alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3061

To authorize major medical facility projects for the Department of Veterans 

Affairs in connection with the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced 

Services initiative and to satisfy Department of Veterans Affairs requirements on natural disasters, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2003

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida (for herself, Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́, and Ms. 

BERKLEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL

To authorize major medical facility projects for the Department of Veterans Affairs in connection with the Capital 

Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services initiative and 

to satisfy Department of Veterans Affairs requirements 

on natural disasters, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY 

4 PROJECTS. 

5 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may carry out the 

6 following major medical facility projects, with each project 
2

•HR 3061 IH 

1 to be carried out in an amount not to exceed the amount 

2 specified for that project: 

3 (1) Construction of a health care facility at a 

4 location in East Central Florida selected by the Sec5 retary, as part of the Capital Asset Realignment for 

6 Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative, 

7 $170,000,000. 

8 (2) Improvements of the Department of Vet9 erans Affairs Medical Center in San Juan, Puerto 

10 Rico, in order to bring that facility into compliance 

11 with the CD–54 Natural Disasters Directive, 

12 $30,000,000. 

13 (3) Construction of a health care facility in Las 

14 Vegas, Nevada, as part of the Capital Asset Realign15 ment for Enhanced Services initiative, 

16 $250,000,000. 

17 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

18 (a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appro19 priated for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for fiscal 

20 year 2004 for the Construction, Major Projects, account, 

21 a total of $450,000,000 for the projects authorized in sec22 tion 1. 

23 (b) LIMITATION.—The projects authorized in section 

24 1 may only be carried out using—
3

•HR 3061 IH 

1 (1) funds appropriated for fiscal year 2004 pur2 suant to the authorization of appropriations in sub3 section (a); 

4 (2) funds appropriated for Construction, Major 

5 Projects, for a fiscal year before fiscal year 2004 

6 that remain available for obligation; and 

7 (3) funds appropriated for Construction, Major 

8 Projects, for fiscal year 2004 for a category of activ9 ity not specific to a project.

Æ
42475.

#### HARPER v. GREEN.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

1. On the trial of this trover action to recover an automobile, the court admitted into evidence a copy of a record on file in the office of the State Revenue Commissioner pursuant to provisions of the Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Act (Ga. L. 1961, p. 68, as amended; *Code Ann. Ch.*68-4A). This document includes a copy of plaintiff’s application for a certificate of title and a certificate stating that “Georgia Title Number 731438 has been issued in the name of” plaintiff for the identified vehicle. While the admitted evidence was not a copy of a certificate of title and therefore was not entitled to the effect that a certificate of title would have under Sec. 11 (c) of the Act *(Code Ann.*§ 68-411a (c)), nevertheless the original application would have been pertinent to the issues in the case and admissible over the stated ground of objection as a circumstance tending to show plaintiff’s ownership of the vehicle. Under Sec. 10 (c) of the Act *(Code Ann.*§ 68-410a (c)), the copy of the application was admissible in evidence to the same extent as the original application. Defendant’s enumeration of error complaining of the admission of this evidence has no merit.

2. The court did not err in overruling defendant’s objection to the admission in evidence of plaintiff’s opinion testimony that the rental value of the automobile was $10 per day, *526where plaintiff had testified that he was a used car dealer, that he owned and was familiar with the automobile in question and that he had on several occasions rented cars to and from others. *Code*§§ 38-1708, 38-1709; *Attaway v. Morris,*110 Ga. App. 873 (2) (140 SE2d 214); *Central Chevrolet v. Ballentine Motors,*112 Ga. App. 618 (145 SE2d 750).

*Jordan and Pannell, JJ., concur.*

Submitted January 5, 1967

Decided April 4, 1967.

*Rich, Bass & Kidd, Casper Rich,*for appellant.

