alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 304.22 Definitions. ( a ) Except as modified in this subpart, or unless the context otherwise requires, the terms used in this subpart have the same meanings as set forth in 12 U.S.C. 1813.
( b ) For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply. ( 1 ) *Banking organization* means an FDIC-supervised insured depository institution, including all insured state nonmember banks, insured state-licensed branches of foreign banks, and insured State savings associations; provided, however, that no designated financial market utility shall be considered a banking organization.
( 2 ) *Bank service provider* means a bank service company or other person that performs covered services; provided, however, that no designated financial market utility shall be considered a bank service provider.
( 3 ) *Business line* means a product or service offered by a banking organization to serve its customers or support other business needs.
( 4 ) *Computer-security incident* is an occurrence that results in actual harm to the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system or the information that the system processes, stores, or transmits.
( 5 ) *Covered services* are services performed, by a person, that are subject to the Bank Service Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1861-1867).
( 6 ) *Designated financial market utility* has the same meaning as set forth at 12 U.S.C. 5462(4).
( 7 ) *Notification incident* is a computer-security incident that has materially disrupted or degraded, or is reasonably likely to materially disrupt or degrade, a banking organization's— ( i ) Ability to carry out banking operations, activities, or processes, or deliver banking products and services to a material portion of its customer base, in the ordinary course of business;
( ii ) Business line(s), including associated operations, services, functions, and support, that upon failure would result in a material loss of revenue, profit, or franchise value; or
( iii ) Operations, including associated services, functions and support, as applicable, the failure or discontinuance of which would pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.
( 8 ) *Person* has the same meaning as set forth at 12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(8)(A).
# C_2022197EN.01000301.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

13 May 2022

(2022/C 197/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0385 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,91 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4412 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85115 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4905 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0385 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 140,10 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,2043 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,740 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 385,00 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6883 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9455 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 16,0687 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5067 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3505 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,1522 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6633 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4500 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 330,83 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,7789 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0513 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5200 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 193,55 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5673 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,449 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,109 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,3204 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,9880 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,4315 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0385

JPY

Japanese yen

133,91

DKK

Danish krone

7,4412

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85115

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4905

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0385

ISK

Iceland króna

140,10

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,2043

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,740

HUF

Hungarian forint

385,00

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6883

RON

Romanian leu

4,9455

TRY

Turkish lira

16,0687

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5067

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3505

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,1522

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6633

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4500

KRW

South Korean won

1 330,83

ZAR

South African rand

16,7789

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0513

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5200

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 193,55

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5673

PHP

Philippine peso

54,449

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,109

BRL

Brazilian real

5,3204

MXN

Mexican peso

20,9880

INR

Indian rupee

80,4315

---

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

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1




                                  CERTIFICATION


            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Elcom
International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in
the Form 10-K.


Dated: March 26, 2004                    /s/ Robert J. Crowell
                                        --------------------------------------
                                         Robert J. Crowell
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         (Principal Executive Officer)



            The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a
separate disclosure document.
# C_2019049EN.01001801.xml

| 7.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/18

---

Information notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority based on Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(2019/C 49/07)

| Member State | Norway |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned routes | Røros – Oslo v.v.
  Sogndal – Oslo v.v.
  Førde – Oslo v.v.
  Sandane – Oslo v.v.
  Sogndal – Bergen v.v.
  Sandane – Bergen v.v.
  Ørsta-Volda – Bergen v.v. |
| Period of validity of the contract | 1 April 2020 – 31 March 2024 |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | 8 April 2019 |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the modified public service obligations can be obtained | Ministry of Transport and Communications |
| PO Box 8010 Dep |
| N-0030 Oslo |
| NORWAY |
| Tel. +47 22249090 |
| Email: postmottak@sd.dep.no |
| Internet: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/id2000006/?documenttype=dokumenter/anbud |

Member State

Norway

Concerned routes

Røros – Oslo v.v.

Sogndal – Oslo v.v.

Førde – Oslo v.v.

Sandane – Oslo v.v.

Sogndal – Bergen v.v.

Sandane – Bergen v.v.

Ørsta-Volda – Bergen v.v.

Period of validity of the contract

1 April 2020 – 31 March 2024

Deadline for submission of tenders

8 April 2019

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the modified public service obligations can be obtained

Ministry of Transport and Communications

PO Box 8010 Dep

N-0030 Oslo

NORWAY

Tel. +47 22249090

Email: postmottak@sd.dep.no

Internet: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/id2000006/?documenttype=dokumenter/anbud

---
#### WILLIAMS V. THE STATE.

(Decided May 13, 1913.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. S. E. Greene.

