alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 652.30 Interest rate risk management. ( a ) The board of directors of Farmer Mac must provide effective oversight (direction, controls, and supervision) of interest rate risk management and must be knowledgeable of the nature and level of interest rate risk taken by Farmer Mac.
( b ) The board of directors of Farmer Mac must adopt an interest rate risk management policy that establishes appropriate interest rate risk exposure limits based on the Corporation's risk-bearing capacity and reporting requirements in accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. At least annually, the board of directors, or a designated committee of the board, must review the policy. Any changes to the policy must be approved by the board of directors. You must report any changes to the policy to the OSMO within 10 business days of adoption.
( c ) The interest rate risk management policy must, at a minimum: ( 1 ) Address the purpose and objectives of interest rate risk management;
( 2 ) Identify the causes of interest rate risk and set appropriate quantitative limits consistent with a clearly articulated board risk tolerance;
( 3 ) Require management to establish and implement comprehensive procedures to measure the potential effect of these risks on the Corporation's projected earnings and market values by conducting interest rate stress tests and simulations of multiple economic scenarios at least quarterly. Your stress tests must gauge how interest rate fluctuations affect the Corporation's capital, earnings, and liquidity position. The methodology that you use must be appropriate for the complexity of the structure and cash flows of your on- and off-balance sheet positions, including the nature and purpose of derivative contracts, and establish counterparty risk thresholds and limits for derivatives. It must also ensure an appropriate level of consistency with the stress-test scenarios considered under § 652.10(f)(4). Assumptions applied in stress tests must, to the maximum extent practicable, rely on verifiable information. You must document the basis for all assumptions that you use.
( 4 ) Describe and authorize management to implement actions needed to achieve Farmer Mac's desired risk management objectives;
( 5 ) Ensure procedures are established to evaluate and document, at least quarterly, whether actions taken have actually met the Corporation's desired risk management objectives;
( 6 ) Identify exception parameters and approvals needed for any exceptions to the policy's requirements;
( 7 ) Describe delegations of authority; and,
( 8 ) Describe reporting requirements, including exceptions to policy limits.
( d ) At least quarterly, management must report to the Corporation's board of directors, or a designated committee of the board, describing the nature and level of interest rate risk exposure. Any deviations from the board's policy on interest rate risk must be specifically identified in the report and approved by the board, or a designated committee of the board.
APPENDIX A 

Reserved for Response to Comments Between DSEIS 

and FSEIS 

 
DSEIS APPENDIX A Page A-1 

Response to Comments – July 2011 DSEIS 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

This Page is Intentionally Left Blank
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24185-2 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 16:27:17 D

Envelope Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
      32





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ridgewood Electric Power
      Trust V (the “Trust”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each
      of the undersigned officers of the Trust hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.








/s/
                Randall D. HolmesName:
            Randall
                D. HolmesTitle:
            Chief
                Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)Dated:
            January
                18, 2008








/s/
                Jeffrey H. StrasbergName:
            Jeffrey
                H. StrasbergTitle:
            Executive
                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)Dated:
            January
                18, 2008
§ 121.93 Route requirements: General. ( a ) Each certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations seeking a route approval must show— ( 1 ) That it is able to conduct satisfactorily scheduled operations between each regular, provisional, and refueling airport over that route or route segment; and
( 2 ) That the facilities and services required by §§ 121.97 through 121.107 are available and adequate for the proposed operation. The Administrator approves a route outside of controlled airspace if he determines that traffic density is such that an adequate level of safety can be assured.
( b ) Paragraph (a) of this section does not require actual flight over a route or route segment if the certificate holder shows that the flight is not essential to safety, considering the availability and adequacy of airports, lighting, maintenance, communication, navigation, fueling, ground, and airplane radio facilities, and the ability of the personnel to be used in the proposed operation.
[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19194, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121-3, 30 FR 3638, Mar. 19, 1965; Amdt. 121-253, 61 FR 2610, Jan. 26, 1996]
**Exhibit 32.1****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**     I, Montgomery Bannerman, Chief Executive Officer of Verso Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”),do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30,2006 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and  2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: August 18, 2006              /s/Montgomery Bannerman   Montgomery Bannerman,   Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23.2
INDEPENDENT  AUDITORS'  CONSENT

     We  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  of  Innodata  Corporation  on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-85530,
dated  October  21,  1994 and Registration No. 333-3466, dated April 11, 1996)
and  on  Form  S-3  (Registration  No.  333-3464, dated April 11, 1996) of our
report  dated March 14, 1997, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
Innodata  Corporation  for  the  year  ended  December  31,  1997.

