alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) 1

Update on the International Association 

of Insurance Supervisors: 

Federal Insurance Office

Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance

June 2, 2022
 The ICS entered the third year of the monitoring period in 2022, with the release of the ICS 

confidential reporting package in April 2022. Additionally, the IAIS is collecting 

supplementary data in 2022 for life and non-life risks in order to review the appropriateness 

of the current ICS calibrations.

 Volunteer workshops for the ICS and the Aggregation Method (AM) were held in Basel on 

May 16 -17 to launch the 2022 data collection exercises. For the 2022 ICS confidential 

reporting package, the IAIS is supplementing the reference ICS data with additional 

reporting aimed at further informing the market-adjusted valuation methodology. 

 In 2021, 42 volunteers around the world participated in ICS confidential reporting compared 

to 39 in 2020. Of those totals, 13 engaged in both the ICS and the AM in 2021 relative to 10 

in 2020. 

 Over the last two years, the IAIS has also made progress in its work to determine whether a 

differentiated capital treatment under the ICS is appropriate for infrastructure and strategic 

equity investments. 

 The IAIS plans to issue a public consultation in Q3 2023, requesting feedback on the design 

of the ICS as a prescribed capital requirement (PCR), the inclusion of GAAP Plus as an 

alternative valuation methodology, and criteria for evaluating other methods of calculating 

the ICS capital requirement. 

2

Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) Monitoring 

Period: Update
AM Comparability Assessment: Update

Status

 The AM data collection was released in April 2022, including the collection of potential data 

for use in the comparability assessment. Twenty volunteers participated in the AM data 

collection in 2021 compared to 18 in 2020.

 The set of draft criteria for public consultation as well as the IAIS governance process for 

conducting the comparability assessment are planned for review and approval at the June 

parent committee meetings in Croatia. 

Background on the Comparability Assessment

 The IAIS aims to be in a position by the end of the monitoring period to assess whether the 

AM provides comparable (i.e., substantially the same) outcomes to the ICS. If so, the AM 

will be considered an outcome-equivalent approach for implementation of the ICS as a 

PCR.

 In May 2021, the IAIS published the final definition of comparable outcomes and high-level 

principles, governing the development of the criteria that will be used in the comparability 

assessment.

 The AM comparability assessment is scheduled to take place in Q3 2023 concurrently with 

the public consultation of the ICS as a PCR.

 FIO continues to work closely with the Federal Reserve Board, the U.S. states, and the 

National Association of Insurance Commissioners. 3
Case 4:22-cr-00269-P Document 21 Filed 10/19/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 37
Case 4:22-cr-00269-P Document 21 Filed 10/19/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 38
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS PART OF THE
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,588
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,245
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,807
<PP&E>                                          89,130
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,749
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,803
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,468
<SALES>                                         51,739
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,739
<CGS>                                           13,406
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    55
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 962
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,122
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,218
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,904
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,904
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41
        

</TABLE>
I *--;s t)lslI{l("1 ('()L:R'l'

S 

",,r,rltr,ttN 

l)tstRl( 1 ol'tlix^s

DALLAS DIVISION F ILtit)

MAY - 2 iu23

CASE NO.: 22-CR

ct.lil{K, u.s.

community if released' / ,4 t-./ ,2---z

Signed MaY2,2023'

itttti lieiss MAGISTRATE ruDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Repgrt and Recommendation withinfourteen (14) days from the date

of its service sha' bar an aggrievedprrrya;;r"ting ,rr"n n"port il;i;;;*endation before the assigned United

i,"i"r bitoict Judge' zs u's'c' $636(bxlxB)'

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO

ibn-inn NoRTHERI'{ DrsrRrc{ oF Tr

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS'

DEVONTAE LEYUAS

$

$

$

$

$

(01)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

DEVONTAE LEYUAS, by consent, under ryl"4ty of united States v' Dees' 125 F '3d 261 (5th

Cir. 1997),has appeared before ,rr. p*rt* io Fed' n' C'i"''p' f f ' and has entered a plea of guilty to

count 2 0f the 2-count rndictmeni m.a oo octouer i'g,' i6z. After cautioning and examining

Defendant Devontae Leyuas, under oath concerning "u.t, 

or the subjects mentionid in Rule 11' I

determined that the guilty plea was k"";i;g;"f* ryq ""r*t-urv 

*d that ihe offense charged is supported

by an independent 6usi, in fact contairi"g ""rr, 9f.th._.J;tiJ;.;;ras of such offense' I therefore

recommend that the plea of guilty u. 

