alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 50.40 Liquidity coverage shortfall: Supervisory framework. ( a ) *Notification requirements.* A national bank or Federal savings association must notify the OCC on any business day when its liquidity coverage ratio is calculated to be less than the minimum requirement in § 50.10.
( b ) *Liquidity plan.* ( 1 ) For the period during which a national bank or Federal savings association must calculate a liquidity coverage ratio on the last business day of each applicable calendar month under subpart F of this part, if the national bank's or Federal savings association's liquidity coverage ratio is below the minimum requirement in § 50.10 for any calculation date that is the last business day of the applicable calendar month, or if the OCC has determined that the national bank or Federal savings association is otherwise materially noncompliant with the requirements of this part, the national bank or Federal savings association must promptly consult with the OCC to determine whether the national bank or Federal savings association must provide to the OCC a plan for achieving compliance with the minimum liquidity requirement in § 50.10 and all other requirements of this part.
( 2 ) For the period during which a national bank or Federal savings association must calculate a liquidity coverage ratio each business day under subpart F of this part, if a national bank's or Federal savings association's liquidity coverage ratio is below the minimum requirement in § 50.10 for three consecutive business days, or if the OCC has determined that the national bank or Federal savings association is otherwise materially noncompliant with the requirements of this part, the national bank or Federal savings association must promptly provide to the OCC a plan for achieving compliance with the minimum liquidity requirement in § 50.10 and all other requirements of this part.
( 3 ) The plan must include, as applicable: ( i ) An assessment of the national bank's or Federal savings association's liquidity position;
( ii ) The actions the national bank or Federal savings association has taken and will take to achieve full compliance with this part, including: ( A ) A plan for adjusting the national bank's or Federal savings association's risk profile, risk management, and funding sources in order to achieve full compliance with this part; and
( B ) A plan for remediating any operational or management issues that contributed to noncompliance with this part;
( iii ) An estimated time frame for achieving full compliance with this part; and
( iv ) A commitment to report to the OCC no less than weekly on progress to achieve compliance in accordance with the plan until full compliance with this part is achieved.
( c ) *Supervisory and enforcement actions.* The OCC may, at its discretion, take additional supervisory or enforcement actions to address noncompliance with the minimum liquidity standard and other requirements of this part.
#### ANNE McINTYRE v. ORINDA McINTYRE.

Divorce — two years residence — non resident.

A petitioner for a divorce must reside in the state where the petition is filed,and have so resided for two years before.

Diyorce. The petition was filed in August, 1830 — the cause, wilful- absence.

Hubbard,

offered evidence, that the petitioner was a boatman in 1828, and was principally upon the river. When up, he was occasionally at Bridgeport, in this county, at boarding. He removed into Virginia, but came over a short time on account of some difficulty; but his place of residence in 1830, when the petition was filed, was in Vix'ginia.

Bx the Court.

You cannot proceed. The petitioner was not a resident of Ohio when he commenced his proceedings, and had not resided in the state two years before; both of which the law requires.

Bill dismissed.
EXHIBIT D

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20006-7 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 19:49:57 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 1 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20006-7 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 19:49:57 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 2 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20006-7 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 19:49:57 D

Exhibit D Page 3 of 3
# C_2021022EN.01003601.xml

| 21.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/36

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2021/C 22/06)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 14.10.2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85638 |
| Decision No | 117/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title | COVID-19 Renewal and amendment of the compensation scheme for the cancellation or postponement of sports and volunteer events. |
| Legal basis | The regulation on a temporary compensation scheme for the voluntary and sports sector following the COVID-19 outbreak. |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | The objective of the scheme is to compensate for eligible losses caused by the cancellation or postponement of sports and volunteer events to combat the spread of the COVID-19 virus. |
| Form of aid | Grants |
| Budget | NOK 1 billion |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2020 |
| Economic sectors | Sport and voluntary sector |
| Name and address of the granting authority | The Norwegian Gaming and Foundation Authority |
| P.O.Box 800 |
| NO-6805 Førde |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

14.10.2020

Case No

85638

Decision No

117/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title

COVID-19 Renewal and amendment of the compensation scheme for the cancellation or postponement of sports and volunteer events.

Legal basis

The regulation on a temporary compensation scheme for the voluntary and sports sector following the COVID-19 outbreak.

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

The objective of the scheme is to compensate for eligible losses caused by the cancellation or postponement of sports and volunteer events to combat the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

Form of aid

Grants

Budget

NOK 1 billion

Duration

Until 31.12.2020

Economic sectors

Sport and voluntary sector

Name and address of the granting authority

The Norwegian Gaming and Foundation Authority

P.O.Box 800

NO-6805 Førde

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
§ 623.7 Proceeding under this part. ( a ) *Rules.* All hearings required or permitted to be held under paragraphs (a) and (c) of § 623.4 of this part shall be held before a presiding officer utilizing the procedures established in the rules of practice and procedure under part 622, subpart A.
( b ) *Closed hearings.* All hearings held under this part shall be closed to the public unless the Board directs otherwise on its own motion or upon the request of a party.
( c ) *Collateral proceedings.* Any proceeding brought under any section of this part shall not preclude a proceeding under any other section of this part or any other part of the FCA's regulations.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1902

WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, et al.; TIM KAINE, Governor; J. KIRK DE COURCEY SHOWALTER; VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES VAN INGOLD; ROBERT A. DYBING,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00800-REP)

Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: December 1, 2009

Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wesley Edward Smith, III, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Robert A. Dybing, John Adrian Gibney, Jr., THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Wesley Edward Smith, III, appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his civil complaint and denying leave to amend

the complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. Smith v. Virginia , No. 3:08-cv-00800-REP

(E.D. Va. July 16, 2009). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          69,999
<SECURITIES>                                    64,200
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,016
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               174,054
<PP&E>                                       2,993,049
<DEPRECIATION>                                 705,480
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,499,053
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,509
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,499,053
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               414,357
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  263,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             108,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,836
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
§ 715.10 Audit report and working paper maintenance and access. ( a ) *Audit report.* Upon completion and/or receipt of the written report of a financial statement audit or a supervisory committee audit, the Supervisory Committee must verify that the audit was performed and reported in accordance with the terms of the engagement letter prescribed herein. The Supervisory Committee must submit the report(s) to the board of directors, and provide a summary of the results of the audit to the members of the credit union orally or in writing at the next annual meeting of the credit union. If a member so requests, the Supervisory Committee shall provide the member access to the full audit report. If the NCUA so requests, the Supervisory Committee shall provide NCUA a copy of each of the audit reports it receives or produces.
( b ) *Working papers.* The supervisory committee shall be responsible for preparing and maintaining, or making available, a complete set of original working papers supporting each supervisory committee audit. The supervisory committee shall, upon request, provide NCUA staff unconditional access to such working papers, either at the offices of the credit union or at a mutually agreeable location, for purposes of inspecting such working papers.
[64 FR 41035, July 29, 1999, as amended at 84 FR 1607, Feb. 5, 2019]
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 336

To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation 

Act of 2001 with respect to the expansion of the adoption credit and 

adoption assistance programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2003

Mr. CAMP (for himself, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, and Mr. ROGERS

of Michigan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the expansion 

of the adoption credit and adoption assistance programs.

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

•HR 336 IH 

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF APPLICABILITY OF SUNSET OF THE 

2 ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF REC3 ONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 WITH RESPECT TO 

4 ADOPTION CREDIT AND ADOPTION ASSIST5 ANCE PROGRAMS. 

6 Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

7 Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the 

8 end the following new subsection: 

9 ‘‘(c) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 

10 the amendments made by section 202 (relating to expan11 sion of adoption credit and adoption assistance pro12 grams).’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             109,380  
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,524,566
<ALLOWANCES>                                       132,930
<INVENTORY>                                      5,894,470
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,110,353
<PP&E>                                          13,141,309
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,025,416
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,947,904
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,658,900
<BONDS>                                          5,446,666
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               605
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,731,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,947,904
<SALES>                                         11,706,633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,901,677
<CGS>                                            7,991,806
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,696,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (30,485)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 728,426
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    507,736
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       507,736
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.09
                                        


</TABLE>
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2303-1 Filed:01/29/18 Entered:01/29/18 21:24:07 Desc:Exhibit ADeclaration of Nelson Morales Rivera in Support of PREPAs First O Page 1 of 4Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2303-1 Filed:01/29/18 Entered:01/29/18 21:24:07 Desc:Exhibit ADeclaration of Nelson Morales Rivera in Support of PREPAs First O Page 2 of 4Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2303-1 Filed:01/29/18 Entered:01/29/18 21:24:07 Desc:Exhibit ADeclaration of Nelson Morales Rivera in Support of PREPAs First O Page 3 of 4Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2303-1 Filed:01/29/18 Entered:01/29/18 21:24:07 Desc:Exhibit ADeclaration of Nelson Morales Rivera in Support of PREPAs First O Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1
                             COMPUTATION OF RATIOS


The ratio of earnings to fixed charges for the periods indicated below were as
follows:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           FIFTY-THREE    FIFTY-TWO     FIFTY-TWO     FORTY-FOUR    FIFTY-TWO
                                                           WEEKS ENDED   WEEKS ENDED   WEEKS ENDED   WEEKS ENDED   WEEKS ENDED
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            AUGUST 31     AUGUST 30     AUGUST 29       JULY 3        JULY 1
                                                              1996           1997          1998          1999          2000
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------


<S>                                                        <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                            -----          1.09         -----          1.01

Deficiency in the coverage of fixed charges by earnings      $2,034         -----        $8,057         -----        $15,632
</TABLE>

For purposes of calculating the above ratios, earnings are defined as income
before income taxes and extraordinary items, plus fixed charges. Fixed charges
consists of interest expense on all indebtedness, amortization of deferred
financing costs, and one-third of rental expense on operating leases
representing that portion of rental expense deemed by the Company to be
attributable to interest. The ratio of earnings to fixed charges equals earnings
divided by fixed charges.
#### Leona Luth *vs.*Joseph Butwill.

Maltbie, C. J., Haines, Banks, Avery and Jennings, Js.

Argued December 4th, 1934

—decided January 21st, 1935.

*John E. Whalen,*with whom, on the brief, was *Michael V. Blansfield,*for the appellant (defendant).

*John F. McDonough for*the appellee (plaintiff).

Pee Curiam.

This was an action for assault, brought by a tenant against her landlord, tried to the court and resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff on January 23d, 1934. No further action was taken until February, 22d, 1934, when a “Motion to set aside Judgment” was filed. This was denied February 28th, 1934. Subsequently, a motion for an extension of time to appeal from the judment having been denied, two motions for extension of time to appeal from the denial of the motion to set aside the judgment were filed and granted and the appeal was finally filed March 24th, 1934, from the denial of the motion to set aside the judgment and the refusal to extend the time for taking an appeal from the judgment. As to the latter ground, the record is barren of any facts indicating that the trial court abused its discretion. No appeal from the final judgment was taken.

*698■ It follows that the certification of the evidence in support of the appeal from the judgment taken at the trial of the original action serves no purpose and may not be considered by us.

The basis of the motion to set aside the judgment was that the defendant could produce certain additional evidence, summarized in it, relevant to the issues in the case. When the motion came on for hearing, no witnesses were produced and the case was argued upon the allegations of the motion. The production of witnesses in support of the newly discovered evidence was necessary unless their testimony was formally admitted. *Gannon*v. *State,*75 Conn. 576, 578, 54 Atl. 199; *State*v. *Goldberger,*118 Conn. 444, 456, 173 Atl. 216. Under these circumstances there was no basis upon which the trial court could properly make a finding. No issue of law was made as to the sufficiency of the allegations and the record affords no basis upon which we can review the denial of the motion. If we were to treat the proceeding as presenting an issue as to the sufficiency of the allegations as matter of law, we would have to sustain the conclusion of the trial court because it does not appear from them that the defendant could not, by the use of due diligence, have produced the alleged newly discovered evidence at the trial. This in itself would justify the denial of the motion. *Meriden*v. *Rogers,*111 Conn. 115, 149 Atl. 406.

There is no error.
#### § 8.36 Issuance of coverage under section 1922B of title 38 U.S.C. following additional elections.

An insured who elects less than the maximum amount of VALife coverage under 38 U.S.C. 1922B(a)(4)(A) shall remain eligible to purchase additional VALife coverage up to the VALife statutory maximum. Any insured who elects to apply for additional VALife coverage shall be subject to the two-year waiting period imposed by 38 U.S.C. 1922B(c)(2) before such additional VALife coverage is in force.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1901-1929, 1981-1988)

(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection provisions in this section under control number 2900-0906.)

[87 FR 73654, Dec. 1, 2022]
§ 347.108 Portfolio investments. ( a ) *Portfolio investments.* If a bank, directly or indirectly, acquires or holds an equity interest in a foreign organization as a portfolio investment and the foreign organization is not controlled, directly or indirectly, by the bank or its affiliates: ( 1 ) No more than 10 percent of either the consolidated assets or revenues of the foreign organization may be attributable to activities that are not permissible under § 347.105(b); and
( 2 ) Any loans or extensions of credit made by the bank and its affiliates to the foreign organization must be on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the same time for comparable transactions between the bank or its affiliates and nonaffiliated organizations.
( b ) *Portfolio investment defined.* For purposes of this section, the term “portfolio investment” means an investment in an organization in which less than 20 percent of the voting equity interests, in the aggregate, are directly or indirectly held by a bank or its affiliates.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                    $   412,823
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,811,007
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            2,398,074
<PP&E>                                     16,123,560
<DEPRECIATION>                              6,794,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             11,880,781
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       5,216,042
<BONDS>                                     1,064,394
<COMMON>                                    3,021,833
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                   341,670
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,598,543)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               11,880,781
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            6,691,634
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               5,705,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              462,450
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               523,670
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           523,670
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  523,670
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .10
        

</TABLE>