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

Union Calendar No. 208

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3209

[Report No. 108–356] 

To amend the Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 1972 to clarify 

the acreage for which the North Loup division is authorized to provide 

irrigation water under the Missouri River Basin project. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2003

Mr. OSBORNE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

NOVEMBER 7, 2003

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

A BILL

To amend the Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 

1972 to clarify the acreage for which the North Loup 

division is authorized to provide irrigation water under 

the Missouri River Basin project.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3209 RH 

1 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ACREAGE FOR IRRIGATION 

2 WATER. 

3 Section 501 of the Reclamation Project Authorization 

4 Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 615dddd) is amended by striking 

5 ‘‘fifty-three thousand acres’’ and inserting ‘‘approximately 

6 53,000 acres’’. 

Union Calendar No. 208

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3209

[Report No. 108–356] 

A BILL

To amend the Reclamation Project Authorization 

Act of 1972 to clarify the acreage for which the North Loup division is authorized to provide irrigation water under the Missouri River Basin project. 

NOVEMBER 7, 2003

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
§ 346.5 Related agreements considered a single agreement. The following rules must be applied in determining whether an agreement is a covered agreement under § 346.2. ( a ) *Agreements entered into by same parties.* All written agreements to which an insured depository institution or an affiliate of the insured depository institution is a party shall be considered to be a single agreement if the agreements— ( 1 ) Are entered into with the same NGEP;
( 2 ) Were entered into within the same 12-month period; and
( 3 ) Are each in fulfillment of the CRA.
( b ) *Substantively related contracts.* All written contracts to which an insured depository institution or an affiliate of the insured depository institution is a party shall be considered to be a single agreement, without regard to whether the other parties to the contracts are the same or whether each such contract is in fulfillment of the CRA, if the contracts were negotiated in a coordinated fashion and a NGEP is a party to each contract.
§ 390.416 Form, content, and accounting. ( a ) *Form and content.* Any offering circular or amendment filed pursuant to this subpart shall: ( 1 ) Be filed under cover of Form OC, which is under 12 CFR part 192;
( 2 ) Comply with the requirements of Items 3 and 4 of Form OC and the requirements of all items of the form for registration (17 CFR part 239) that the issuer would be eligible to use were it required to register the securities under the Securities Act;
( 3 ) Comply with all item requirements of the Form S-1 (17 CFR part 239) for registration under the Securities Act, if the association issuing the securities is not in compliance with the FDIC's regulatory capital requirements during the time the offering is made;
( 4 ) Where a form specifies that the information required by an item in the Commission's Regulation S-K (17 CFR part 229) should be furnished, include such information and all of the information required by Item 7 of Form PS, which is under 12 CFR part 192;
( 5 ) Include after the facing page of the Form OC a cross-reference sheet listing each item requirement of the form for registration under the Securities Act and indicate for each item the applicable heading or subheading in the offering circular under which the required information is disclosed;
( 6 ) Include in part II of the Form OC the applicable undertakings required by the form for registration under the Securities Act;
( 7 ) If the issuer has not previously been required to file reports pursuant to section 13(a) of the Exchange Act or § 390.427, include in part II of Form OC the following undertaking: “The issuer hereby undertakes, in connection with any distribution of the offering circular, to have a preliminary or effective offering circular including the information required by this subpart distributed to all persons expected to be mailed confirmations of sale not less than 48 hours prior to the time such confirmations are expected to be mailed;”
( 8 ) In offerings involving the issuance of options, warrants, subscription rights or conversion rights within the meaning of § 390.410(a)(8), include in part II of Form OC an undertaking to provide a copy of the issuer's most recent audited financial statements to persons exercising such options, warrants or rights promptly upon receiving written notification of the exercise thereof;
( 9 ) Include as supplemental information and not as part of the Form OC and only with respect to *de novo* offerings, a copy of the application for insurance of accounts as submitted to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for state-chartered savings associations; and
( 10 ) In addition to the information expressly required to be included by this subpart, there shall be added such further material information, if any, as may be necessary to make the required statements, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading.
( b ) *Accounting requirements.* To be declared effective an offering circular or amendment shall satisfy the accounting requirements in subpart T.
§ 43.1 Authority, purpose, scope, and reservation of authority. ( a ) *Authority.* This part is issued under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.,* 93a, 161, 1464, 1818, 5412(b)(2)(B), and 15 U.S.C. 78o-11.
( b ) *Purpose.* ( 1 ) This part requires securitizers to retain an economic interest in a portion of the credit risk for any asset that the securitizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed security, transfers, sells, or conveys to a third party. This part specifies the permissible types, forms, and amounts of credit risk retention, and it establishes certain exemptions for securitizations collateralized by assets that meet specified underwriting standards.
( 2 ) Nothing in this part shall be read to limit the authority of the OCC to take supervisory or enforcement action, including action to address unsafe or unsound practices or conditions, or violations of law.
( c ) *Scope.* This part applies to any securitizer that is a national bank, a Federal savings association, a Federal branch or agency of a foreign bank, or a subsidiary thereof.
( d ) *Compliance dates.* Compliance with this part is required: ( 1 ) With respect to any securitization transaction collateralized by residential mortgages, on and after December 24, 2015; and
( 2 ) With respect to any other securitization transaction, on and after December 24, 2016.
[79 FR 77764, Dec. 24, 2014]
#### § 1072.108 Program accessibility: Discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 1072.109 no qualified individual with a disability shall, because the Bureau's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the Bureau .
#### Jacob Jacoby, Respondent, *v.*Morris Fox, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the General Term of the City Court of the city of ETew York, and from a judgment entered thereon affirming a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered upon the verdict of a jury and affirming an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Black, Olcott, Gruber *&*Bonynge (Abraham Gruber and T„ B. Chancellor, of counsel), for appellant.