"r*p?"0-, 

*a ,rr* o.i."iu'"iu*o,,t"r Leyuas' be adjudged guilty

of possession of n ii".u"- by a c"oviit.o Felon, i" "i"i"tl"i or rs usc $ lzz1g)1t) and 924(a)Q)'

and bave sentence imposed accordingly.' nto u"ing'ro*a"giilry "f 

G ,rffensJ by the district judge'

/ The defendant is cunently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody'

tThedefendantmustbeordereddetainedpursuantto.lsU.S.C.$31a3(aX1)unlesstheCourtfindsbyclear

and convincing evidence that the #;ilir not likelyio"fle" It por" u o*g"t to any other person or the

communitY if released'

tr The Government does not oppose release'

D The defendaniiru, U""n .o.itiur,t *itn the current conditions of release'

D I find by "f"", "r; """rf*f"! ,"iOirr. 6"itt " 

Oef"t Oarril, not likely to flee or pose a danger to

any other p";;;;t".o,o,iunity ;;;;J""0 't'ouriin*iot" 

ut released under $ 3142(b) or

(c).

il The Government opposes release'.. . .tr1- +L^^^-.li+inn

tr the defendant il;r;;G" compliant with the conditions of release'

tr If the court accepts this recomm"to"ir"r,,rt" matter th;;i; f" t"t for hearing upon motion of the

Government'

The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 1g u.s.c. g 3 l a3(ax2) unless (l )(a) the court finds there

is a substantial likelintod that a motion ro. ffitiri;;;* otr *'iti gt;"o,.ot'lbithe Government has

recommended that no sentence of imp'iso'iilniut itpo"o' o,iti t'.iptr:t:l ciicumstances are clearly

shown under g 31a5(c) why the^del"rd#'J;"ra ""t u" d"tai";; ""1izl the court finds by clear and

convincing "uio"nc. 

ritiat 

ttie defenoarrt is noi iitery to n." o. por. a danger to any other person or the

Case 3:22-cr-00388-E Document 52 Filed 05/02/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 127
#### Kirven ARRANT, alias Curvin Arrant, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 21931.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 5, 1941.

Cline & Cline, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin,, for the State.

' HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for robbery, punishment being assessed at five years in the penitentiary. • , ,

Appellant has filed affidavit advising this court that he does not further desire to prosecute his appeal.

The appeal is dismissed at the request of appellant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMETENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

        

<S>				                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                   $5,037,683
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             1,289,251	
<ALLOWANCES>                                825,000	
<INVENTORY>                                 324,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          6,235,917
<PP&E>                                    1,303,424
<DEPRECIATION>                              318,653
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            7,267,536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     1,281,233
<BONDS>                                     385,557
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                  6,601,633 	
<OTHER-SE>                               (1,000,887)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              7,267,536
<SALES>                                   1,203,354
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          1,203,354	
<CGS>                                       217,736
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               217,736 	
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          1,711,555	
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           11,254	
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (651,370)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (651,370)	
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (651,370)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0	
<NET-INCOME>                               (651,370)	
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.19)	



</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT AKYLIE DAVIS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-4209 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed September 23, 2020. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 775.084(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002); Martinez v. State, 211 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2017); State v. Matthews, 891 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2004); Gudinas v. State, 879 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2004); State v. Whitehead, 472 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1985); Calloway v. State, 914 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Tillman v. State, 900 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Davis v. State, 884 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Simms v. State, 949 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Cooper v. State, 902 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

KELLY, ATKINSON, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
** Exhibit 15.1**

**  **

**Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors

 

Nano Dimension Ltd.:

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein registration statement (No. 333-214520) on Form S-8 of Nano Dimension Ltd. of our report dated March 6, 2017, with respectto the consolidated statements of financial position of Nano Dimension Ltd. and its subsidiary as of December 31, 2015 and 2016,and the related consolidated statements of profit or loss and other comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows foreach of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2016, which report appears in the December 31, 2016 annual reporton Form 20-F of Nano Dimension Ltd.

 

/s/ Somekh Chaikin

 

Certified Public Accountants (Israel)

A member firm of KPMG International

Tel Aviv, Israel

March 7, 2017
Case 6:22-cv-00049-H Document 147 Filed 11/02/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 2924
Case 4:22-cr-00312-Y Document 53 Filed 02/03/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 125
Case 4:22-cr-00312-Y Document 53 Filed 02/03/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 126
EXHIBIT
32.1
  WRITTEN
STATEMENT
  PURSUANT
TO
  18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350
  The
undersigned, Jay H. Schecter, the Chief Executive Officer and principal
executive and financial officer of Corporate Resource Services, Inc. (the
“Company”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that, to the best of
his knowledge:
  (i)
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended December
31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and
  (ii)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  Dated:
February 16, 2011
 By:
      /s/ Jay H. SchecterName:
      Jay H. SchecterTitle:   Chief
      Executive Officer(principal
      executive and financial officer)
  The
foregoing certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
#### BLACKSHEAR v. STATE.

No. 22122.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 13, 1942.