Margolin,  Winer  &  Evens  LLP
Garden  City,  New  York
March  23,  1998
<PAGE>


                                 EXHIBIT (10)(b)

                         OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY

<PAGE>

                [Transamerica Life Insurance Company Letterhead]

April 7, 2003

Transamerica Life Insurance Company
4333 Edgewood Road NE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa  52499-0001

Re:      Flexible Premium Variable Annuity - A
         Separate Account VA P
         Registration on Form N-4

Dear Sir/Madam:

With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents
and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the
basis of such examination, have the following opinions:

Fees and charges deducted under the Flexible Premium Variable Annuity - A
policies are those deemed necessary to appropriately reflect:

(1)      the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the
         policies,

(2)      the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the
         policies,

(3)      the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and
         management of the policies and/or riders to the policy and that
         provides for a reasonable margin of profit.

Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the variable account
include:

(i)      Service Charge and Administrative Charge

(ii)     Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M&E)

(iii)    Taxes (including premium and other taxes if applicable)

(iv)     Surrender Charges

(v)      Any applicable rider fees or charges

<PAGE>

Transamerica Life Insurance Company
April 7, 2003
Page 2




The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through
(v) is established in the pricing of the Flexible Premium Variable Annuity - A,
to achieve a reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is within the range of
industry practice with respect to comparable variable annuity products.

Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a
given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred. Acquisition expenses
(as well as major product and/or systems development expenses) are incurred "up
front" and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years'
charges. In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the
policies in the pricing process.

Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the policies, in
the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses
expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company.

I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to
the registration statement.




/s/ Gene Hauser
------------------------------------------
R. Gene Hauser
Associate Actuary
Transamerica Life Insurance Company
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ DONALD W. MACPHERSON, Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee.

__________________________ 2012-7086

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in case no. 08-3660, Judge Mary J. Schoelen.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ O R D E R Donald W. MacPherson move s without opposition for a 63-day extension of time to file his reply brief. Upon consideration thereof, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Case: 12-7086 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 12/07/2012DONALD MACPHERSON v. SHINSEKI 2 The motion is granted. Mr. MacPherson’s reply brief is due March 1, 2013. F OR T HE C OURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s27 Case: 12-7086 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 12/07/2012
**Exhibit 21**

 

The following entities aresubsidiaries of the Company as of December 31, 2002:

 

Horizon Group Properties, L.P.

Third HGI, Inc.

Third HGI, L.L.C.

Third Horizon Group LimitedPartnership

ThirdHorizon Roseville LLC

Daleville,Sommerset, Tulare Finance Company, Inc.

Daleville,Sommerset, Tulare Outlet Centers, L.P.

Gretna,Sealy, Traverse City Finance Company, Inc.

Gretna,Sealy, Traverse City Outlet Centers, L.L.C.

LakeshoreMarketplace Finance Company, Inc.

LakeshoreMarketplace, LLC

HollandOutlet Center, LLC

HollandOutlet Center Finance Company, Inc.

LaughlinFinance Company, Inc.

LaughlinHoldings LLC

LaughlinOutlet Center LLC

MedfordFinance Company, Inc.

MedfordHoldings LLC

MedfordOutlet Center LLC

WarrentonFinance Company, Inc.

WarrentonHoldings LLC

WarrentonOutlet Center LLC

 

----
#### HOFFMAN V. MARSH HABERDASHER CO.

(Decided November 13, 1913.)

Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Samuel B. Browne.

No counsel marked for appellant. Sullivan & Stall-worth, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 84 (Monday, May 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 25416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10712]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA; Joint RTCA Special Committee 181/EUROCAE Working Group 13 
Standards of Navigation Performance

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a 
joint Special Committee 181/EUROCAE Working Group 13 meeting to be held 
May 15-19, 2000, starting at 9 a.m. The meeting will be held at the 
Northwest Airlines Training Facility (NATCO), 2600 Lone Oak Point, 
Eagan, MN 55121. The host, Mr. Frank Alexander, may be reached at (602) 
436-7268 (phone).
    The agenda will be as follows: May 15: (1) Working Group (WG)-4. 
May 16: (2) WG-4 continues; (3) WG-1 begins. May 17: (4) WG-1 and WG-4 
continue meeting separately. May 18: Plenary convenes; (5) Introductory 
Remarks; (6) Working Group Reports; (7) Review of DO-236A and Moving 
Map Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS). May 19: (8) 
Plenary Review of DO-236A and Moving Map MOPS continues; (9) New 
Business (Cold Temperature Addendum to DO-236A); (10) Date and Location 
of Next Meeting; (11) New Business; (12) Closing.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 
833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org (web 
site). Members of the public may present a written statement to the 
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 24, 2000.
Jane P. Caldwell,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 00-10712 Filed 4-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
§ 708a.307 Certification of vote on merger proposal. ( a ) The board of directors of the merging credit union must certify the results of the membership vote to the Regional Director within 14 calendar days after the vote is taken.
( b ) The certification must also include a statement that the notice, ballot, and other written materials provided to members were identical to those submitted to NCUA pursuant to § 708a.305. If the board cannot certify this, the board must provide copies of any new or revised materials and an explanation of the reasons for any changes.
( c ) The certification must include copies of any correspondence between the credit union and other regulators related to the pending merger.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 356

To nullify the effect of certain provisions of various Executive orders. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2003

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

Committee on International Relations 

A BILL

To nullify the effect of certain provisions of various Executive 

orders.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Terrorist Elimination 

5 Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that—

8 (1) past Presidents have issued Executive or9 ders which severely limit the use of the military 

10 when dealing with potential threats against the 

11 United States; 
2

•HR 356 IH 

1 (2) these Executive orders limit the swift, sure, 

2 and precise action needed by the United States to 

3 protect our national security; 

4 (3) present strategy allows United States mili5 tary forces to bomb large targets hoping to eliminate 

6 a terrorist leader, but prevents the United States 

7 from designing a limited action which would specifi8 cally accomplish that purpose; 

9 (4) on several occasions the United States mili10 tary forces have been ordered to use a military 

11 strike hoping, in most cases unsuccessfully, to re12 move a terrorist leader who has committed crimes 

13 against the United States; 

14 (5) as the threat from terrorism grows, the 

15 United States must continue to investigate effective 

16 ways to combat the menace posed by those who 

17 would murder United States citizens simply to make 

18 a political point; and 

19 (6) actions by the United States Government to 

20 remove such persons is a remedy which should be 

21 used sparingly and considered only after all other 

22 reasonable options have failed or are not available; 

23 however, this is an option the United States must 

24 maintain for cases in which international threats 

25 cannot be eliminated by other means. 
3

•HR 356 IH 

1 SEC. 3. NULLIFICATION OF EFFECT OF CERTAIN PROVI2 SIONS OF VARIOUS EXECUTIVE ORDERS. 

3 Section 2.11 of Executive Order 12333, and any com4 parable provision contained in any other Executive order, 

5 regulation, or other order of a department or agency of 

6 the executive branch, whether issued before or after the 

7 enactment of this Act, shall have no force or effect.

Æ
# Official Journal C 154/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 154 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5722 May 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 154

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5722 May 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 154/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7237 — TPG Capital/The Warranty Group) (1) | 1 |
| 2014/C 154/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7256 — KKR/HIG/Estro) (1) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 154/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7237 — TPG Capital/The Warranty Group) (1)

1

2014/C 154/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7256 — KKR/HIG/Estro) (1)

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 154/03 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| 2014/C 154/04 | SESAR Joint Undertaking — Revised budget 2013 and budget 2014 | 4 |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2014/C 154/05 | Special Report No 2/2014 — ‘Are Preferential Trade Arrangements appropriately managed?’ | 16 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 154/03

Euro exchange rates

3

2014/C 154/04

SESAR Joint Undertaking — Revised budget 2013 and budget 2014

4

Court of Auditors

2014/C 154/05

Special Report No 2/2014 — ‘Are Preferential Trade Arrangements appropriately managed?’

16

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 154/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7251 — Blackstone/Gates) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 17 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2014/C 154/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7251 — Blackstone/Gates) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

17

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 7, 2013

NO. 03

- 13

- 00426

- CR

Cory DeMarcos Armour, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s

judgme nt: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the judgment

of the trial court is in all things affirmed; and it appearing that the appellant is indigent and

unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be certified

below for observance.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of
Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lawrence Cardinal, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          |  | 
|------------------------- |  | 
|By: /s/ Lawrence Cardinal
|                         
|Lawrence Cardinal        
|Chief Financial Officer  
|March 28, 2011           

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### BUTTON & FREEMAN *v.*HAMPSON, PARKISON AND CAROTHERS.

Partnership bond — one seal — pleading—writ of error refused.

A sealed obligation signed in the partnership name with one seal, is only the obligation of the partner signing; the seal is his only.

The allegation in such case, *sealed with their seal,*does not mean sealed by each with *his*seal.

Allegations in pleading are to be construed most strongly against the pleader.

'Application for a writ of error by the plaintiffs. The record of the Common Pleas shows a declaration in covenant against the defendants, upon a contract entered into by them as co-partners; sealed with *their seal,*and signed by one of them in the partnership name of J. H. & Co. To this there was a general demurrer, on which the Court of Common Pleas rendered judgment for the defendants.

*94*H, H. Hunter,*for the application.

*Stillwell,*contra. -'

Wright J.

The obligation declared upon was executed by one • of three partners, in the partnership name. Such instrument obliges only the person who signs and seals it — it is *his*act and *deed,*and not that of his *co-partners.*It is suggested that the allegation sealed with *their*seal, is to be understood as charging that the instrument was' sealed by each individual using a common seal. The rule is to construe pleadings most strongly against the pleader. To subject -this declaration .to that rule, would make the allegation, that the seal was a *common,*not an *individual,*seal. Co-partners, unless incorporated, can have no *common*seal. This instrument is not the *joint*instrument of the defendants; but only of that of the co-partner who signed and sealed it. A case might exist where the individual seal of one of several obligors was used by each, which would be good against each, because when so used, it is *the seal of each,*but that is not this casé; 1 *Black. R.*103. The writ of error is refused.