No counsel marked for appellant. R. C. Briokell, Attorney General, and AY. *L.*Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for tbe State.

Thomas, J. —

No error of record and tbe cause is affirmed.
42240.

#### BETTIS et al. v. COMFORT CONTROL, INC.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

Comfort Control, Inc., a subcontractor brought this suit against Charles Bettis and Wade Palmes, general contractors, to recover a balance due plaintiff under an agreement by which plaintiff undertook to furnish and install a heating and air conditioning system in a building constructed by defendants. Defendants pleaded failure of consideration, and sought to recoup amounts expended by defendants to correct defects in the system inherent in the installation plans. The evidence did not show that defendants furnished plaintiff with plans for the installation, nor did the evidence show that plaintiff unilaterally originated the design of the system. The evidence showed without dispute that plaintiff and defendants mutually agreed upon certain plans and specifications and that the installation *105was performed in accordance with the agreement. The jury-rendered a verdict for plaintiff in the amount sued for, and defendant appealed to this court on the ground that the verdict and judgment were not authorized by the evidence. *Held:*

*Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*

Submitted September 6, 1966

Decided January 27, 1967.

*Candler, Cox, McClain ■& Andrews, E. Lewis Hansen,*for appellants.

*Edenfield, Heyman & Sizemore, W. Dan Greer,*for appellee.

Where a construction contract provides that work shall be performed in accordance with certain details and specifications, mutually agreed upon, and the work is done in compliance with the terms of the agreement, the employer cannot recover (or recoup) upon the construction contract for results which flow from the performance of the work in the prescribed manner. *Board of Drainage Commrs. v. Williams,*34 Ga. App. 731, 735 (131 SE 911); see also *Porter v. Wilder & Son,*62 Ga. 520, 525; *Cannon v. Hunt,*116 Ga. 452, 454 (42 SE 734).

*Judgment affirmed.*
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3028

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to expand the 

authority of non-Federal interests to levy harbor fees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 5, 2003

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

to expand the authority of non-Federal interests to levy 

harbor fees.

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

3 That section 208(a) of Water Resources Development Act 

4 of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2236(a)) is amended—

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘or container fees’’ after ‘‘ton6 nage duties or fees’’; 

7 (2) in paragraph (1)(A)—

8 (A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause 

9 (i); 
2

•HR 3028 IH 

1 (B) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause 

2 (ii) and inserting ‘‘or’’; and 

3 (C) by inserting after clause (ii) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(iii) to finance the cost of construction 

6 and operation and maintenance of any infra7 structure project for a harbor, including an in8 frastructure project outside the boundaries of 

9 the harbor if the project is for transportation 

10 to, from, or through the harbor; and’’; and 

11 (3) in paragraph (1)(B) by inserting ‘‘and secu12 rity’’ after ‘‘emergency response’’.

Æ
§ 1291.20 Establishment of programs. ( a ) *General Fund* — ( 1 ) *Establishment.* A Bank shall establish a General Fund pursuant to the requirements of this part.
( 2 ) *Eligibility requirements.* A Bank may not adopt eligibility requirements for its General Fund except as specifically authorized in this part.
( b ) *Targeted Funds* — ( 1 ) *Establishment; number of Targeted Funds and funding allocation amounts.* A Bank may establish, in its discretion, up to three Targeted Funds to address specified affordable housing needs in its district pursuant to the phase-in funding allocation requirements in § 1291.12(c)(1), the following phase-in requirements for the number of Targeted Funds unless otherwise directed by FHFA, and any other applicable requirements of this part: ( i ) One Targeted Fund;
( ii ) Two Targeted Funds to be administered in the same calendar year, provided that the Bank administered at least one Targeted Fund in any preceding year; or
( iii ) Three Targeted Funds to be administered in the same calendar year, provided that the Bank administered at least two Targeted Funds in any preceding year.
( 2 ) *Eligibility requirements.* ( i ) A Bank shall adopt and implement parameters, which shall be included in its AHP Implementation Plan, for ensuring that each Targeted Fund is designed to receive sufficient numbers of applicants for the amount of AHP funds allocated to the Targeted Fund to enable the Bank to facilitate a robust competitive scoring process.
( ii ) A Bank may not adopt eligibility requirements for its Targeted Funds except as specifically authorized in this part.
#### CLINTON COAL COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. F-366.

Decided December 5, 1927]

*On the Proofs*

*Contract for coal; shortage in deliveries.*— Plaintiff *held*entitled to recover the difference between the unpaid balance of the price named in contract for coal and the price paid by the Government in the open market for coal to cover shortage in deliveries.

*313
      *The Reporter’s*statement of the case:

*Mr. William L. Underwood*for the plaintiff.

