alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 303.43 Processing. ( a ) *Expedited processing for eligible depository institutions.* An application filed under this subpart by an eligible depository institution as defined in § 303.2(r) will be acknowledged in writing by the FDIC and will receive expedited processing, unless the applicant is notified in writing to the contrary and provided with the basis for that decision. The FDIC may remove an application from expedited processing for any of the reasons set forth in § 303.11(c)(2). Absent such removal, an application processed under expedited processing will be deemed approved on the latest of the following: ( 1 ) The 21st day after receipt by the FDIC of a substantially complete filing;
( 2 ) The 5th day after expiration of the comment period described in§ 303.44; or
( 3 ) In the case of an application to establish and operate a de novo branch in a state that is not the applicant's home state and in which the applicant does not maintain a branch, the 5th day after the FDIC receives confirmation from the host state that the applicant has both complied with the filing requirements of the host state and submitted a copy of the application with the FDIC to the host state bank supervisor.
( b ) *Standard processing.* For those applications which are not processed pursuant to the expedited procedures, the FDIC will provide the applicant with written notification of the final action when the decision is rendered.
H. R. 3185

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 38 Spring

Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the ‘‘Hugh Gregg Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

38 Spring Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘Hugh Gregg Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Hugh Gregg

Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52821-52822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24726]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0449; Docket No. 50-244]


R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of 
Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (the licensee) to 
withdraw its October 7, 2008, application for proposed amendment to 
Facility Operating License No. 18 for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 
Plant located in Wayne County, New York.
    The proposed amendment would have revised the operating license by 
introducing a new license condition requiring the reporting of reactor 
vessel inservice inspection information and analyses as specified in a 
Federal Register Notice dated October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56275), 
``Alternate Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against 
Pressurized Thermal Shock Events.''
    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on December 16, 
2008 (73 FR 76413). However, by letter dated September 28, 2009, the 
licensee withdrew the proposed change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated October 7, 2008, and the licensee's 
letter dated September 28, 2009, which withdrew the application for 
license amendment. Documents may

[[Page 52822]]

be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room 
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 
records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on 
the internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the 
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 
or by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cbbbafb9e5b9aeb8a4beb9a8ae8ba5b9a8e5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="255541570b5740564a50574640654b57460b424a53">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of October 2009.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Douglas V. Pickett,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-24726 Filed 10-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Docket ID DOD-2009-OS-0146]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice to delete a system of records.

# SUMMARY:

The Office of the Secretary of Defense is proposing to delete the DUSDA 02 systems of records notice from its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

# DATES:

This proposed action will be effective without further notice on November 12, 2009 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to the Privacy Act Officer, Office of Freedom of Information, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mrs. Cindy Allard at (703) 588-6830.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Office of the Secretary of Defense systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the                     **Federal Register**                     and are available from the address above.                

The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to delete a system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

Dated: October 6, 2009.

Patricia L. Toppings,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

##  

### Deletion:

## DUSDA 02

### SYSTEM NAME:

Personnel Administration Files (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10227).

### REASON:

Based on a recent review of DUSDA 02, it was determined that this system of records is covered under the Government-wide SORNs, OPM Govt—1 (General Personnel Records) and OPM Govt—5. DUSDA 02 is duplicative and can therefore be deleted.

[FR Doc. E9-24506 Filed 10-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
SUPERSEDEAS BOND.

[Lucas Circuit Court,

April, 1894.]

Bentley, Haynes and Scribner, JJ.

#### Alias S. Cohen et al. v. John F. Cover, Trustee.

Pismissal Equivalent to Affirmance of Case.

A dismissal by the Supreme Court for want of printing is equivalent to an affirmance of the court below within the terms of a supersedeas bond.

Error to Lucas Common Pleas.

Haynes, J.

In this case suit was brought in the common pleas court upon a supersedeas bond filed in the Supreme Court of this state, in a case decided by the circuit court of Putnam county, wherein American Hand Sewed Shoe Co. and others were plaintiffs and H. B. Claflin & Co. and others were defendants. The supersedeas bond recited a judgment in the circuit court of Putnam county “for about ($15,000) fifteen thousand dollars and for costs about $2,500,” with conditions under sec. 6718, Rev. Stat.

