alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

----

Preamble

Table of Contents
          - Introduction 
          - Scope 
          - Qualification 
          - Calculation of Tier 1 Capital and Total Qualifying Capital 
          - Calculation of Risk-Weighted Assets 
          - Operational Risk 
          - Disclosure 

List of Acronyms

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

Paperwork Reduction Act

Plain Language

OCC Executive Order 12866

OTS Executive Order 12866 Determination

OCC Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination

OTS Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination

Proposed Regulatory Text

Table of Contents
        - Part I
        - General Provisions
        - Part II
        - Qualifying Capital
        - Part III
        - Qualification
        - Part IV
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for General Credit Risk
        - Part V 
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for Securitization Exposures
        - Part VI
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for Equity Exposures
        - Part VII
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for Operational Risk
        - Part VIII
        - Disclosure

List of Subjects

Authority and Issuance

OCC

Federal Reserve

FDIC

OTS

OCC

Federal Reserve

FDIC

OTS

Billing Codes

12 CFR Part 3

Administrative practices and procedure, Capital, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Risk.

12 CFR Part 208

Confidential business information, Crime, Currency, Federal Reserve System, Mortgages, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

12 CFR Part 225

Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Federal Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

12 CFR Part 325

Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Capital Adequacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, State nonmember banks.

12 CFR Part 566

Capital, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.

Basel II Capital AccordNotice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR)

----

HomeBanking information and regulationAccessibilityContact us
STATE OF TEXAS 

vs. 

JO LYNN MURPHY 

NO. 12·15·00092-CR 

§ INTHE 

§ 

§ TWELFTH COURT 

§ 

§ OF APPEALS 

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: 

Now comes JO LYNN MURPHY, Appellant in the above styled and numbered 

case, before the decision in this Court has been delivered, and respectfully moves this 

Court to withdraw appellant's notice of appeal and dismiss this appeal, pursuant to 

Rule 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure . 

Respectfully submitted, 

Law Office of James Huggler 

100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805 

Tyler, Texas 75702 

Tel: (903) 593·2400 

Fax: (903) 593·3830 

ACCEPTED

12-15-00092-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

4/22/2015 4:39:40 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 4/22/2015 4:39:40 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that on April 21, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above and 

foregoing document was served on the District Attorney's Office, Smith County, 100 

N. Broadway, 4th Floor, Tyler, Texas 75702, by hand delivery. 
STATE OF TEXAS 

COUNTY OF SMITH 

§ 

§ 

§ 

AFFIDAVIT 

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared 

James Huggler, who after being duly sworn stated: 

"I am the attorney for the appellant in the above numbered and entitled cause. 

I have read the foregoing Motion to Dismiss Appeal and swear that all of the 

allegations of fact contained therein are true and correct." 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on April 21, 2014, to certify which 

witness my ha nd and seal of office. 

,,,,;:;: '' , AMIE JANE GONZALEZ 

.,~:-::J(;; :-; Notary Public. State of Texas 

;._..;; .. ~/ ! My Commission Expires · 

--.. :,~f i\~~ " July 1 9. 20 18 

'""' 

Notary Public, State ofT
# C_2011130EN.01002303.xml

| 30.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/23

---

Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Dogbo v Council

(Case T-141/11)

2011/C 130/46

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Blé Brunot Dogbo (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Blé Brunot DOGBO, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Blé Brunot DOGBO, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

| — | consequently,






  — | annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently,

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

| — | alternatively, order that the name of Mr Blé Brunot DOGBO be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, order that the name of Mr Blé Brunot DOGBO be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-137/11 Guiai Bi Poin v Council.

Guiai Bi Poin

Council

---
#### § 159.003-9 Products covered by Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs).

A complete list of equipment and materials approved by the Coast Guard under an MRA, as well as detailed information on marking and identifying items approved by foreign authorities under an MRA, is available online at *http://cgmix.uscg.mil/Equipment/Default.aspx.*
#### EDITH GUSTIN AND ALBERT GUSTIN, PLAINTIFFS, v. JOHN CALANDRIELLO ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Submitted May 11, 1928

Decided January 16, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Parker and Katzenbach.

Eor the rule, *Applegate, Stevens, Foster, Leonard & Reussille.*

*Contra, Quinn, Parsons & Doremus.*

*115Pek Cubiaai.

This case is before this court upon a defendants’ rule to show cause. In the action, a verdict was rendered in behalf of Albert Gustin, the plaintiff, for medical expenses paid by him for injuries received by his wife as the result of being struck by an automobile owned by John Calandriello and operated at the time of the accident by his son, Thomas. The question presented to us is whether the trial court erred in submitting the liability of John Calandriello to the jury. The evidence of John Calandriello, Thomas, and another son, Michael, was to the effect that on the evening in question (January 20th, 1927), Thomas had asked his father for the use of the car. The father refused to give his permission. Thomas then took out the car without the consent of his father. If this were all the testimony we would be inclined to think that the presumption of liability had been overcome. Thomas, however, had a license to drive. This license had been paid for by his father. Thomas had had the license for three or four years. Thomas had no car of his own. He had frequently obtained the consent of his father to the use of his father’s car. He drove his father and mother about. While this was denied by John, yet there was evidence to this effect. Thomas had a key for the car. Mrs. John Calandriello (the mother) also had a key. She would give permission to her son, Thomas, to use the car. The testimony of the members of the family upon this phase of the ease was conflicting. In our opinion the trial court ruled properly in submitting the case to the jury. In the case of *Tiscler*v. *Steinholtz,*99 *N. J. L.*149, it was held that if the evidence was contradictory, or reasonably subject to contradictory interpretations, the question of liability is for the jury. The cases of *DeMott*v. *Knowlton,*100 *Id.*296, and *Venghis*v. Nathanson, 101 *Id.*110, are to the same effect.

The rule to show cause is discharged.
exv10w29



 






EXHIBIT 10.29




NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION GRANT



For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Analogic Corporation,
a Massachusetts Corporation (hereinafter called the “Company”), does hereby grant to NAME
of CITY, STATE, (hereinafter called the “Grantee) as of DATE an option
designated as a Non-Qualified Option to purchase Five Thousand (5,000) shares of Common Stock, of
the par value of $.05 per share, of the Company, pursuant to the terms of the Company’s
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors dated January 31, 1997, as Amended
December 8, 2003 (hereinafter called the “Plan”). A copy of the Plan is annexed hereto and is
incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.



The Grantee hereby accepts the Option granted herein subject to all of the provisions of the Plan,
and upon the following additional terms and conditions:





	 	1.  	The price at which the shares of Common Stock may be purchased pursuant to this
Option is PRICE per share, subject to adjustment as provided in the Plan.
	 
	 	2.  	This Option may be exercised by the giving of written notice, in person or by
registered mail, to the Company, marked “Attention: Treasurer”, at its principal place of
business in Peabody, Massachusetts, of the election to purchase shares pursuant hereto,
accompanied by the full purchase price of the shares being so purchased, together with the
amount of any tax or excise due in respect of the sale and issue thereof, in cash or by
certified or bank cashier’s check.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ANALOGIC CORPORATION has caused this grant to be signed by its duly authorized
officer and its corporate seal to be hereto affixed this DAY - MONTH in the year




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	ANALOGIC CORPORATION
	 
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	By	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	Its Treasurer





The foregoing option is hereby accepted on the terms and conditions set forth herein, and is
expressly subject to all the provisions set forth in the Analogic Corporation Non-Qualified Stock
Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors dated January 31, 1997, as Amended December 8, 2003, a copy
of which is annexed hereto.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	Grantee
#### § 308.8 War risk insurance underwriting agency agreement.

Standard form MA-355, Underwriting Agency Agreement, shall be executed by the Maritime Administrator and domestic insurance companies or groups of domestic insurance companies authorized to do a marine insurance business in any States of the United States, appointing such companies or groups of companies as Underwriting Agents to issue binders and policies covering hull, protection and indemnity, and Second Seamen's war risk insurance under subparts B, C, and D of this part. It shall contain provisions including, but not limited to the appointment of the agent, duties of the agent, books and records, compensation, standard of performance, indemnification effective date, amendment and termination, and nondiscrimination.
# C_2014071EN.01003002.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/30

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2013 — Possanzini, v Frontex

(Case F-124/11) (1)

(Civil service - Frontex staff - Temporary staff - Career development report containing negative assessments of the reporting officer not communicated to the person concerned - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Decision based on the opinion of the reporting officer - Rights of defence - Infringement - Dispute of a financial character - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2014/C 71/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Daniele Possanzini (Pisa, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision to revoke the decision to renew the applicant’s temporary employment contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 28 March 2011 not to renew the contract of Mr Possanzini as a member of the temporary staff, adopted by the Executive Director of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 28 March 2011 not to renew the contract of Mr Possanzini as a member of the temporary staff, adopted by the Executive Director of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union;

| 2. | Orders the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union to pay Mr Possanzini the sum of EUR 5 000 by way of damages; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union to pay Mr Possanzini the sum of EUR 5 000 by way of damages;

| 3. | Declares that the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Possanzini. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Possanzini.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28. 1. 2012, p. 72.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 31421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12834]

[[Page 31421]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7896]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Portrait of Helena de Kay''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the object to be 
included in the exhibition ``Portrait of Helena de Kay,'' imported from 
abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of 
cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan 
agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the Virginia Museum 
of Fine Arts, Richmond, VA, from on or about June 1, 2012, until on or 
about November 30, 2012, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including an 
art object list, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the 
Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). The 
mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor 
(Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: May 18, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-12834 Filed 5-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
# C_2014052EN.01002202.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/22

---

Order of the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission

(Case C-534/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Action for review - Order of the General Court of the European Union declaring the action inadmissible - Assignment - Reassignment from the delegation in Luanda (Angola) to Brussels (Belgium) - Decision to pack and remove the applicant’s personal effects in his absence - Consequences of a later judgment of the General Court)

2014/C 52/38

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, avvocato)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2012 in Case T-241/03 REV Marcuccio v Commission by which that court dismissed an application for review of the order of the General Court of 17 May 2006 in Case T-241/03 Marcuccio v Commission — Breach of the first subparagraph of Article 64(4) and Article 127(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Breach of the first and second subparagraphs of Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — Breach of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Marcuccio

Commission

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Agency for International Development

*Summary:*                     U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has submitted the following information collections to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Comments should be sent via e-mail to                     *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov*                     or fax to 202-395-7285. Copies of submission may be obtained by calling (202) 712-1365.                

*Supplementary Information:*

*OMB Number:*                     OMB 0412-0566.                

*Form Number:*                     AID 200-1.                

*Title:*                     PVO Classification Form.                

*Type of Submission:*                     Reinstatement.                

*Purpose:*                     The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) requires all private voluntary organizations (PVOs) that wish to be eligible to compete for most forms of foreign economic assistance administered by USAID to register with the Agency. Registration provides a resource for USAID officials to access financial and program information on PVOs. The PVO Registry is a central clearinghouse for information on PVOs working in countries where elsewhere the U.S. Government would not have knowledge of the activities. To confirm the data is collected in a formalized and consistent manner, USAID has developed the Classification Form's list of sectors and countries that will show where qualified and interested PVOs registered with USAID are working.                

*Annual Reporting Burden:*

*Respondents:*                     594.                

*Total annual responses:*                     594.                

*Total annual hours requested:*                     132 hours.                

Dated: April 25, 2007.

Joanne Paskar,

Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of Administrative Services, Bureau for Management.

[FR Doc. 07-2157  Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.017-13 Construction. ( a ) *General.* Each chain ladder must have two suspension members. Each step in the ladder must be supported at each end by a suspension member.
( b ) *Suspension member.* The distance between the two suspension members must be at least 400 mm (16 in.), but not more than 480 mm (19 in.). The chain between each top lashing ring and the first step must be long enough so that the distance between the center of the lashing ring and the top of the first step is approximately 600 mm (24 in.).
( c ) *Lashing rings.* A lashing ring must be securely attached to the top and bottom of each suspension member. The means of attachment must be at least as strong as the chain and the lashing ring.
( d ) *Thimble or wear plate.* A thimble or wear plate must be attached to the chain where it can slide on its connections to the lashing rings.
( e ) *Steps.* Each step of a ladder must have two rungs arranged to provide a suitable handhold and stepping surface. The distance between steps must be uniform. This distance must be between 300 mm (12 in.) and 380 mm (15 in.).
( f ) *Rungs.* Step rungs must meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) Each rung must be wooden, or a material of equivalent strength, durability, handhold, and step surface characteristics.
( 2 ) In order to provide a suitable handhold and step surface, the width of each rung must be at least 40 mm (11 ⁄ 2 in.) and the thickness must be at least 25 mm (1 in.), but not more than 40 mm (11 ⁄ 2 in.).
( 3 ) The distance between the rungs in each step must be uniform. This distance must be between 40 mm (11 ⁄ 2 in.) and 65 mm (21 ⁄ 2 in.).
( 4 ) Each rung must be attached to a spacer ear by a method that prevents the rung from rotating and that supports it in a horizontal position when the ladder is hung vertically.
( g ) *Spacer ears.* Spacer ears must meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) All spacer ears on a ladder must be the same size and shape.
( 2 ) The top and bottom of each spacer ear must be attached to a suspension member.
( 3 ) The top point of attachment must be at least 100 mm (4 in.) above the top surfaces of the rungs attached to the spacer ear.
( 4 ) Each spacer ear made of sheet metal must have features such as formed ribs, rolled flange edges, and stress relief holes at the ends of cuts, to prevent the ear from bending or tearing.
( h ) *Fasteners.* Each fastening device must have a means to prevent the device from loosening.
( i ) *Workmanship.* A ladder must not have splinters, burrs, sharp edges, corners, projections, or other defects that could injure a person using the ladder.