alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 708a.110 Completion of conversion. ( a ) After receipt of the approvals under §§ 708a.108 and 708a.109 the credit union may complete the conversion.
( b ) The credit union must complete the conversion within one year of the date of receipt of NCUA approval under § 708a.108. If a credit union fails to complete the conversion within one year the Regional Director will disapprove of the methods and procedures. The credit union's board of directors must then adopt a new conversion proposal and solicit another member vote if it still desires to convert.
( c ) The Regional Director may, upon timely request and for good cause, extend the one year completion period for an additional six months.
( d ) After notification by the board of directors of the mutual savings bank or mutual savings association that the conversion has been completed, the NCUA will cancel the insurance certificate of the credit union and, if applicable, the charter of a federal credit union.
[71 FR 77167, Dec. 22, 2006. Redesignated at 75 FR 81386, Dec. 28, 2010, as amended at 84 FR 1607, Feb. 5, 2019]
I, Ramón A. Negrón, of legal age, married, President of the Board of Directors of 

ICPR Junior College, and a resident of San Juan, Puerto Rico, hereby declare, under 

penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC §1746, as follows: 

1. That my name and personal circumstances are as above stated.

2. That I am the President of the Board of Directors of ICPR Junior College and 

also charged with the responsibility of overseeing its operations in a day-today basis.

3. That I have read the Motion Submitting Creditor’s Opposition to Debtor’s 

Objection “Five Hundred Fourteenth,” dated December 20, 2022, and declare 

that every fact therein stated is true and correct.

4. That I was personally involved in the contractual relation between ICPR and 

OGPE and participated in the negotiations leading to the lease agreement, 

and also in the closing of the contract when it was terminated by OGPE in 

June 2014.

5. That OGPE cancelled the contract effective October 1, 2014, meaning that 

once the month began, the rent was due for the whole month. OGPE 

eventually vacated the leased premises during the last week of the month of 

October 2014. This was all done within the time frame of the contract, which 

was originally schedule to end on November 30, 2018.

6. ICPR sent OGPE the corresponding invoice for the rent due for the month of 

October 2014, but it was never paid. Subsequent collection efforts, by mail 

and phone calls were never answered. 

In witness thereof, I, Ramón A. Negrón declare that the statements made above 

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

__________________________

Ramón A. Negrón

President of the Board of Directors

ICPR Junior College

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23429-4 Filed:01/30/23 Entered:01/30/23 10:19:20 Desc:

Exhibit Sworn Statement Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3448 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3448

  To modify the boundaries for a certain empowerment zone designation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 5, 2003

 Mr. Michaud introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To modify the boundaries for a certain empowerment zone designation.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF BOUNDARY OF AROOSTOOK COUNTY EMPOWERMENT 
              ZONE.

    (a) In General.--The Aroostook County empowerment zone, located in 
Aroostook County, Maine, shall include, in addition to the area 
designated as of the date of the enactment of this Act, the remaining 
area of Aroostook County not included in such designation, 
notwithstanding the size requirement of section 1392(a)(3)(A) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the population requirements of 
section 1392(a)(1)(B) of such Code.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect as of the 
effective date of the designation of the Aroostook County empowerment 
zone by the Secretary of Agriculture.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
Thursday, March 25, 1999

Mr. Peter Rogina
President
High Speed Network Solutions, Inc.
1 Waldron Drive
Martinsville, NJ  08836-2201

Dear Pete,

Pursuant to discussions held today between you and Summus, Ltd., we have agreed
to execute an agency agreement between HSNS and Summus Ltd. For purposes of
facilitating negotiations with Samsung. This agency agreement is intended to
address products not incorporated within the Marketing License Agreement with
HSNS has executed and for which Summus is awaiting completion of the first
$750,000 payment. Both this Marketing License agreement and the agency agreement
will be execute before our planned joint trip in April to Samsung in Korea. We
have agreed that the agency agreement will incorporate the following business
terms.

1.       In the event of a conflict between the Marketing License agreement and
         the agency agreement, the Marketing License agreement will have
         precedence.

2.       HSNS will receive an 18% agent's commission on revenues to Summus
         Limited generated, as a result of the negotiations with Samsung, and
         which are note otherwise covered by the Marketing License Agreement.

3.       Summus will not reimburse HSNS for any direct expenses related to its
         participation in these negotiations or for its costs incurred in the
         fulfillment of its responsibilities under the agreement.

4.       The term of the agency agreement will be for 1 year.

5.       The agency agreement will solely relate to discussions with Samsung.

These terms are mutually accepted on behalf of HSNS and Summus by:


Summus, Ltd.                               High Speed Net Solutions, Inc.

/s/ Daniel E. Stansky                      /s/ Peter R. Rogina
---------------------                      --------------------------
Daniel E. Stansky COO                      Peter R. Rogina, President
p. 1


# OAR Box 1781 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 142 ) IV-C-56 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:24

AM Sheet 142 of 142P. 2 A-90-3 7 IV-C-5 6



## NED.A/C.AR

PMeetin g wit h Bil l Harnet t

an dth e NS RGrou p Novembe r

20 , 200 2 1:0 0 p.m . Office o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g & Standard s

Introduction s NS RRulemakin g Package s RMRROption s Schedule s an dNS RTransitio nIssue s Aggregation , Debottlenecking , OD S De Minimis Threshold s FLM s * Stat e Implementatio nSchedule s

\\\D C • 64622/000 1 • 163744 5 v lP. 3

t

1 1 —V * •

Novembe r 20-21 , 200 2 NEDA/CAR PATTENDEE S

Ro y Carwil e ALCOA , Inc
. Ne w York Jerr y Fulme r ALCOA , Inc
. Pennsylvani a Matthe w Fran k

(b y phone ) Boein g Virgini a Kathlee nHennesse y DaimlerChrysle r Michiga n Berni e Paul , NEDA/CAR P Chairma n Barbar aBankof

f Jodi e Mitchel l (b y phone ) El i Lill y Indian a Mat t Tanze r (b y phone ) Genera l Electri c Washington , D.C
.

\\\D C • 64622/000 1 • 163731 5 v l Evely nWilk e Koc hIndustrie s Wichita , K S Rober t Morehous e Willia mPrieb e ExxonMobi l Texa s A l Collin s Occidenta l Petroleu m Washington , D.C
. Ja nLaughli n ConocoPhillip s Texa s Maxin e Dewbur y Procte r & Gambl e Ohi o Lesli e Ritt s NEDA/CAR P Washington , D.C
.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3248 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3248

To amend the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
1965 to make available additional funds to increase access to the arts 
                   through the support of education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 2, 2003

  Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
1965 to make available additional funds to increase access to the arts 
                   through the support of education.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Arts Education Advancement Act of 
2003''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Use of Funds for Elementary and Secondary Education.--Section 
5A(b) of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 954a(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (8) by striking ``and'' at the end,
            (2) in paragraph (9) by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and'', and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(10) increase accessibility to the arts through art 
        education in formal systems of elementary and secondary 
        education.''.
    (b) Availability of Funds.--Section 11(f)(1) of the National 
Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
960(f)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$175,000,000, 50 percent'' and inserting 
        ``$98,000,000, 100 percent'', and
            (2) by adding at the end the following ``Of the aggregate 
        amount made available to carry out section 5A in any fiscal 
        year, 50 percent shall be made available for the use specified 
        in section 5A(b)(10).''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on 
the 1st day of the 1st fiscal year that begins after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40006

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

ARTURO MEZA, also known as Junior, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:98-CR-47-9 

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Arturo Meza, federal prisoner # 07092-078, was convicted by a jury of 

conspiracy and substantive drug offenses involving the distribution of heroin 

and cocaine. He was sentenced to 360 months of imprisonment on five of the 

counts and 240 months of imprisonment on two of the counts. 

Seeking a reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), Meza 

contends that there is an unwarranted disparity between his sentence and that 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fif h Circuit

FILED

August 25, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40006 Document: 00514131569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2017
No. 17-40006

2 

of his brother and co-defendant, who was convicted in the same case and 

received a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. The district court denied Meza’s motion on 

the basis that the guideline amendment did not affect Meza’s guideline range 

because his base offense level was based on the deaths or serious bodily injuries 

that resulted from his heroin distribution, not the quantity of drugs he 

distributed. 

Meza does not address the district court’s determination that he was not 

eligible for a reduction because his offense level was not affected by the 

amendment. Even if he were eligible, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying a reduction for the reason argued by Meza. Meza does 

not allege any facts suggesting that there is an unwarranted sentencing 

disparity among similarly situated defendants. He provides no details of any 

similarities between his and his brother’s offense conduct, criminal records, 

other history, or characteristics. His conclusory assertion that his brother is 

similarly situated fails to show that an unwarranted disparity exists. See 

United States v. Guillermo Balleza, 613 F.3d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 2010). The fact 

that a co-defendant received a sentence reduction does not alone show that the

denial of Meza’s § 3582(c)(2) motion created an unwarranted sentencing 

disparity. See United States v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th Cir. 2010). The 

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Meza’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. 