In the suit upon supersedeas bond the petition set forth the judgment of circuit court, which was a judgment under sec. 6344, Rev. Stat., in which judgment the circuit court declared void as against-plaintiff and other creditors of O. B. Ramey, certain mortgages of personal and real property and certain conveyances of notes and accounts made by O. B. Ramey to H. B. Clafiin & Co. in contemplation of insolvency and to prefer creditors, and adjudged that Clañin & Co. held the property subject to the right of the plaintiff's other creditors to have the same applied to the payment of their claims, and ordered the judgment certified to the probate court to have a trustee appointed to carry out the trusts as provided in said section 6344. Upon the trial in common pleas court the proper issues having been joined between the parties, the plaintiff Cover, trustee, to maintain the issues on his part, offered in evidence a copy of the judgment in case last mentioned, which was objected to on the ground that it was not the judgment described in the bond set forth in his petition. Held, that the objection was well taken, and that the court of common pleas should have rejected the same as evidence.

In the Supreme Court the petition in error filed there was dismissed for the reason that the plaintiff in error had failed to have the record in the case printed as required by the practice of that court, and upon motion made had refused to reinstate the case, and it was urged'that no recovery could be had upon the bond because the judgment of the circuit court had not been affirmed.

*Held:*That the judgment of dismissal was equivalent to and in substance an affirmation of the judgment of the circuit court.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3110

To specify locations where certain citizens and nationals of Mexico may 

be removed from the United States into Mexico. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2003

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To specify locations where certain citizens and nationals of 

Mexico may be removed from the United States into Mexico.

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

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL LOCATIONS FOR CERTAIN CITIZENS 

4 AND NATIONALS OF MEXICO. 

5 Section 241(b) of the Immigration and Nationality 

6 Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)) is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following: 

8 ‘‘(4) REMOVAL LOCATIONS FOR CERTAIN CITI9 ZENS AND NATIONALS OF MEXICO.—
2

•HR 3110 IH 

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise 

2 provided in this paragraph, in the case of an 

3 alien who is a citizen or national of Mexico, and 

4 who arrives in the United States by land from 

5 Mexico (whether or not at a designated port of 

6 entry), if the alien is removed by land to Mex7 ico, such removal shall be executed at the port 

8 of entry on the United States border with Mex9 ico that is closest to the location where such 

10 alien was first inspected by an immigration offi11 cer. 

12 ‘‘(B) REMOVAL FOLLOWING INCARCER13 ATION.—In the case of an alien described in 

14 subparagraph (A) who is removed by land to 

15 Mexico upon release from imprisonment for a 

16 criminal offense, such removal shall be executed 

17 at the port of entry on the United States border 

18 with Mexico that is closest to the facility where 

19 such alien last was imprisoned for such offense. 

20 ‘‘(C) REMOVAL FOLLOWING ACQUITTAL.—

21 In the case of an alien described in subpara22 graph (A) who is removed by land to Mexico 

23 upon being acquitted of a criminal charge, such 

24 removal shall be executed at the port of entry 

25 on the United States border with Mexico that 
3

•HR 3110 IH 

1 is closest to the courthouse where such acquittal 

2 occurs. 

3 ‘‘(D) SPECIFIED LOCATION NOT FEA4 SIBLE.—If the Secretary of Homeland Security 

5 determines that compliance with subparagraph 

6 (A), (B), or (C) is not feasible, the Secretary 

7 may waive the application of such subpara8 graph, but must notify the Committees on the 

9 Judiciary and the Committees on Approriations 

10 of the United States House of Representatives 

11 and of the Senate before such waiver occurs.’’.

Æ
# C_2023263EN.01001501.xml

| 26.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/15

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

25 July 2023

(2023/C 263/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1051 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 156,18 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4515 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86148 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,4950 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9598 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 145,70 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,1605 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,047 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 378,33 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4263 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9223 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 29,7848 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6328 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4562 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6336 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7785 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4677 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 409,63 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 19,4256 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8915 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 607,03 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0420 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,271 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,115 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,2178 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,5746 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 90,4445 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1051

JPY

Japanese yen

156,18

DKK

Danish krone

7,4515

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86148

SEK

Swedish krona

11,4950

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9598

ISK

Iceland króna

145,70

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,1605

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,047

HUF

Hungarian forint

378,33

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4263

RON

Romanian leu

4,9223

TRY

Turkish lira

29,7848

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6328

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4562

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6336

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7785

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4677

KRW

South Korean won

1 409,63

ZAR

South African rand

19,4256

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8915

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 607,03

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0420

PHP

Philippine peso

60,271

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

38,115

BRL

Brazilian real

5,2178

MXN

Mexican peso

18,5746

INR

Indian rupee

90,4445

---

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

---
42635.

#### McDONALD v. VAUGHAN.

*Felton, C. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*

Argued March 6, 1967

Decided April 7, 1967.

Hall, Judge.