A. *&*O. Steckler, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

This is an appeal from an order of the General Term of the City Court of the city of Eew York, and from a judgment entered thereon affirming a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered upon the verdict of a jury and affirming an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

It has frequently been held that on appeals of this nature, this court cannot consider the weight of evidence, and that if there is any competent evidence which sustained the finding of the jury the order of the General Term of the City Court must be affirmed. An examination of the case shows that there is evidence which, if believed by the jury, warranted it in finding for the plaintiff. ETone of the exceptions were well taken. The letter offered in evidence by the plaintiff tended to contradict the defendant’s testimony, -and, therefore, was admissible. The evidence excluded at folio 92 was not excepted to. The exception at folio 86 was not well taken; the question asked had no bearing upon the case. The exception to the charge was not well taken. The trial judge in effect told the jury that if the plaintiff was insolent towards his employer, or if he refused to obey his employer, he was not entitled to recover. This was a correct exposition of the law in this case.

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Present: Tbuax, P. J., Scott and Dugbo, JJ.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
condensed  consolidated  balance sheet of Transnational  Industries,  Inc. as of
October 31, 1997 and the related condensed  consolidated statement of operations
and  statement  of cash flows for the nine months then ended and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
        
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                             932
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      610
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       1154
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2877
<PP&E>                                            2619
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1868
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5969
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1898
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        399
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                        2340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5969
<SALES>                                           5625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5625
<CGS>                                             3978
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3978
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   318
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  95
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    262
<INCOME-TAX>                                        14
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                248
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    345
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       593
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023078EN.01000901.xml

| 2.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/9

---

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

(2023/C 78/08)

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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.12.2022 – | 6,13 | -0,45 | 2,81 |

Iceland

Liechtenstein

Norway

1.12.2022 –

6,13

-0,45

2,81

---

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

---
#### LIGHTNING V. THE STATE.

(Decided April 24, 1913.)

Appeal from Lee Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. Lum Duke.

*673No counsel marked for appellant. R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Pelham, J. —

No error of record and the cause is affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXH 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
D.I.Y. Home Warehouse, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-87020) of our report, dated
February 16, 2000, on our audits of the Financial Statements of D.I.Y. Home
Warehouse, Inc. as of January 1, 2000 and January 2, 1999 and for each of the
three years in the period ended January 1, 2000, which report is included in
Exhibit 13.1 of this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP


Cleveland, Ohio
March 29, 2000
COSTS IN DIVORCE CASES.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

January Term, 1890.]

Swing, Cox and Smith, JJ.

#### State ex rel. Lizzie White v. Clement Bates, Judge.

Granting Decree cannot be Conditioned on Payment oe Costs.

