alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 745
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 745 appear at 84 FR 1608, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 745.9-2 Retirement and other employee benefit plan accounts. ( a ) *Pass-through share insurance.* Any shares of an employee benefit plan in an insured credit union shall be insured on a “pass-through” basis, in the amount of up to the SMSIA for the non-contingent interest of each plan participant, in accordance with § 745.2 of this part. An insured credit union that is not “well capitalized” or “adequately capitalized,” as those terms are defined in 12 U.S.C. 1790d(c), may not accept employee benefit plan deposits. The terms “employee benefit plan” and “pass-through share insurance” are given the same meaning in this section as in 12 U.S.C. 1787(k)(4).
( b ) *Treatment of contingent interests.* In the event that participants' interests in an employee benefit plan are not capable of evaluation in accordance with the provisions of this section, or an account established for any such plan includes amounts for future participants in the plan, payment by the NCUA with respect to all such interests shall not exceed the SMSIA in the aggregate.
( c ) ( 1 ) *Certain retirement accounts.* Shares in an insured credit union made in connection with the following types of retirement plans shall be aggregated and insured in the amount of up to $250,000 (which amount shall be subject to inflation adjustments as provided under section 11(a)(1)(F) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, except that $250,000 shall be substituted for $100,000 wherever such term appears in such section) per account: ( i ) Any individual retirement account described in section 408(a) (IRA) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 408(a)) or similar provisions of law applicable to a U.S. territory or possession;
( ii ) Any individual retirement account described in section 408A (Roth IRA) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 408A) or similar provisions of law applicable to a U.S. territory or possession; and
( iii ) Any plan described in section 401(d) (Keogh account) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(d)) or similar provisions of law applicable to a U.S. territory or possession.
( 2 ) Insurance coverage for the accounts enumerated in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is based on the present vested ascertainable interest of a participant or designated beneficiary. For insurance purposes, IRA and Roth IRA accounts will be combined together and insured in the aggregate up to $250,000 (which amount shall be subject to inflation adjustments as provided under section 11(a)(1)(F) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, except that $250,000 shall be substituted for $100,000 wherever such term appears in such section). A Keogh account will be separately insured from an IRA account, Roth IRA account or, where applicable, aggregated IRA and Roth IRA accounts.
[71 FR 14636, Mar. 23, 2006, as amended at 75 FR 34622, June 18, 2010]
#### *L.*S. Harvard, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. Haddie V. Banks, *Defendant in Error.*

Where there is evidence to sustain the finding of a referee that an alteration made in the name of the grantee in a deed of conveyance of land was made before the deed was finally delivered and recorded, and error is not made to appear, such finding will not be disturbed on appeal.

Appealed from the Circuit Court of Suwannee County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*309
      *Humphreys*& *Blackwell,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*L. E. Roberson,*for Defendant in Error.

Whitfield, C. J.

In an action of ejectment there was judgment by a referee for the plaintiff and defendant took writ of error.

Plaintiff showed title by devise from her mother, Mrs.. N. E. Green who had a recorded deed of conveyance from. J. H. T. Bynum. The defendant claimed by deed from; R. R. Green who had been the husband of Mrs. N. E. Green in her life time. The defendant offered in evidence the original deed from J. EL T. Bynum to Mrs. N. E. Green to show that it was executed and delivered to “R. E.” Green as grantee, and that the name of the grantee was after delivery altered to “Mrs. N. E.” Green.

The alteration is parent on the face of the deed and is material. The burden was upon the plaintiff who claimed under the deed to show that the alteration, was made before it was delivered. See Calhoun v. McKay decided this term.

The evidence shows that the deed was written by J. H. T. Bynum the grantor. He testified that he delivered the deed with “R. R. Green” as the grantee named therein and that he did not make the alteration. The altered portion “Mrs. N. E.” is in different ink, but apparently in the same handwriting as the balance of the writing in the deed, the original of which was sent here with the record. R. R. Green testified as to the alteration of “R. R.” to “Mrs. N. E.” that he “either wrote it or the person who prepared the deed wrote it.” This witness then wrote “Mrs. N. E.” on a slip of paper which accompanies the record, and it is clear that his writing is wholly unlike that, in the deed.

*310The circumstances indicate .that R. R. .Green requested the grantor J. H. T. Bynum to change the name of the grantee to that of his wife, and that Bynum did so and redelivered the deed to R. R. Green. The hand writing seems to be that of Bynum the grantor who doubtless forgot the request to change and the act of changing the name of the grantee. R. R. Green had the deed recorded with Mrs. N. E. Green as the grantee.

There is in the evidence a sufficient basis for the finding of the referee, which in effect sustains the deed as a conveyance to Mrs. N. E. Green, who devised the land to the plaintiff below.

There was no sufficient showing of newly discovered evidence to warrant the granting of a new trial.

The judgment is affirmed.

Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

EXPLANATION

Lithologic symbols

Sand

Organic materiat

Iron _cementotion or
staining; “ hardpan’

Clay

Phosphate nodules

Calcareous clay

ii

Limestone

No recovery, core lost
A mixture of symbols indicates
@ mixed lithology

Other symbols
Lithologic correlation
. Stratigraphic correlction

Limits of aluminum ond
calcium phosphate zones

three of the above correlations
follow the same line

if
Section of core from which fossils
were identified

39

Sample eumber and interval sampled
from lot 2545

© _900¢pm

‘Surface

Trace of gamma-ray log showing

intensity of radiation; cpm = West
counts per minute
&)
NWYSE%

Sec. 13, T. 305.,R. 19 E.

© 900 cpm

2

SWASW4

BULLETIN 1046 PLATE 19

East

!
‘SWUSWY

Sec. 4, T. 305., R. 20E.

Sec. 18, T. 305., R. 20 E-

wih
© 900 cpm ma

PLEISTOCENE.
Terrace sand

PLIOCENE
Bone Valley formation

MIDDLE MIOCENE
Hawthorn formation 39

= RERRERERI

LOWER MIOCENE -
Tampa limestone

Elevation, in feet
40

© 900 1800 cpm

tSea level

S22 S|

Scale, in feet
oO

20

CROSS SECTION 4, LAND-PEBBLE PHOSPHATE DISTRICT, FLORIDA

466352 © - 59 (In pocket)
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50317 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. JOHNNY TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(A-93-CR-36-1)

_________________________________________________________________ February 8, 1996 Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Johnny Torres appeals the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In his § 2255 motion, Torres challenged the quantity of drugs used to establish his base offense level and the validity of his waiver of his right to appeal his sentence. Torres also alleged that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel because he allowed Torres to waive his appellate rights, and he failed to contest the quantity of drugs used to calculate Torres's sentence.2

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's denial of Torres's § 2255 motion.
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3724

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2004

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT

To amend section 220 of the National Housing Act to make 

a technical correction to restore allowable increases in 

the maximum mortgage limits for FHA-insured mortgages for multifamily housing projects to cover increased 

costs of installing a solar energy system or residential 

energy conservation measures.
2

HR 3724 RFS 

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 ‘‘Energy Efficient Hous5 ing Technical Correction Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTION. 

7 Section 220(d)(3)(B)(iii)(V) of the National Housing 

8 Act (12 U.S.C. 1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)(V)) is amended by 

9 striking ‘‘with respect to rehabilitation projects involving 

10 not more than five family units,’’.

Passed the House of Representatives February 3, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

**Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges**

 

 

|                                                       |   | **Year Ended December 31,** |    |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|---------|
|                                                       |   | **2005**                    |    | **2004** |   | **2003** |   | **2002** |   | **2001** |   |
|                                                       |   | **(In thousands)**          |    |
| (Loss) income before income taxes and minority interest    |   | $                           | (37,463 | ) | $ | (41,335 | ) | $ | 17,355 |   | $ | 13,277 |   | $ | (43,137 | ) |
| Plus fixed charges:                                        |   |                        |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense, net                                      |   |                        | 184,362 |   |   | 140,500 |   |   | 96,586 |   |   | 81,784 |   |   | 98,440 |   |
| Capitalized interest                                       |   |                        | 6,070   |   |   | 1,758 |   |   | 1,638 |   |   | 1,525 |   |   | 2,570 |   |
| Portion of rent expense representative of interest expense |   |                        | 16,352  |   |   | 10,802 |   |   | 7,949 |   |   | 7,635 |   |   | 7,388 |   |
| Plus loss from equity investees                            |   |                        | —  |   |   | — |   |   | — |   |   | — |   |   | 246 |   |
| Plus amortization of capitalized interest                  |   |                        | 1,464   |   |   | 1,418 |   |   | 1,339 |   |   | 1,252 |   |   | 1,236 |   |
| Less capitalized interest                                  |   |                        | (6,070  | ) |   | (1,758 | ) |   | (1,638 | ) |   | (1,525 | ) |   | (2,570 | ) |
| Adjusted earnings                                          |   |                        | 164,715 |   |   | 111,385 |   |   | 123,229 |   |   | 103,948 |   |   | 64,173 |   |
| Fixed charges                                              |   |                        | 206,784 |   |   | 153,060 |   | $ | 106,173 |   | $ | 90,944 |   | $ | 108,398 |   |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                         |   |                        | —  |   |   | — |   |   | 1.2 |   |   | 1.1 |   |   | — |   |
| Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges              |   | $                           | 42,069  |   | $ | 41,675 |   |   | — |   |   | — |   | $ | 44,225 |   |

 

 

 

1
WAST HO Temes 90 SE er

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

——" IHL ow

Base map trom U.S.G.S. 1:24000 Laurel (1968) and Los Gatos (1980) quadrangles,

TRUE NORTH

‘APPROXIMATE MEAN.
DECLINATION, 1990,

‘WO TS 0 ee OEE

N
y
113
v4
200 a
7
66 N
=," RED
\ei074 185
we SO7 ve
rhe
A rue
SSX
fg 5t>
4120 7
La
116
37° 0r"s0"
SCALE=1:12 000
0.25 ie) 0.5 MILE
= mn) 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 FEET
05 = 0.25. {e} 0.5 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL AREA OF MAP

2) Se ne ees

121@57'ao"

EXPLANATION

Surface fracture produced during the Loma Prieta earthquake. Dashed where
discontinuous, dotted where obscured by vegetation or located in inaccessible
areas.

Displacement vector with arrow in direction of plunge; bi-directional arrows
indicate vectors with zero plunge. Length of vector on map is approximately
proportional to the length of the displacement vector. Number gives the
horizontal component of displacement in millimeters.

208 Wy
169. NN”
= *\v 90
age \ ae MS. ‘Ser
ws Fal. Se /
/ <
Se | NG 10OR OK
x we ‘ef |
70° 3%
=
x
#
149
ra)
*
1
40
.
Ox

PRELIMINARY MAP OF FRACTURES FORMED IN THE SUMMIT ROAD-SKYLAND RIDGE AREA
DURING THE LOMA PRIETA, CALIFORNIA, EARTHQUAKE OF OCTOBER 17, 1989

U.S. Geological Survey Staff*

by

1989

*R.E. Wells, D.J. Ponti, M.M. Clark, R.C. Bucknam, K.E. Budding, T.E. Fumal, D.S.
Harwood, K.R. Lajoie, J.J. Lienkaemper, M.N. Machette, C.S. Prentice, D.P. Schwartz, Field
investigation also included Patience Cowie (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory), Ze'ev
Reches (Hebrew University), and Peter Wood (New Zealand Geological Survey).

2a TYR THURS 0 Noes TS

39° 07'30"

EL Cd AO TA WO SIs HEBER" eine

—

OPEN-FILE REPORT

89-686

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey
editorial standards. It was compiled from field mapping by 14 geologists who used both'1:12,000-
scale pre-earthquake maps and aerial photos and 1:6,000-scale post-earthquake photos during
the weeks following the earthquake. This map does not show the abundant landslides on slopes
of the ridges associated with the cracks; furthermore some of the cracks may be related to either
these or other unrecognized landslides. Fewer than one-third of the slip vectors measured in the
field are shown on this map. The lines and vectors have not yet been edited for consistency and
accuracy. Some will be either altered, deleted, or moved in later versions of this map. This map
does not show all the cracks that formed at the time of the earthquake. Some escaped detection
because they were either too small, covered by vegetation, filled in by landowners, destroyed by
heavy rains or other natural processes, or because we could not get permission to enter some
Properties. Continuing investigations may also reveal more cracks.

This map is a general guide to cracks in the Summit Road-Skyland Ridge area. It should not be
used alone to evaluate earthquake hazard from ground cracks on any parcel of land

121°SS"
# «
-) XM
Mee Mio
N
.
aN
_
Ng
#### EMILY ROBERTS *v.*WILLIAM ROBERTS.

Divorce — wilful absence — alimony.

Wilful absence for more than three years, without any known cause, is good ground for a divorce.

Divorce. Cause — three years wilful absence.

These parties were married in June, and lived together till August, 1828; when, without any known cause, he left her, and went off, and has not been heard of since. She had a child in May, 1829, which is still living, and has maintained a good character.

By the Court.

Let the parties be divorced, and the custody of the child given to the mother. The defendant is ordered to pay her $¡200 in sixty days for alimony, and the costs, and in default she may take execution.
# L_2008247EN.01S00301.xml

| 16.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 247/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 247/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.

---
§ 13.208 Complaint. ( a ) *Filing.* The agency attorney must file the complaint with the FAA Hearing Docket, or may file a written motion to dismiss a request for hearing under § 13.218 instead of filing a complaint, not later than 20 days after receipt by the agency attorney of a request for hearing. When filing the complaint, the agency attorney must follow the filing instructions in § 13.210. The agency attorney may suggest a location for the hearing when filing the complaint.
( b ) *Service.* An agency attorney must serve a copy of the complaint on the respondent, the president of the corporation or company named as a respondent, or a person designated by the respondent to accept service of documents in the civil penalty action. When serving the complaint, the agency attorney must follow the service instructions in § 13.211.
( c ) *Contents.* A complaint must set forth the facts alleged, any regulation allegedly violated by the respondent, and the proposed civil penalty in sufficient detail to provide notice of any factual or legal allegation and proposed civil penalty.
( d ) *Motion to dismiss stale allegations or complaint.* Instead of filing an answer to the complaint, a respondent may move to dismiss the complaint, or that part of the complaint, alleging a violation that occurred more than 2 years before an agency attorney issued a notice of proposed civil penalty to the respondent. ( 1 ) An administrative law judge may not grant the motion and dismiss the complaint or part of the complaint if the administrative law judge finds that the agency has shown good cause for any delay in issuing the notice of proposed civil penalty.
( 2 ) If the agency fails to show good cause for any delay, an administrative law judge may dismiss the complaint, or that part of the complaint, alleging a violation that occurred more than 2 years before an agency attorney issued the notice of proposed civil penalty to the respondent.
( 3 ) A party may appeal the administrative law judge's ruling on the motion to dismiss the complaint or any part of the complaint in accordance with § 13.219(b).
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00151-CR

ANDRE’A DEMONT DEWBERRY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 7th District Court

Smith County, Texas

Trial Court No. 007-1095-12

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
2

ORDER

Clement Dunn, counsel for the appellant, Andre’a Demont Dewberry, has filed a motion 

to extend time to file the appellant’s brief. The brief was due November 27, 2013.

In his motion, counsel does not provide this Court with a reasonable explanation of the 

need for an extension of time. This Court interprets Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

10.5(b)(2) as requiring counsel to provide specific information to justify a requested extension, 

including the cause numbers of other briefs filed, the dates they were filed, the dates of trials, 

how long those trials are expected to last, etc. Broad, general statements do not provide the 

required facts and are not adequate to meet the requirements of the Rule. See TEX. R. APP. P.

10.5(b)(2).

All future motions to extend time must contain case-specific information adequate to 

justify the request, or they will be denied.

In this instance, we grant the motion and extend the deadline for filing appellant’s brief 

by thirty days, making appellant’s brief now due December 27, 2013. Further requests for 

extensions will not be looked on with favor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: December 3, 2013
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-47 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 1 of 9
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-47 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 2 of 9
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-47 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 3 of 9
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-47 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 4 of 9
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-47 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 5 of 9
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-47 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 6 of 9
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-47 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 7 of 9
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-47 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 8 of 9
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-47 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 9 of 9
### CENTURY ALUMINUM

– HAWESVILLE, KENTUCKY PM TEST DATA

SUMMARY OF ELECTRONIC FILES SUBMITTED TO THE EPA

HAND DELIVERED TO DAVID PUTNEY ON MARCH 22, 2013

I. POTLINES 1

‐ 4

a. Reports

i. January 2012 Emissions Testing Report (one file)

ii. November 2012 Emissions Testing Report (one file)

b. AC Stack ESP Data for January 2012 and November 2012 Testing Events (four files)

c. AC Stack Fan Amp Data for January 2012 and November 2012 Testing Events (four

files)

d. AC Stack Water Flow Data for January 2012 and November 2012 Testing Events (four

files)

e. Potline 1

‐ 4 Data (one file)

i. Summary of Operational Pots During Testing Events

ii. Production Capacities

iii. Installation Dates

II. ANODE BAKE FURNACE

a. Reports

i. May 2011 Emissions Testing Report (one file)

ii. June 2012 Emissions Testing Report (one file)

b. Anode Bake Furnace Scrubber Monitoring Data for May 2011 and June 2012 Testing

Events (two files)

III. ICR Tables 3

‐ 7 (one file)

IV. Figures

– Potlines 1

‐ 4 and Anode Bake Oven Schematics (two files)
#### § 7.5009 Location under 12 U.S.C. 85 of national banks operating exclusively through the Internet.

For purposes of 12 U.S.C. 85, the main office of a national bank that operates exclusively through the Internet is the office identified by the bank under 12 U.S.C. 22(Second) or as relocated under 12 U.S.C. 30 or other appropriate authority.
Exhibit 32

  Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer (CEO) and the Principal
Financial Officer (Chief Operating Officer) of Millenia Hope Inc. (the
"Company"), each hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:

      (a)   The Annual Report on Form 10-K SB of the Company for the year ended
            November 30, 2004, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
            Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934; and

      (b)   Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
            respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
            Company.

Date: March 16, 2006

                                                /s/ Leonard Stella
                                           ---------------------------------
                                                Leonard Stella
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: March 16, 2006

                                                /s/ Yehuda Kops
                                           ---------------------------------
                                                Yehuda Kops
                                                Chief Operating Officer
                                                (Principal Financial Officer)

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed
by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.