*John L. Respess, Jr.,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,430,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               93,616,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,731,000
<INVENTORY>                                 70,604,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           174,200,000
<PP&E>                                     215,784,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              25,236,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             691,432,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       88,626,000
<BONDS>                                    180,000,000
<COMMON>                                       429,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 29,320,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 232,344,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               691,432,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           610,959,000
<CGS>                                      570,178,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              570,178,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            70,394,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          22,634,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (51,989,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (15,292,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (36,697,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  95,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (938,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (39,015,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.04)
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3257

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Michael D. Hancock

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

 Submitted: February 10, 2015

Filed: March 23, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Hancock was serving the supervised-release portion of his federal

criminal sentence when his probation officer filed a violation report with the district
court alleging that Hancock had violated several supervised-release conditions. 

1

Following a hearing, the district court concluded that Hancock had violated his

release conditions and revoked supervised release, imposing a revocation sentence

of 11 months in prison and two years of supervised release. For reversal, Hancock

argues that the court committed plain error in sentencing him because the court gave

significant weight to one of his prior convictions.

After careful review, we find no abuse of discretion, see United States v.

Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review), much less plain

error, and we affirm the judgment. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, but we

direct counsel to inform appellant about the procedures for filing a petition for

rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

-2-
#### § 269b.111 Filing of charges.

Any charge pursuant to § 269b.110 shall be in writing and signed. An original and three copies of such charge, together with one copy for each charged party named, shall be transmitted to the Secretary of the Federal Reserve System Labor Relations Panel, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551. Within 5 days after receipt of a properly filed charge that meets the formal requirements set forth in § 269b.112, the Secretary will cause a copy of such charge to be served on each party against whom the charge is made and upon all other potential parties in interest.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CNE Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony
S. Conigliaro, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

                  (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 result of operations of
the Company.


                                              /s/ Anthony S. Conigliaro
                                              ------------------------------
                                              Anthony S. Conigliaro
                                              Chief Financial Officer
                                              August 19, 2003

                 See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements


                                       36
§ 308.101 Scope of Local Rules. ( a ) This subpart B and subpart C of this part prescribe rules of practice and procedure to be followed in the administrative enforcement proceedings initiated by the FDIC as set forth in § 308.1.
( b ) Except as otherwise specifically provided, the Uniform Rules and subpart B of the Local Rules will not apply to subparts D through T of this part.
( c ) Subpart C of this part will apply to any administrative proceeding initiated by the FDIC.
( d ) Subparts A through C of this part prescribe the rules of practice and procedure to applicable to adjudicatory proceedings as to which hearings on the record are provided for by the assessment of civil money penalties by the FDIC against institutions, institution-affiliated parties, and certain other persons for which it is the appropriate regulatory agency for any violation of 15 U.S.C. 78o(c)(4).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CMC
SECURITIES CORPORATION I'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 609,270
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               35
<BONDS>                                        609,269
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                         (44)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   609,270
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,450
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   764
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (14)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (14)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (14)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
|   | (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 Buckeye. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated this 23rd day of May 2011                                |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                           |   |
|                                                           |   |
| /s/ John B. Crowe                                              |   |
| John B. CroweChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                                           |   |
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76

 37

 38

 39

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/15

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
# ,s1tptPYtIP 

# (gourf of,

KENTUCKY BARASSOCIATION, CLE COMMISSION 2005-SC-000919-KB

V. IN SUPREME COURT TOBE PUBLISHED

BRUCE WAYNE LOMINAC RESPONDENT OPINIONANDORDER The CLE Commission of the Kentucky Bar Association has recommended that the Court find Respondent, BruceWayne Lominac, whose Bar Roster Address is 104 Falls Street, Suite B-1, London, Kentucky 40741 and whose KBA Member Number is 86232, in non-compliance with the minimumannual continuing legal education requirements (MCLE) of SCR 3.661 for the 2004-2005 educational year. Pursuant to our Show

Cause Order of November 3, 2005, both the Movant and the Respondent have submitted Responses outlining their respective positions. Despite numerous warnings, Respondent failed to complete his MCLE requirements during the time allotted for the 2004-2005 academic year. Similarly, he failed to submit his Application for Extension of Time for Completion of Continuing Legal Education in a timely manner-though it was due September 10, 2005 Respondent's application was postmarked September 13, 2005. Having reviewed the responses from each of the parties, it seems clear that Respondent's reliance on his personal records of CLE attendance, rather than on the official records maintained by the KBA, was a primary reason for his non-compliance. Although it is unnecessary to provide anydetailed explanation of the circumstances which led to Respondent's deficiency, it must

be noted that Respondent's non-compliance was clearly documented in his official CLE Record and it was his responsibility to correct any discrepancies which might have existed between his personal file and the official record. As such, upon the CLE Commission's certification of the Respondent's name to this Court for CLE non-compliance under SCR3.669, we find that Respondent has failed to show

cause why he should not be suspended fromthe practice of law or otherwise sanctioned. Wherefore, thefollowing sanctions are adopted pursuant to SCR 3.370(10) . ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED : For his non-compliance with the minimumCLE requirements of SCR3.661 for the 2004-2005educational year: (1) We hereby ORDERRespondent to pay a fine in the amount offour hundred dollars ($400

.00), payable to the Kentucky Bar Association within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order. (2) It is also ORDEREDthat the CLE Commission apply back 2.5 hours of the 4 .0 technologically-transmitted credits Respondent earned after June 30, 2005 to Respondent's 2004-2005 CLE record. (3) Respondent must complete and report to the CLE Commission the remaining 1 .25live credits he needs for 2005 "apply-back" compliance within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. If Respondent fails to complete and report the credits in a timely manner, he will be subject to suspension frompractice for non-compliance upon motion of the Commission and Order of this Court.

### (4) Furthermore, pursuant to SCR3.667(2), Respondent shall not applyfor a

non-hardshipextension for either the 2005-2006or the 2006-2007 educational years. All concur. ENTERED: January 19, 2006 .
# C_2023048EN.01000501.xml

| 8.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

7 February 2023

(2023/C 48/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0700 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,30 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4415 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89338 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,3805 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9906 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 152,10 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,1253 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,832 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 394,40 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7565 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9020 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 20,1478 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5470 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4371 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,3974 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6994 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4199 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 348,81 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 18,8746 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2608 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 239,13 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6035 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,032 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,989 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,5216 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,4316 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 88,5096 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0700

JPY

Japanese yen

141,30

DKK

Danish krone

7,4415

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89338

SEK

Swedish krona

11,3805

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9906

ISK

Iceland króna

152,10

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,1253

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,832

HUF

Hungarian forint

394,40

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7565

RON

Romanian leu

4,9020

TRY

Turkish lira

20,1478

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5470

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4371

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,3974

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6994

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4199

KRW

South Korean won

1 348,81

ZAR

South African rand

18,8746

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2608

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 239,13

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6035

PHP

Philippine peso

59,032

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

35,989

BRL

Brazilian real

5,5216

MXN

Mexican peso

20,4316

INR

Indian rupee

88,5096

---

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

---
# C_2022321EN.01000201.xml

| 25.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/2

---

EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 May 2022

(Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004 (1)
  )

(2022/C 321/02)

Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines as amended by ESA’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To obtain the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins shall be added to the base rate in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.

Base rates have been determined as follows:

| | Iceland | Liechtenstein | Norway |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1. 5.2022 – | 3,12 | -0,57 | 1,17 |

Iceland

Liechtenstein

Norway

1. 5.2022 –

3,12

-0,57

1,17

---

(1)  OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No. 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1.

---
# C_2022424EN.01000101.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2022/C 424/01)

Last publication

OJ C 418, 31.10.2022

Past publications

OJ C 408, 24.10.2022

OJ C 398, 17.10.2022

OJ C 389, 10.10.2022

OJ C 380, 3.10.2022

OJ C 368, 26.9.2022

OJ C 359, 19.9.2022

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
#### § 1806.502 Fraud, waste, and abuse.

Any person who becomes aware of the existence or apparent existence of fraud, waste, or abuse of assistance provided under this part should report such incidences to the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


June 30, 2000

The Board of Directors
Portal Net Limited
Unit 1806, Hutchison House
10 Harcourt Road
Central
Hong Kong


Dear Sirs,

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in this Form 20-F of our report dated October 25, 1999 included in
the Registration Statement. It should be noted that we have not audited any
financial statements of the Company subsequent to September 30, 1999 or
performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.


Very truly yours,


/s/ Arthur Andersen & Co.
-------------------------