*Mr. Heber H.*Rice, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Merman J.*Galloway, for the defendant.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion.

Campbell, *Chief*Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The Clinton Coal Company, Inc., the plaintiff, was invited to submit proposals for furnishing coal and wood at designated Coast Guard stations. It submitted proposals, that were duly accepted, to furnish at eleven stations an aggregate of 435 gross tons of coal at $21.45 per gross ton, amounting in all to $9,330.15, and at some of these' stations to furnish wood at $18 per cord, making an aggregate for coal and wood of $9,456.15. Deliveries of the coal were effected by transporting it upon scows and from the scows to the designated places by wagon. Questions having arisen as to the quantity of coal delivered, adjustments were made by agreement as to several of the places, and the plaintiff promptly furnished additional coal at these stations. The difference in the claims of the respective parties arises on the quantities of coal actually delivered at three stations, namely, Long Beach, Oak Island, and Fire Island stations. The plaintiff agreed to deliver a stated number of tons of coal, and it is incumbent upon it in the first instance to show that the tonnage claimed was delivered. Neither party has filed a request for special findings of fact, but plaintiff sues for a balance alleged to be due as though all coal contracted for had been actually delivered. It has been paid $8,413.10, which leaves a balance of the contract price of $1,043.65. Claiming that there was a deficiency of at least 37 tons in the coal delivered, the officers in charge demanded of plaintiff that the deficiency be supplied, else the amount would be purchased in open market and charged against plaintiff. The 37 tons were afterwards purchased at $25 per ton in the open market and the price paid was reasonable. Upon the evidence adduced the court is of opinion that the shortage. *314with which plaintiff is chargeable is 28 tons, and charging against plaintiff this tonnage at $25 per ton and deducting the amount from the balance of the contract price there is still due the plaintiff the sum of $343.65 which it is entitled to receive. Judgment is awarded against the defendant in this amount.

Moss, *Judge;*Gkaham, *Judge;*and Booth, *Judge,*concur.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Frederick J. Rowan, II, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of The William Carter Company;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15(d)-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
| Date: August 19, 2003 |
|-----------------------|
|                  |
|                  |   |   |
|                  | Frederick J. Rowan, II |
|                  | *Chief Executive  Officer* |

 

1

----
#### Null v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

*Walter G. Horowitz,*for plaintiff.

*A. L. Freedman,*City Solicitor, *M. W. Bullock, Jr.,*and *R. H. Markoivitz,*Assistant City Solicitors, for defendant.

*A. J. Rieffel,*for intervening defendants.

August 3, 1956.

Flood, J.,

Appellant carried on a nonconforming use, manufacturing machine nuts and screw products, upon the premises in question, in a “C” residential district, from before August 10, 1933, until 1942. From then until 1954 he used the premises for storage. He then applied for a permit for a 25 percent extension, intending to resume the earlier use. This was granted by zoning administrator, but on appeal, the zoning board reversed, holding that the earlier use had been abandoned and could not be resumed as a nonconforming use. •

The only provision of the ordinance which refers to a situation such as this is chapter 14-104(5) which *606provides that: *“A*nonconforming use when discontinued may be resumed as the same nonconforming use and no other.” This so precisely fits, the situation before us that we feel that it must be applied.

The city argues that this long discontinuance is an abandonment, not a discontinuance. No Pennsylvania cases so hold and the holding of Judge Lewis in Bennett v. Zoning Board, C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia County, March term, 1955, no. 624, is to the contrary. Our ordinance could no doubt provide that a discontinuance for a certain period is an abandonment or equivalent to an abandonment. See Elkins-Rydal Co. v. Brigham, 84 D. & C. 136 (1952). But our city council has not seen fit to do so.

We do not hold that discontinuance, together with certain other facts, might not constitute abandonment. Mere passage of time, however, is not enough under the language of the ordinance.

The order of the zoning board of adjustment is reversed and it is directed to issue the zoning permit sought by appellant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
    
<ARTICLE>           5
<CIK>               0000794927
<NAME>              CANTERBURY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>        1
          
<S>                             <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                   DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<CASH>                               218,254
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      1,250,456
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   3,195,410
<PP&E>                             6,418,828
<DEPRECIATION>                    (4,144,873)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    25,295,955
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                314,072
<BONDS>                                    0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                               6,421
<OTHER-SE>                        16,436,493
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      25,295,955
<SALES>                            2,802,130
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   2,802,130
<CGS>                              1,520,312
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      1,325,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     188,065
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   (90,628)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       53,598
<INCOME-TAX>                          10,720
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   42,878
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                          42,878
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .01
        

</TABLE>