Where decree for divorce is granted the petitioner, she cannot be required to pay the costs as a condition precedent to the entry of the decree in her favor.

Mandamus.

A. J. Marsh, attorney for relator.

Smith, J.

We are of the opinion, that where, on the hearing of an application for divorce, the court of common pleas has found that the petitioner, a married woman, is clearly entitled thereto, and has approved a decree granting such divorce, that it has not the right to require, as a condition precedent to the entry thereof, that the costs in the case be paid by such petitioner, though the decree so approved, provided that she should have a judgment for such costs against her husband, the defendant. A rule of the court, requiring the petitioner in such case to pay the costs before the entry of the decree, is not warranted by, but is inconsistent with the laws of the state. We think the case comes dearly within the principle laid down in the case of Heffer v. Scranton, 27 O. S., 579.

It being conceded by the answer that the facts in this case are as above stated, a peremptory writ will be allowed as prayed for.
EXHIBIT 10.1
Miller, Kaplan, Arase & Co., LLP
Certified Public Accountants
Since 1941
4123 Lankershim Boulevard
North Hollywood, CA 91602-2828
(818) 769-2010
FAX (818) 769-3100


ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

     We hereby consent to the use of our audit report of Total Film Group,
Inc. and subsidiaries dated September 29, 1999, except for Note 4, which is as
of January 14, 2000, for the years ended June 30, 1999 and 1998, to be used in
the company's amended registration statement on Form 10-SB.

/s/ Miller, Kaplan, Arase, & Co., LLP

July 18, 2000
North Hollywood, California
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<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>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          22,331
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          682,221
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,500
<COMMON>                                       232,013
<OTHER-SE>                                   (913,515)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,219
<SALES>                                            162
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   162
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               111,490
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,241
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (157,569)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (157,569)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (157,569)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
#### Rogers *v.*Rogers.

No. 8920.

August 15, 1932.

*H. A. Allen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Eugene L. Tiller*and *Tull C. Waters,*contra.

Per Curiam.

The motion for a new trial in this case contains only the usual general grounds. After an examination of the evidence, the court is of the opinion that the verdict rendered by the jury was authorized • by the evidence, and the discretion of the court in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
§ 161.18 Director. ( a ) The term *director* means any director, trustee, or other person performing similar functions with respect to any organization whether incorporated or unincorporated. Such term does not include an advisory director, honorary director, director emeritus, or similar person, unless the person is otherwise performing functions similar to those of a director.
( b ) [Reserved]
# C_2017018EN.01002701.xml

| 19.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/27

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 February 2016

in Case E-21/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

v

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/88/EU amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme)

(2017/C 18/11)

In Case E-21/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/88/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/88/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/88/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

| 2. | Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
#### Claudine M. Meeks, Respondent, *v.*Horace L. Day, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan.

Foley & Powell (James 0. Foley, of counsel), for appellant.

George 0. Coffin, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The case presented a question of fact, and the disposition thereof made by the learned trial justice should not *789be disturbed. An examination of the record does not support the contention of defendant’s counsel that the evidence so strongly-preponderated in favor of the defendant as to require a verdict in his behalf. The expert testimony of Dr. Plymton was not conclusive upon the court, and its weight was to be measured by the tests usually applied in the consideration of nonexpert evidence. The force of the other testimony furnished by the defendant was greatly weakened, if not entirely overcome, by the witness Higgins, the plumber, who was also called by the defendant. Indeed, the trial court might well conclude that the child-who was brought from Philadelphia had the germs of diphtheria in his system when he came to defendant’s apartment, and thus caused the subsequent illness therein. It would be manifestly unjust to visit the consequences of this misfortune upon the defendant’s landlord who was not responsible therefor. The one or two complaints not contested related to trivial matters which were remedied a considerable time before defendant’s abandonment of the apartment and afforded no justification for the defendant’s act in attempting to terminate his hiring, for the doctrine is well settled that a constructive eviction will not be established unless the wrongful conduct of the lessor works a substantial deprivation of the beneficial enjoyment of the demised premises.

The judgment is amply sustained by the evidence in the case and must be affirmed.

Present: Giegkebich and O’Gobmaw, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.