responsible for shortages at the service station, except in the case of proven theft by an individual or theft when the station was closed, and that the individual defendant at no time during his employment had authority from the corporation to swear out a warrant charging a person with a crime, was sufficient to pierce and rebut the conclusion in the pleadings on the controlling issue of corporate liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and the plaintiff having offered no evidence of the conduct of the corporation or other facts to create a jury question of the issue, the trial judge did not err in sustaining a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the corporate defendant. *Code Ann.*§§ *110-1202,*110-1203, 110-1205; Scales *v. Peevy,*103 Ga. App. 42, 47 (118 SE2d 193); *Studstill v. Aetna Cas. &c. Co.,*101 Ga. App. 766 (2) (115 SE2d 374); *Allen v. Safeco Ins. Co.,*108 Ga. App. 278 (132 SE2d 859); *Crutcher v. Crawford Land Co.,*220 Ga. 298 (3) (138 SE2d 580); *Calhoun v. Eaves,*114 Ga. App. 756, 759 (152 SE2d 805).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*786*Long, Wi&inberg ■& Ansley, Ben L. Weinberg, Jr., Robert L. Mitchell, T. Scott Walters,*for appellees.
42484.

#### METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC. v. BARNETTE.

Hall, Judge.

The defendant appeals from a judgment for the plaintiff in a negligence action arising out of a collision by the defendant’s bus with the rear of the plaintiff’s automobile which was stopped at a red light. *Held:*

1. Enumerations of error 1, 2, 3 and 4 are without merit. No party can complain of the giving or the failure to give an instruction to the jury, unless he objects thereto before the jury returns its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. Ga. L. 1965, p. 18, as amended, Ga. L. 1966, p. 493.

Under Sec. 17 (c) of the Appellate Practice Act *(Code Ann.*§ 70-207 (c)) nothing is presented for consideration on appeal unless it appears that the error contended is “blatantly apparent and prejudicial” *(Hollywood Baptist Church v. State Highway Dept.,*114 Ga. App. 98, 99 (3) (150 SE2d 271)), and that a “gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” *Nathan v. Duncan,*113 Ga. App. 630, 638 (6b) (149 SE2d 383). The enumerations of error here do not meet that test.

2. A pre-trial order, limiting the issues for trial, controls the subsequent course of the action unless modified at the trial. *Code Ann.*§ 81-1014. *Dumas v. Beasley,*218 Ga. 349 (128 SE2d 59). The pre-trial order entered in this case specified *18only two issues neither of which was concerned with venue. No request was made to modify this order at any time prior to or during the trial; therefore, the defendant is bound by its provisions. Enumeration of error 5, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove venue, is without merit.

*Eberhardt, J., concurs. Felton, C. J., concurs in the judgment.*

Argued January 3, 1967

Decided January 11, 1967.

*Hansell, Post, Brandon & Dorsey, Dent Aeree,*for appellant.

*Wallace, Wallace & Driebe, Albert B. Wallace, Smith, Cohen, Ringel, Kohler, Martin & Lowe, H. A. Stephens, Jr.,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*
§ 78.140 Financial management and administrative costs. ( a ) Grantees must comply with applicable requirements of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards under 2 CFR part 200.
( b ) Grantees must use a financial management system that provides adequate fiscal control and accounting records and meets the requirements set forth in 2 CFR part 200.
( c ) Payment up to the amount specified in the suicide prevention services grant must be made only for allowable, allocable, and reasonable costs in conducting the work under the suicide prevention services grant. The determination of allowable costs must be made in accordance with the applicable Federal Cost Principles set forth in 2 CFR part 200.
( d ) Costs for administration by a grantee will be consistent with 2 CFR part 200. Administrative costs will consist of all costs associated with the management of the program. These costs will include the administrative costs of community partners.
[87 FR 13835, Mar. 10, 2022, as amended at 89 FR 62663, Aug. 1, 2024]
Exhibit 23Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of ourreports dated February 26, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and scheduleof OM Group, Inc. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of OM Group, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended December 31, 2007:     Registration    Statement Description Filing Date333-07531 OM Group, Inc. Non-Employee Directors’ July 3, 1996  Equity Compensation Plan—Form S-8    Registration Statement—250,000 Shares       333-47230 OM Group, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive October 3, 2000  Compensation Plan—Form S-8 Registration    Statement—2,000,000 Shares       333-65852 OM Group, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive July 25, 2001  Compensation Plan—Form S-8 Registration    Statement—2,000,000 Shares       333-141033 OM Group, Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan March 2, 2007  and Inducement Stock Option Grant to    Joseph M. Scaminace—Form S-8    Registration Statement—1,488,934 Shares       333-145238 OM Group, Inc. 2007 Incentive Compensation August 8, 2007  Plan—Form S-8 Registration Statement —3,000,000Shares
### Request for Information Aerial Media Productions (FAA-2015-3097) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. McCurdy:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is miss ing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 3097). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administrati on (FAA) to process your
p etition.

Provide a copy of the Motion Pictur e and Television Operations Manual (M PTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed

- set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your in tention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional informat ion (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, pl ease also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations .gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information de scribed above by November 12, 2015. If we do not receive the in formation, we will close the doc ket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 267-2999 .

FAA Office of Rulemaking Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:05 PM To: sales@aerialmedianj.com
#### § 192.435 Corporate existence after conversion.

A savings association's corporate existence will continue following its conversion, unless it converts to a State-chartered stock savings association and State law prescribes otherwise.