alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 153/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.153.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 153 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 565 June 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.153.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 153

English edition

Legislation

Volume 565 June 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not | 1 |
| | * | Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 | 17 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not

1

*

Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009

17

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6173
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GARY LEE SKINNER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-122-F) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Lee Skinner, Appellant Pro Se. Jane H. Jolly, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214,motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Skinner , No. CR94-122-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Jeffrey Grune, Appellant, v Peter C. Alexanderson, as the Putnam County Executive, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Putnam County Executive dated February 25, 1988, which denied the petitioner’s request pursuant to Public Officers Law article 6 for access to a copy of the Putnam County Arson Control Plan, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Weiner, J.), dated July 8, 1988, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted to the extent that the determination is annulled, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding to compel the disclosure of the Putnam County Arson Control Plan (hereinafter the plan) for arson investigation pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6). The respondents had denied his request for a copy of the plan, asserting, *inter alia,*that its disclosure would reveal nonroutine criminal investigative techniques or procedures *(see,*Public *497Officers Law § 87 [2] [e] [iv]). The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. We reverse.

Since our review of the plan discloses that it contains provisions which are of a routine nature and thus subject to disclosure, we cannot assume, that in generally opposing the petition, the respondents intended to block access to the plan in its entirety. Nevertheless, while certain provisions of the plan are obviously innocuous, the respondents are ostensibly claiming that others fall within the statutory exemption *(see,*Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [e] [iv]). We note that in its judgment, the Supreme Court did not distinguish between the various portions of the plan and, moreover, the respondents did not identify with specificity those provisions of the plan which they claim to be immune from disclosure, and why. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the matter should be remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, to afford the parties an opportunity to particularize their respective assertions. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JUNE 30,
1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF WALKER WINGSAIL AMERICA, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                 0000942652
<NAME>                WALKER WINGSAIL AMERICA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>          1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               8
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          2
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    10
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     801
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              184
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                       (145)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       801
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    22
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (22)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (22)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (22)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms

Agenda

Cash Room

July 26, 2023

3:30 – 3:40 pm: Welcome & Opening Remarks by Steven Seitz, Federal 

Insurance Office (FIO) Director

3:40 – 4:00 pm: Presentations by Richard Ifft of FIO on past work of the 

ACRSM Committee and the 2023 Terrorism Risk Insurance 

Program Small Insurers' Report

4:00 – 4:10pm: ACRSM Questions and Discussion

4:10 – 4:20 pm: Update by Jeremy Pam of FIO on FIO’s Catastrophic Cyber 

RFI

4:20 - 4:25 pm: Questions for Presenter

4:25 – 4:45 pm: Presentation by Tom Clementi, Chief Executive Officer of 

Pool Re 

4:45 – 4:50 pm: Questions for Presenter

4:50 – 5:15pm: Discussions and New Business

Adjourn
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-00329-L

§

MARK ADAMS § SEALED

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent 

of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, 

and no objections thereto having been filed within fourteen days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the 

undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning the 

Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and 

MARK ADAMS is hereby adjudged guilty of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (18 U.S.C. § 1343), namely Conspiracy to Commit Wire 

Fraud. Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

☐ The defendant is ordered to remain in custody.

☒ The Court accepts the findings of the United States Magistrate Judge by clear and convincing evidence that the 

defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released and should therefore 

be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ Upon motion, this matter shall be set for hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions 

of release for determination, by clear and convincing evidence, of whether the defendant is likely to flee or pose a 

danger to any other person or the community if released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The defendant is not ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) pending determination of whether it has 

been clearly shown that there are exceptional circumstances under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be 

detained under § 3143(a)(2), and whether it has been shown by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is 

not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released under § 3142(b) or (c). This 

matter shall be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions of release.

SIGNED this 14th day of October, 2022.

________________________________________

SAM A. LINDSAY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00329-L Document 18 Filed 10/14/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 38
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 165

Designating the week beginning January 2, 1994, as ‘‘National Law

Enforcement Training Week’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 29, 1993

Mr. CASTLE (for himself and Mrs. VUCANOVICH) introduced the following

joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and

Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the week beginning January 2, 1994, as

‘‘National Law Enforcement Training Week’’.

Whereas law enforcement training and the sciences related to

law enforcement are critical to the immediate and longterm safety and well-being of the United States because

law enforcement professionals provide service and protection to individuals in all sectors of society;

Whereas law enforcement training is a critical component of

national efforts to protect the people of the United States

from violent crime, to combat the malignancy of illicit

drugs, and to apprehend criminals;
2

•HJ 165 IH

Whereas law enforcement training serves the hard-working

and law-abiding people of the United States;

Whereas it is essential that the people of the United States

be able to enjoy an inherent right of freedom from fear

and to learn of the significant contributions that law enforcement trainers have made to ensure that right;

Whereas, to take advantage of the opportunities that law enforcement provides, it is vital to build and maintain a

motivated law enforcement work force that is educated

and trained in the skills of law enforcement and the

sciences related to law enforcement;

Whereas it is in the national interest to stimulate and encourage the youth of the Nation to understand the significance of law enforcement training to the law enforcement profession and to the safety and security of all of

the people of the United States;

Whereas it is in the national interest to encourage the youth

of the Nation to appreciate the intellectual fascination of

law enforcement training; and

Whereas it is in the national interest to make the youth of

the Nation aware of career options available in law enforcement and disciplines related to law enforcement:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the week beginning January 2, 1994, is designated

4 as ‘‘National Law Enforcement Training Week’’. The

5 President is authorized and requested to issue a proclama6 tion calling on the people of the United States to observe
3

•HJ 165 IH

1 the week with appropriate ceremonies and activities, in2 cluding programs designed to heighten the awareness of

3 the people of the United States, and particularly the youth

4 of the Nation, of the importance of law enforcement train5 ing and related disciplines.

Æ
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-2483SI

_____________

James J. Probasco, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

Richard Arnold; Steve Grgurich; Jim * District of Iowa.

Wright; Jack Hardy; Larry Davis; Cleo *

Sellers; Nick Konrady; Todd Folkert; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Paul Goldsmith, *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

 Submitted: January 7, 1999

Filed: January 19, 1999

_____________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

James J. Probasco appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary

judgment in Probasco's lawsuit against Richard Arnold and other current and former

employees of Lucas County, Iowa. Having considered the record and the parties'

briefs, we are satisfied the district court's judgment was correct, and an extended

discussion is not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institute of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Development of Novel Imaging Technologies.                    

*Date:*                         December 6-7, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 am to 5:00 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hilton Gaithersburg, 620 Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, MD 20877.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Timothy C. Meeker, MD, Scientific Review Administrator, Special Referral and Resources Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8088, Rockville, MD 20852, 301/594-1279.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 3, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-29138  Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 34.13






| |  | 
| |  | 







Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm

To the Board of Directors National Tax Search, LLC

We have examined National Tax Search,
LLC (the “Company”) compliance with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria,
set forth in Item 1 122(d) of the Security and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the National Tax Search TaxQ system
(the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015. The Company has determined that only certain servicing
criteria, 1122(d)(I)(ii), 1122(d)I(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)2(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 11122(d)(4)(xii),
are applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The Company has determined
that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item I 22(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed
by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.

Management is responsible for the Company’s
compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the
Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,
evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included a selection of a sample of transactions and compliance activities
related to the Platform during the examination period and determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performed
those activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our testing of selected transactions and compliance activities was
limited to calculations, reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures
did not include determining whether errors may have occurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts
calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions.
We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination
on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management’s
assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for
the Platform is fairly stated in all material respects.



Chicago, IL

January 18, 2016
{"agency":"Treasury","generated":"2017-07-14 13:16:39","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"}],"value":"2017"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["BEP","DO","FinCEN","Fiscal Service","IRS","MINT","OCC","TIGTA","TTB"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["8","329","138","78","1918","50","414","58","35"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["11","239","141","92","2003","38","375","59","36"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["5","670","3","3","342","10","21","2","1"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2017","quarter":"Q3"}