B. R. Reeves, of Palestine, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

• BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged with having in her possession an alcholic beverage containing more than one-half of one per cent, of alcohol by volume in a container to which no tax stamp was attached and having no evidence of the payment of the tax to the State of Texas. She pleaded guilty to the charge and was assessed a fine of $100 from which she appeals.

The record is before us without statement of facts and bills of exception. The procedure appears to be regular and nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-01-1998
<CASH>                                            3328
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              63
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  4202
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       5609
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            2341
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              2394
<LOANS>                                          48441
<ALLOWANCE>                                        630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   67476
<DEPOSITS>                                       58633
<SHORT-TERM>                                       342
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               2000
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           297
<OTHER-SE>                                        4019
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   67476
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   1144
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  122
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    19
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                   448
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                  51
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 499
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              786
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       48
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    705
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    189
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         189
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       123
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.09
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                      1313
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   576
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  630
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               630
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Charles Debellis et al., Respondents, v Property Clerk of the City of New York et al., Appellants.

Order and judgment (one paper), New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered on or about July 13, 1989, granting petitioners’ motion for an order directing respondents to turn over to petitioners certain items of personal property and merchandise held by respondent Property Clerk of the City of New York, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On or about September 14, 1987, petitioners each pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of criminal possession of a stolen "walkie-talkie”. The remainder of the charges were dismissed, and petitioners paid a fine of $1,000. On or about October 20, *3141987, petitioners made timely written demand upon respondent Property Clerk for a return of the remaining property in the possession of the Property Clerk, consisting of considerable amounts of cash, jewelry, coins and silver bars, seized from petitioners’ place of business pursuant to warrant.

Petitioners’ demand was refused on the ground that the property was subject to a levy by the Internal Revenue Service. After securing a release of the tax levy, petitioners again sent a written demand for a release of the property. When this second demand was rejected by respondents as untimely, petitioners brought this proceeding.

Petitioners, having made timely demand for the release of the property, were entitled to possession once the impeding tax lien was removed, unless respondents instituted forfeiture proceedings within 10 days of the demand. *(McClendon v Rosetti,*369 F Supp 1391.) Petitioners were not required to serve an additional notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e in order to obtain redress. *(See, Matter of Caggiano v Frank,*78 Mise 2d 187, *affd*44 AD2d 828.) Nor was petitioners’ demand required to be accompanied by a release from the District Attorney. Respondents’ duty is triggered either by demand or by release from the District Attorney, whichever comes first. *(Moreno v City of New York,*69 NY2d 432.)

We have examined respondents’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            Joint Forces Staff College
                Joint Forces Staff College
        Search
                    Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                        Search
                Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                    Search
    Home

    Coronavirus

    About 
        Overview

    College Leadership

    College Chaplain

    Contact Information

    Denton Learning Center

    Employment

    History

    Institutional Research

    JFSC Faculty

    Women, Peace, and Security (WPS)

    Academics
    
        Accreditation

    Joint Advanced Warfighting School (JAWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    Joint and Combined Warfighting School (JCWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    JCWS Hybrid (JCWS-H)

    JCWS Satellite (JCWS-S)

    Joint Information School (JIS)
        
        C4I Division

    Information Division

    Joint Transition Course (JTC)

    International Fellows
        
        Incoming Fellows

    Programs

    Alumni

    Contact Us

    Senior Fellows Program

    Libraries

    Faculty Resources

    Students
    
        All Course Schedules

    Incoming Students

    NDU Academic Policies

    Security Manager/SSO

    Uniform Policy

    Registrar

    Media
    
        Campaigning Journals
        
        About Us

    Issues & Articles

    Submissions

    Masthead

    News

    Commentary  News News
 Joint and Combined Warfighting School Class 14-4 Published in Joint Forces Quarterly
 A Student writing team consisting of Major Daniel Smith (USA), Major Kelly Jeter (USAF) and Master Gunnery Sergeant Odin Westgaard (USMC) from Joint and Combined Warfighting School Class 14-4 published “Three Approaches to Center of Gravity Analysis: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” in the Joint Forces Quarterly Issue 78 3rd Quarter 2015. The article can be found at the link below.  Joint Forces Quarterly Issue 78 3rd Quarter 2015
 SHARE
 PRINT
 DoD Link Disclaimer
   DoD Annual Performance Plans
   NDU FOIA RequestsDoD Privacy Policy
   DoD Plain Writing
   NDU System of Records NoticeDoD Open Government
   DoD Information Quality
   NDU Privacy PolicyDoD Privacy Program
   DoD Section 508
   NDU Privacy ProgramDoD No FEAR Act
   USA.gov
   NDU.edu Site Map
                    Joint Forces Staff College
   7800 Hampton Blvd.
   Norfolk, VA 23511-1702

   Contact JFSC

   Report JFSC Website Issues
   or Suggestion for Improvement

   SAPR Resources
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil