alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 255/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 255 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 576 August 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 255

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 576 August 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 255/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7306 — Triton / GEA Heat Exchanger Business) (1) | 1 |
| 2014/C 255/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7324 — ACS/CLECE) (1) | 1 |
| 2014/C 255/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7308 — Atos/Bull) (1) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 255/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7306 — Triton / GEA Heat Exchanger Business) (1)

1

2014/C 255/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7324 — ACS/CLECE) (1)

1

2014/C 255/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7308 — Atos/Bull) (1)

2

---

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2014/C 255/04 | Opinion of the European Central Bank of 21 May 2014 on a proposal for a regulation on money market funds (CON/2014/36) | 3 |

III   Preparatory acts

European Central Bank

2014/C 255/04

Opinion of the European Central Bank of 21 May 2014 on a proposal for a regulation on money market funds (CON/2014/36)

3

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 255/05 | Euro exchange rates | 15 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 255/05

Euro exchange rates

15

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 255/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7318 — Rosneft/Morgan Stanley Global Oil Merchanting Unit) (1) | 16 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2014/C 255/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7318 — Rosneft/Morgan Stanley Global Oil Merchanting Unit) (1)

16

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
Editorial Note on Part 741
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 741 appear at 84 FR 1608, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 741.204 Maximum public unit and nonmember accounts, and low-income designation. Any credit union that is insured, or that makes application for insurance, pursuant to title II of the Act must: ( a ) Adhere to the requirements of § 701.32 of this chapter regarding public unit and nonmember accounts, provided it has the authority to accept such accounts.
( b ) Obtain a low-income designation in order to accept nonmember accounts, other than from public units or other credit unions, provided it has the authority to accept such accounts under state law. The state regulator shall make the low-income designation with the concurrence of NCUA. The designation will be made and reviewed by the state regulator on the same basis as that provided in § 701.34(a) of this chapter for federal credit unions. Removal of the designation by the state regulator for such credit unions shall be with the concurrence of NCUA.
( c ) Follow the requirements of § 702.414 of this chapter for any Grandfathered Secondary Capital (as defined in part 702 of this chapter).
[60 FR 58504, Nov. 28, 1995, as amended at 61 FR 3792, Feb. 2, 1996; 71 FR 4240, Jan. 26, 2006; 78 FR 4032, Jan. 18, 2013; 84 FR 58309, Oct. 31, 2019; 85 FR 62213, Oct. 2, 2020; 86 FR 11085, Feb. 23, 2021; 86 FR 72809, Dec. 23, 2021]
#### Stinson *v.*The State.

*Larceny.*

(Decided January 22, 1914.

64 South. 507.)

*Ohari/e of Court; Bias of Witnesses.*— A charge asserting that if any of the state’s witnesses have exhibited prejudice or anger against defendant, and satisfied you that they had not testified truly, and are not worthy of belief, and you think their testimony should be disregarded, you may disregard it entirely, states a correct proposition of law, and not being abstract under the evidence in this case, was erroneously refused.

Appeal from Shelby County Court.

Heard before Hon.. E. S. Lyman.

Furman Stinson was convicted of petit larceny, and appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Charge 1 is as follows: “The court charges the jury that if any of the state’s witnesses.have exhibited prejudice or anger against defendant, and satisfied you that they have not testified truly, and are not worthy of belief, and you think their testimony should be disregarded, you may disregard it altogether.”

Riddle & Ellis, for appellant.

Counsel discuss exceptions to evidence with citation of authority, but in view of the opinion it is not deemed necessary to here set them out. They insist that charge 1 should have been given on the following authorities, as under the evidence in this case, it was not *abstract.*— Adams *v. State,*57 South. 591; *Jackson v. State,*57 South. 596; *Naugher v. State,*60 South. 459.

R. C. Brickell, Attorney. General, and T. H. Seay, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

So far as the record is concerned charges 1 and 2 were abstract and properly *refused.*— Jackson *v. State,*57 South. 594.

*111PELHAM, J.

Charge No. 1 reqested in writing by the defendant and refused by the court is not covered by any written charge given at the instance of the defendant, and states a correct legal proposition as applied to the evidence in the case — that is, it is not abstract — and the principle it asserts has often been approved, more than once in the exact language of this *charge.*— Adams *v. State,*175 Ala. 8, 57 South. 591; *Naugher v. State,*6 Ala. App. 3, 60 South. 458; *Hammond v. State,*147 Ala. 79, 41 South. 761; *Burkett v. State,*154 Ala. 19, 45 South. 682; *Chestnutt v. State,*7 Ala. App. 72, 61 South. 609.

There are other refused charges set out in the bill of exceptions, some of them embodying the same, or practically the same, proposition as charge No. 1; but we do not deem it necessary to discuss these charges or the ruling on the evidence, as they are not matters that will probably enter into another trial.

For the error pointed out, in refusing to give the charge discussed, the judgment of the trial .court must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01230**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 01230\01230_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 01230\01230_Completeness_Checklist.XLS EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 01230\01230_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 01230\01230_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 01230\Certification Statement Plant ID_01230.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 01230\Supporting Documentation\01230_2009-10-16 TCEQ Confirm Void Stnd Permit.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 01230\Supporting Documentation\01230_2010-04-19 Bates Water Conservation Report-signed.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01230\Supporting Documentation\01230_Part A.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 01230\Supporting Documentation\JL Bates Letter of Inoperation_01230.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
EXHIBIT 21.1



Significant Subsidiaries of the Registrant



The following are significant subsidiaries of Knight Capital Group, Inc. as of December 31, 2009 and the states in
which they are organized. Indentation indicates the principal parent of each subsidiary. Except as otherwise specified, in each case Knight Capital Group, Inc. owns, directly or indirectly, at least 99% of the voting securities of each subsidiary.
The names of particular subsidiaries have been omitted because, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, they would not constitute, as of December 31, 2009, a significant subsidiary as that term is defined in Rule 1-02(w)
of Regulation S-X under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



|                                   |  |                
|---------------------------------- |  | ---------------
|Name                               |  | State of Entity
|Knight Capital Group, Inc.         |  | Delaware       
|Knight Capital Holdings LLC        |  | Delaware       
|Knight Securities General, Inc.    |  | Delaware       
|Knight Securities Operations, Inc. |  | Delaware       
|Knight Equity Markets, L.P.        |  | Delaware       
|Knight Capital Markets LLC         |  | Delaware       
|Knight Clearings Services LLC      |  | Delaware       
|Knight Direct LLC                  |  | Delaware       
|Knight Libertas Holdings LLC       |  | Delaware       
|Knight Libertas LLC                |  | Delaware       
|Knight Capital Europe Limited      |  | United Kingdom 
|Knight Capital Asia Limited        |  | Hong Kong      
|Knight Quantitative Trading LLC    |  | Delaware       
|Hotspot FX Holdings, Inc.          |  | Delaware       
|Hotspot FX LLC                     |  | New Jersey     
|ValuBond, Inc.                     |  | Georgia        
|Knight BondPoint, Inc.             |  | Georgia        



1
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-2225

___________________________ Liam Lefebvre lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Washington University in St. Louis lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ Submitted: April 30, 2024 Filed: May 6, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, SMITH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Liam Lefebvre appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his breach-of-contract claims in this diversity action against Washington University in St. Louis. Upon

1 The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.careful review, we conclude that Lefebvre failed to adequately allege a breach-ofcontract claim under Missouri law. See Du Bois v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 987 F.3d 1199, 1202 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny Lefebvre’s motion to file his reply brief out of time.

______________________________

-2-
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128746 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128746 

 COA: 255581 

Monroe CC: 03-033079-FH 

ROBERTO VELEZ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 12, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–012 2016

114th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 114–88 

DESIGNATION OF FUNDING FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

DESIGNATION OF FUNDING FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH 

SEC. 6 OF THE CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2016 

JANUARY 5, 2016.—Referred to the Committee on Appropriations and 

ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HDOCE:\Seals\Congress.#13

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HDOC
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, December 18, 2015. 

Hon. PAUL D. RYAN, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 6 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (the ‘‘Act’’), I hereby designate for 

Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism all 

funding (including the rescission of funds) and contributions from 

foreign governments so designated by the Congress in the Act pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, as outlined in the 

enclosed list of accounts. 

The details of this action are set forth in the enclosed memorandum from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 

Sincerely, 

BARACK OBAMA. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HDOC
2 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HDOCInsert graphic folio 3 HD88.001
3 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HDOCInsert graphic folio 4 HD88.002
4 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HDOCInsert graphic folio 5 HD88.003
5 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HDOCInsert graphic folio 6 HD88.004
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 2167

JANICE ROBINSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Raymond Mabus, Secretary , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 7:15

- cv
- 00004

- H )

Submitted : June 22, 2017 Decided: June 26, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS , Circuit Judges. *

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Janice Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Roberto Francisco Ramirez, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

* The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2012).2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit.3 PER CURIAM:
Janice Robinson appeals the district court’s order dismissing her employment discrimination complaint . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Robi nson v. Dep’t of the Navy, No. 7:15

- cv
- 00004

- H (E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 31, 2016 & entered Sept. 1, 2016)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would no t aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 121.301 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes instrument and equipment requirements for all certificate holders.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 82 (Thursday, April 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 24688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10472]



[[Page 24688]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP98-117-012]


Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas; Transmission LLC; Notice of Filing 
of Refund Report

April 21, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 18, 2000, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas 
Transmission LLC (KMIGT) tendered for filing its Refund Report in 
Docket Nos. RP98-117, et al.
    KMIGT states that this report is being filed in compliance with 
Article VI of the Offer of Settlement and Stipulation and Agreement 
(Settlement( which was filed in the above referenced proceeding and 
approved by a Commission Letter Order issued December 22, 1999 (89 FERC 
para. 61,323). KMIGT states that the refund was distributed by KMIGT on 
March 20, 2000, and is applicable to the period August 1, 1998, through 
December 31, 1999. All customers receiving refunds were served with 
calculations supporting their individual refunds. The refund was 
calculated pursuant to the provisions of Article VI of the Settlement.
    KMIGT states that Appendix A of the Refund Report contains a 
summary of the refunds by shipper, service and contract for the refund 
period. Appendix B of the refund report contains detailed calculations 
supporting the determination of refunds for each individual shipper.
    In light of the fact that each shipper receiving refunds was served 
with detailed calculations supporting their individual refunds, and 
given the voluminous nature of the shipper-specific information 
contained in Appendix B of the Refund Report, KMIGT states that only 
the letter and the summary information contained in Appendix A of this 
Refund Report has been served upon all affected customers of KMIGT and 
applicable state agencies.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before April 28, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-10472 Filed 4-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6626

RICHARD HOWARD BEALL, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. GOVERNOR LAWRENCE HOGAN; 2 EAST STAFF; PAUL VINCE; TOM LEWIS; DIRECTOR ROBINSON; ADAM HOCKNER, Witness Defendant; JENAVIVE; PETER IKE; PETER , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. George Jarrod Hazel , District Judge. ( 8:17

- cv
- 00340

- GJH )

Submitted : July 2 7 , 2017 Decided: August 1, 2017

Before AGEE and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Richard Howard Beall, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Richard Howard Beall, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s prior order directing him to file an amended complaint particularizing hi s claims.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Beall v. Hogan , No. 8:17

- cv
- 00340

- GJH (D. Md. filed May 2, 2017 & entered May 3, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
§ 615.5000 General responsibilities. ( a ) The System banks, acting through the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation (Funding Corporation), have the primary responsibility for obtaining funds for the lending operations of the System institutions.
( b ) The System's funding operations have a significant impact upon the investment community, the general public, and the national economy in both the volume and the manner by which funds are raised. The Farm Credit Administration supervises compliance with the statutory collateral requirements for the debt obligations issued. The Chairman of the Farm Credit Administration, under policies adopted by the Board, consults with the Secretary of the Treasury concerning the System's funding activities, pursuant to section 5.10 of the Act.
[54 FR 1158, Jan. 12, 1989]
###### Editorial Note on Part 741

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 741 appear at 84 FR 1608, Feb. 5, 2019.

#### § 741.210 Central liquidity facility.

Any credit union which is insured pursuant to title II of the Act and is a member of the Central Liquidity Facility, shall adhere to the requirements stated in part 725 of this chapter.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

so! 133040"

BULLETIN 1031
PLATE 7

seo
10

ee ae
t+ ot + t+ + FF 44+

4 A + sanoe DAMSITE_
Life + for + +
i a i re a ee
RIRST LAKE 4 4 pH
4S 234 5H tt

>

ws 1022

ee
Mex

_

ea
+ wf SPEEL RIVER (SITE
+ /
+ AS
+ oF a
Ean ee: )

+
First gorge

+ +
Shy: -
a > a
>
Bot + + +
N

Third gorge +

si
igh rs

Fluvial deposits

__ Mostly glacial outwash
\

\

Alluvium and unconsolidated glacial deposits
/n part covered by forest growth and muskeg

+ +
+ +

Quartz diorite
With varying amounts of hornblend and biotite

Contact
Dashed where approximately located

Lineament
Dashed where approximately located, dotted where concealed

———

Proposed tunnel route and powerhousé site

as]

Alternate tunnel route and powerhouse site

=>
Strike and dip of joint

58°
10

+ 2
| a & /
/ Y \ - 4 E < Strike and ani 7
yo z| rike and dip of vertical joint
a. PM 2)
SS) 3| &
© ( Wg ee
ie Strike and dip of foliation
NN APPROXIMATE MEAN
arr ec ,
Base mop from Plan, Long Lake, Crater Lake, and vicinity, DECLINATION, 1961 ~
Alaska, Sheet |, and from_U. S. Geological Survey ie
topographic quadrangles Taku River A-5 and A-6
Forest growth and musk
Geology by John Charles Miller, assisted by D. K. Fowler , are
and J. B Dugwyler, Jr, 1952
ats
30" 133°40° INTERIOR—GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. WASHINGTON, D. C. —61184

GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE MAP OF CRATER LAKE, LONG LAKE,
AND SPEEL RIVER POWERSITES NEAR JUNEAU, ALASKA

2000 ie) 2000 4000 6000

8000 FEET
=I

CONTOUR INTERVAL 1000 FEET
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
Consent of Independent Auditors', Deloitte & Touche LLP



 
 
EXHIBIT 10(i) 
 
  INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT 
  
 To the Board of Directors of 
 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company 
  
 We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 7 to Registration Statement No. 333-45039 on Form N-4 of our report dated February 17, 2003 for the Massachusetts Mutual Variable Annuity Separate Account
4 — Panorama Premier Segment, and of our report dated March 6, 2003, on Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (which report on Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory
paragraphs referring to the use of statutory accounting practices and the adoption, effective January 1, 2001, of certain statutory accounting practices as a result of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Insurance’s adoption of the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual, which practices differ from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America) appearing in the Statement of Additional
Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in such Statement of Additional Information. 
  
 Deloitte & Touche LLP 
  
 Hartford, Connecticut 
 April 24, 2003