The plaintiff in this case enumerates as error that the verdict of $1,300 is wholly inadequate to compensate her for the injuries she received, on the ground that there was undisputed evidence that the plaintiff had special damages of $2,900. The plaintiff argues that to authorize a verdict in her favor the defendant’s negligence would have to be greater than her own and, under the comparative negligence rule, the damages could not be reduced to less than 51% of the total special damages.

The decided cases, however, do not support the plaintiff’s argument but would support any apportionment of damages the jury sees fit to make when the negligence of both parties contributes to the injuries but the plaintiff’s to a lesser degree than the defendant’s. *Moore v. Sears Roebuck & Co.,*48 Ga. App. 185, 186 (172 SE 680); *Baggett v. Jackson,*79 Ga. App. 460, 466 (54 SE2d 146); *Cox v. Nix,*87 Ga. App. 837, 840 (75 SE2d 331); *Butler v. Stewart,*112 Ga. App. 293, 294 (145 SE2d 47); *Parrott v. Fletcher,*113 Ga. App. 45 (146 SE2d 923); *Powers v. Pate,*107 Ga. App. 25, 27 (129 SE2d 193); accord *Southern R. Co. v. Rumsey,*124 Ga. 742 (52 SE 812); *Brown v. Service Coach Lines,*71 Ga. App. 437, 448 (31 SE2d 236).

The trial court did not err in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for new trial on the ground enumerated.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*545*Northcutt & Edwards, Kenneth Doss,*for appellant.

*Gambrell, Harlan, Bussell & Moye, Edward W. Killorin, George W. Hart,*for appellee.
Exhibit 12.1





Annual  Certifications


Pursuant  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of  2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United  States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Masisa S.A. (the Company),  does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:





The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended  December 31, 2002 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained  in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial  condition and results of operations of the Company.





| | /s/ EDUARDO VIAL       
| | -----------------------
| | Eduardo Vial           
| | Chief Executive Officer
| |                        
| | /s/ CARLOS MARÍN       
| | Carlos Marín           
| | Chief Financial Officer




---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.4


                          NINTH SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE

         THIS NINTH SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE, dated as of November 3, 1998, is
executed by PERLCO, L.L.C., a Tennessee limited liability company ("PerlCo"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of METAL MANAGEMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), for the sole purpose of granting a guarantee under the Indenture (as
amended from time to time, the "Indenture"), dated as of May 13, 1998, with
respect to the Company's 10% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2008 (the "Notes"),
entered into among the Company, the Guarantors (as defined therein) and LASALLE
NATIONAL BANK, as trustee (the "Trustee").

                              PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

         The Company, the Guarantors and the Trustee have entered into the
Indenture. Capitalized terms used herein, not otherwise defined herein, shall
have the meanings given them in the Indenture.

         Section 4.18 of the Indenture expressly provides that any Restricted
Subsidiary (i) that has assets or revenues in any fiscal year in excess of
$200,000 or (ii) that is not a Guarantor and is a borrower under the Senior
Credit Facility shall execute a supplemental indenture to become a Guarantor of
the Company's Notes. Pursuant to Section 4.18 of the Indenture, PerlCo executes
this Ninth Supplemental Indenture to a become Guarantor of the Company's Notes.
PerlCo has, by Board Resolution, authorized this Ninth Supplemental Indenture.
The Trustee has determined that this Ninth Supplemental Indenture is in form
satisfactory to it.

         NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually covenanted and agreed, for the equal and
proportionate benefit of all Holders of the Notes issued under the Indenture
from and after the date of this Ninth Supplemental Indenture, as follows:

         Section 1.        Guarantee on the Notes.

         PerlCo hereby subjects itself to the provisions of the Indenture as a
Guarantor in accordance with Article 11 of the Indenture.

         Section 2.        Counterparts

         This Ninth Supplemental Indenture may be executed in several
counterparts, all of which together shall constitute one agreement binding on
all parties, notwithstanding that all parties have not signed the same
counterpart.




<PAGE>   2



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Ninth Supplemental
Indenture to be duly executed by its respective officers as of the day and year
first above written.

                                 PERLCO, L.L.C.


                                 By: /s/ David A. Carpenter
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                 Name: David A. Carpenter
                                       --------------------------------------
                                 Its: Vice President
                                      ---------------------------------------  




                                       -2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARK
VII, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED APRIL 4,
1998 AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF APRIL 4, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1998
<CASH>                                           1,835
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,353
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,192
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,666
<PP&E>                                          12,188
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,186
<BONDS>                                            876
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           501
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,840
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               171,800
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,242
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,746
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,805
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,178
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,627
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,627
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>