United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). 

 AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 17-40006 Document: 00514131569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2017
#### § 34.216 Information to be presented to the Appraisal Subcommittee by participating States.

Each State electing to register AMCs for purposes of permitting AMCs to provide appraisal management services relating to covered transactions in the State must submit to the Appraisal Subcommittee the information required to be submitted by Appraisal Subcommittee regulations or guidance concerning AMCs that operate in the State.
# C_2023049EN.01000701.xml

| 9.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/7

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein dated 26 September 2022 in the case of Maximilian Maier

(Case E-12/22)

(2023/C 49/06)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court, dated 26 September 2022, from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (the Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 30 September 2022, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Maximilian Maier on the following question:

Is a national provision, according to which a lawyer, who normally practices his profession in a Member State other than the one in which he obtained his qualification, is not authorised to be appointed as a legal aid lawyer, legal aid defence counsel or public defender, compatible with Directive 98/5/EC (1)?

---

(1)  OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 36.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          10,703
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,213
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,133
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               163,128
<PP&E>                                         376,304
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,399
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 721,889
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,066
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           290
<OTHER-SE>                                     318,083
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   721,889
<SALES>                                        418,534
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               418,534
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  366,323
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,728
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                15,677
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,733
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,483
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,593
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,890
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,890
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34


</TABLE>
#### § 614.4600 Insolvency of an OFI.

If an OFI that is indebted to a Farm Credit Bank or agricultural credit bank becomes insolvent, is in process of liquidation, or fails to service its loans properly, the Farm Credit Bank or agricultural credit bank may take over such loans and other assets that the OFI pledged as collateral. Once the Farm Credit Bank or agricultural credit bank exercises its remedies, it shall have the authority to make additional advances, to grant renewals and extensions, and to take such other actions as may be necessary to collect and service loans to the OFI's borrower. The funding Farm Credit Bank or agricultural credit bank may also liquidate the OFI's loans and other assets in order to achieve repayment of the debt.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR ITS FIRST QUARTER YEAR-TO-DATE OF FISCAL
YEAR 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          19,702
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,605
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,269
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,941
<PP&E>                                         241,733
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 326,076
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,574
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,171
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   326,076
<SALES>                                         26,552
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,552
<CGS>                                           16,130
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,130
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   888
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,706
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,828
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,428
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

Sizewise Rentals, LLC 

Under Contract No. N00183-15-F-1237 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 62000 

Benjamin R. Prell, Esq. 

Geiger Prell 

Overland Park, KS 

Craig D. Jensen, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

Julia P. Hatch, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Fort Detrick, MD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: July 1, 2019 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62000, Appeal of Sizewise Rentals, 

LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
# Official Journal C 336/20 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 336 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6420 August 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 336

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6420 August 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 336/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 336/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### MORGAN *v.*ENGLAND.

Usury does not vitiate contracts in'Ohio — defence at law — neglect don’t give chancery jurisdiction.

Usurious contracts have never been held *void*in Ohio; if they were, the defence of usury would be good at law.

A party neglecting to make his defence at law, will not be permitted, without good cause for the omission, to set it up in chancery.

In Chancery. The complainant having purchased land of the United States, wanted to complete his payments for it, and not haying sufficient money, applied to the_ defendant for a loan for that purpose. It was agreed between them that the defendant should advance two hundred and‘six dollars; take an assignment of the certificate; obtain a patent; and give, his bond to convey to the complainant upon the payment of four hundred dollars; the sum advanced, increased by the interest, trouble and expenses incurred by England. The expenses and amounts- were agreed upon. The money was advanced, and the obligation given. The defendant had sued for the money and recovered judgment at law for the amount due him. Complainant, prays to have this judgment enjoined,’ because the contract was usurious. -

Ewing, for the complainant,

cited numerous authorities.

*Goodenow,*contra,

was stopped,

By the Court.

Usurious' contracts have never been rendered void in Ohio; the authorities cited are applicable to contracts *made*void by the usury laws of other countries, and have no application here. But if otherwise,, the matter set up in the bill might have availed the party at law, if the law made the contract *void,*as contended. Having neglected to make the defence there, he cannot, without excuse, come here .to set it up.

The bill is dismissed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00415-CR

Gilberto CARREON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR3963

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED August 14, 2019.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice