alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 121.652 Landing weather minimums: IFR: All certificate holders. ( a ) If the pilot in command of an airplane has not served 100 hours as pilot in command in operations under this part in the type of airplane he is operating, the MDA or DA/DH and visibility landing minimums in the certificate holder's operations specification for regular, provisional, or refueling airports are increased by 100 feet and one-half mile (or the RVR equivalent). The MDA or DA/DH and visibility minimums need not be increased above those applicable to the airport when used as an alternate airport, but in no event may the landing minimums be less than 300 and 1. However, a Pilot in command employed by a certificate holder conducting operations in large aircraft under part 135 of this chapter, may credit flight time acquired in operations conducted for that operator under part 91 in the same type airplane for up to 50 percent of the 100 hours of pilot in command experience required by this paragraph.
( b ) The 100 hours of pilot in command experience required by paragraph (a) of this section may be reduced (not to exceed 50 percent) by substituting one landing in operations under this part in the type of airplane for 1 required hour of pilot in command experience, if the pilot has at least 100 hours as pilot in command of another type airplane in operations under this part.
( c ) Category II minimums and the sliding scale when authorized in the certificate holder's operations specifications do not apply until the pilot in command subject to paragraph (a) of this section meets the requirements of that paragraph in the type of airplane he is operating.
[Doc. No. 7594, 33 FR 10843, July 31, 1968, as amended by Amdt. 121-143, 43 FR 22642, May 25, 1978; Amdt. 121-253, 61 FR 2615, Jan. 26, 1996; Amdt. 121-333, 72 FR 31682, June 7, 2007]
§ 404.22 Notice of court-ordered and emergency disclosures. ( a ) *Court-ordered disclosures.* When a record pertaining to an individual is required to be disclosed by a court order, the Assistant General Counsel for Administration shall make reasonable efforts to provide notice to the subject individual. Notice shall be given within a reasonable time after Ex-Im Bank's receipt of the order, except that in a case in which the order is not a matter of public record, notice shall be given only after the order becomes public. Such notice shall be mailed to the individual's last known address and shall contain a copy of the order and a description of the information disclosed.
( b ) *Emergency disclosures.* If a record has been disclosed by Ex-Im Bank under compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of any person, then, within ten working days, the Assistant General Counsel for Administration shall notify the subject individual of the disclosure at his or her last known address. The notice of such disclosure shall be in writing and shall state the: ( 1 ) Nature of the information disclosed;
( 2 ) Person, organization or agency to which it was disclosed;
( 3 ) Date of disclosure; and
( 4 ) Compelling circumstances justifying the disclosure.
[64 FR 14374, Mar. 25, 1999. Redesignated at 87 FR 41034, July 11, 2022]
###### Editorial Note on Part 747

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 747 appear at 84 FR 1609, Feb. 5, 2019.

#### § 747.201 Scope.

Under the authority of section 206(b) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1786(b)), the NCUA Board may terminate the insured status of an insured credit union upon the grounds set forth therein and enumerated in § 747.202. The procedure for terminating the insured status of an insured credit union as therein prescribed will be followed and hearings required thereunder will be conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures set forth in this subpart and subpart A of this part. To the extent any rule or procedure of subpart A is inconsistent with a rule or procedure prescribed in this subpart C, subpart C shall control.

[56 FR 37767, Aug. 8, 1991; 57 FR 523, Jan. 7, 1992]
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 87TH DISTRICT COURT OF ANDERSON CO UNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 10th
day of December, 2014 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

ANTHONY GOZDOWSKI , Appellant

NO. 12

- 14

- 00350

- CV; Trial Court No. 87

- 12099

By per curiam opinion.

T.D.C.J.

- I.D., LARRY BERGER, MARK SANDLIN,

MICHAEL ODOM AND PRE STON MAXWELL , Appellee s

was de termined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJU DGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as frivolous ; and that this decision be certified to the court

below for observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the T welfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Se al thereof affixed, at the City of Tyler, this the 7 th day of April, 2015

.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              7
<MULTIPLIER>                           1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1995
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                               266,690
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                              192,989
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                0
<EQUITIES>                                         21,515
<MORTGAGE>                                         0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                     513,170
<CASH>                                             3,570
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                 2,517
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                             17,709
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     735,586
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                    349,259
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                111,184
<POLICY-OTHER>                                     0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                              0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                    0
<COMMON>                                           131
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                         216,391
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       735,586
<PREMIUMS>                                         142,067
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                21,606
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 (23)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     107
<BENEFITS>                                         87,372
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        30,320
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                               14,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    31,095
<INCOME-TAX>                                       8,179
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                22,916
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                       22,916
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      1.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      1.76
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                     263,202
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                87,009
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                  0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                 5,753
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                   57,811
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                    287,532
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                            (885)
        


</TABLE>
#### PERRY *v.*CARNEAL AND WRIGHT.

Promissory note — part payment — discharge of an endorser — liability of the maker — buying peace.

The holder of a note may discharge an endorser to a note, without affecting the liability of prior endorser.

The amount paid by a junior endorser, to buy his peace of the holder, cannot be inquired into, except intended as payment pro tanto on the note, and if so paid, the maker would be liable to the endorser for the amount paid by him, and to the holder of the note for the balance.

Any wrong in the transactions between the holder and endorser, is not to be inquired into between the holder and maker.

In Chancery. The case made is this: The complainant endorsed certain notes, given to him by Dodge, to Spencer, and Spencer endorsed them over to Carneal. Dodge, the maker, failed, and Carneal afterwards agreed with Spencer, for a certain sum, which was paid him, to release him from responsibility, and look only to Perry. Subsequent to this, Carneal and Perry settled, and Perry paid him for the whole of the notes in property and contracts, some of which are now outstanding. The complainant claimed that Carneal was guilty of fraud in not disclosing his transaction with Spencer; that the sum paid by Spencer was in part discharge of the note, of which he had a right to an account, and the benefit, and to have the overplus repaid to him. He prays an injunction against collecting the outstanding contracts.

*Starr, Hammond*and *Chester,*for the complainant.

*King, Storer*and *Fox,*for the defendants.

*198Lane, J.

gave the opinion of the Court. This bill must be dismissed. The holder of a note may release a junior endorser, without affecting his claim against a prior endorser. If the amount paid by Spencer was intended as a payment of the note, the case would be different; but that is not this case. Spencer merely bought his peace. If he made a payment, Perry would still be liable for the whole. lie would not be exonerated from liability on the note, but would have to repay Spencer, whatever sum he paid to Carneal, and stand bound to Carneal for the residue. If there be any thing wrong here, it is between Spencer and Carneal, in which the complainant has no interest.

Bill dismissed.
§ 121.257 Shutoff means. ( a ) Each engine must have a means for shutting off or otherwise preventing hazardous amounts of fuel, oil, deicer, and other flammable fluids from flowing into, within, or through any designated fire zone. However, means need not be provided to shut off flow in lines that are an integral part of an engine.
( b ) The shutoff means must allow an emergency operating sequence that is compatible with the emergency operation of other equipment, such as feathering the propeller, to facilitate rapid and effective control of fires.
( c ) Shutoff means must be located outside of designated fire zones, unless equivalent safety is provided, and it must be shown that no hazardous amount of flammable fluid will drain into any designated fire zone after a shut off.
( d ) Adequate provisions must be made to guard against inadvertent operation of the shutoff means and to make it possible for the crew to reopen the shutoff means after it has been closed.
§ 121.631 Original dispatch or flight release, redispatch or amendment of dispatch or flight release. ( a ) A certificate holder may specify any regular, provisional, or refueling airport, authorized for the type of aircraft, as a destination for the purpose of original dispatch or release.
( b ) No person may allow a flight to continue to an airport to which it has been dispatched or released unless the weather conditions at an alternate airport that was specified in the dispatch or flight release are forecast to be at or above the alternate minimums specified in the operations specifications for that airport at the time the aircraft would arrive at the alternate airport. However, the dispatch or flight release may be amended en route to include any alternate airport that is within the fuel range of the aircraft as specified in §§ 121.639 through 121.647.
( c ) No person may allow a flight to continue beyond the ETOPS Entry Point unless— ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the weather conditions at each ETOPS Alternate Airport required by § 121.624 are forecast to be at or above the operating minima for that airport in the certificate holder's operations specifications when it might be used (from the earliest to the latest possible landing time); and
( 2 ) All ETOPS Alternate Airports within the authorized ETOPS maximum diversion time are reviewed and the flight crew advised of any changes in conditions that have occurred since dispatch.
( d ) If paragraph (c)(1) of this section cannot be met for a specific airport, the dispatch or flight release may be amended to add an ETOPS Alternate Airport within the maximum ETOPS diversion time that could be authorized for that flight with weather conditions at or above operating minima.
( e ) Before the ETOPS Entry Point, the pilot in command for a supplemental operator or a dispatcher for a flag operator must use company communications to update the flight plan if needed because of a re-evaluation of aircraft system capabilities.
( f ) No person may change an original destination or alternate airport that is specified in the original dispatch or flight release to another airport while the aircraft is en route unless the other airport is authorized for that type of aircraft and the appropriate requirements of §§ 121.593 through 121.661 and 121.173 are met at the time of redispatch or amendment of the flight release.
( g ) Each person who amends a dispatch or flight release en route shall record that amendment.
[Doc. No. 628, 29 FR 19222, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121-65, 35 FR 12709, Aug. 11, 1970; Amdt. 121-329, 72 FR 1881, Jan. 16, 2007]
CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The South Financial Group, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
    /s/ James R. Gordon

James R. GordonExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0639

FORWARD MONTANA; LEO GALLAGHER; MONTANA ASSOCIATION OF 

CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; GARY ZADICK,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

V.

STATE OF MONTANA, by and through GREG GIANFORTE, GOVERNOR,

Defendant and Appellees.

On Appeal from the First Judicial District Court, 

Lewis and Clark County, Cause No. ADV-21-611

The Hon. Mike Menahan, Presiding

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 90-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefore, Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including August 29, 2023, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 2 2023

05/02/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0639
# L_2009023EN.01S00301.xml

| 27.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 23/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 23/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
(LOGO)

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

233 South 13th Street, Suite 1600
Lincoln, NE 68508-2041

Two Central Park Plaza
Suite 1501
Omaha, NE 68102

Independent Accountants' Report

The Board of Directors
Farmers State Bank & Trust Co. of Superior:

We have examined management's  assertion about Farmers State Bank & Trust Co. of
Superior's (the Bank) compliance with the minimum servicing  standards set forth
in  the  Mortgage  Bankers  Association  of  America's  (MBA's)  Uniform  Single
Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP),  except For minimum  servicing
standards V.4. and VI.1, which the MBA has interpreted as being  inapplicable to
the servicing of commercial and multi-Family loans, as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1998, included in the accompanying management assertion. Management
is responsible for the Bank's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's  assertion about the
Bank's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test  basis,  evidence  about the  Bank's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on  the  Bank's  compliance  with  the  minimum  servicing
standards.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that  the Bank  has  complied  in all
material respects with the aforementioned  minimum servicing standards as of and
for the year ended December 31, 1998 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

March 17, 1999
SNAP 

This Proposed Rule Making would be extremely 

damaging to small family owned businesses such as 

ours 

There is no economical replacement for blowing agents 

currently in use 

The switch to alternatives would not only raise the cost 

of products but would saddle the walk-in cooler/freezer 

companies, many of which are small privately held 

businesses, such as ours, with huge investments in 

testing and equipment which would put many of us out 

of business 

Further, the cost of our products would rise significantly 

hurting our customers, many of whom are independent 

restaurants and grocery stores 
This ruling should be postponed or delayed until a 

viable alternative blowing agent is commercially 

available 

This proposed rule making may also impact our 

industries ability to comply with the DOE regulations 

recently enacted
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael J. Smith, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
MFC Bancorp Ltd. (the "Company") do hereby certify in connection with the
Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002
(the "Report"), (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) that the
information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

April 16, 2003




/s/ MICHAEL J. SMITH
-----------------------------------
Michael J. Smith
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 79 (Monday, April 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21793-21794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10119]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Human Resource Development; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Human Resource Development 
(1199).
    Date and Time: April 28, 2000, 8 a.m.-3:30 p.m.
    Place: Room 330, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Victor A. Santiago, Program Director, Human 
Rsource Development Division, Room 815, National Science Foundation, 
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 206-1633.

[[Page 21794]]

    Purpose: To provide advice and recommendations concerning 
proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: Review for the HBCU-UP Reverse Site Visit.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters that are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 522b(c), (4) and (6) of 
the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 13, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-10119 Filed 4-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M