alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Basel’s Third Quantitative 

Impact Study: The Result

May, 2003
Purpose & Process of QIS

-3 

• 

Understand effe

c

t of/recalibrate propo

•

C

o

mpare current capital standard with 

of three potential approaches, showing for each portfolio 

•

Covered full proposal--all of credit ris

m

arke

t and operational risk 

• 22 U.S. BHCs, >350 worldwide • 

Most addressed onl

y standardized app
Process (continued) 

• Substantial preparation, do

m

estically a

abroad 

•

Data/spreadsheet clean-up, corrections

changes 

•

Findings used to “tweak” recent CP-3 

Modification 

% Cha

– 

LGD floor for mortgages 

1

– 

Revi

sed risk wt curve 

for credit cards 0

– 

Revi

sed Std approach 

for Op Risk 3
A Challenge to All 

• Participants generally satisfied with th

efforts and results 

• Questions remain about data • Not surprising at this stage 
G10 Results: Effect on Total RWA 1/ 

Portfolio contribution to total credit risk change, perce

Portfolio Standardized FIRB AIRB Corporate 

Sovereign Bank 

Retail: (total) – Mortgage – Non-mortgage – Revolving SME (total) EquityTrading bookSecuritised assets

Other portfolios

General provisions

Overall credit riskOperational risk

Overall change

1 -2 -4 

0 2 1 

2 2 0 

-5 -9 -9 

-3 -6 -6 

-2 -3 -3 

0 0 0 

-1 -2 -3 

0 2 2 

1 0 0 

1 0 0 

1 1 2 

0 -1 -2 

0 -7 -13 

10 10 11 

11 3 -2 

1/ Group 1 banks completing both IRB approaches 
U.S. Results: Effect on Total RWA (AIR

Portfolio 

Corporate Sovereign 

Bank 

Retail: (of which) – Mortgage – Non-mortgage (ex-SME) – Revolving 

SME (total) 

Equity Trading book Securitised assets Other portfolios 

U.S. Capital-Weighted Average 

Percent of Percent Contribution 

Current Change to Overall Credit 

RWAs X in RWAs = Risk Change 

37% -26% -10% 

2% 12% 0% 

3% -28% -1% 

29% -27% -8% 

13% -53% -7% 

8% -25% -2% 

8% 16% 1% 

11% -33% -3% 

2% 232% 4% 

7% 2% 0% 

7% -10% -1% 

3% 33% 1% 

General provisions 0% Overall credit risk 100% -17% -17% 

Operational risk 11% Overall change -6% -6% 
Key Issue/Question--Dispers

Contributing factors include: 

• Different assessment horizons or PD estima

methods 

• Sensitivity of PDs to different rating grades • Selection of stress/non-stress LGDs • Interplay of LGD/EAD • Interpretation/application of draft proposal • Data availability, strength/consistency of ea

company’s internal process 

• Actual differences in risk 
Percent Change in Capital Requirements (A

All G-10 Banks 

-60% -40% -20% 

0% 

20% 40% 60% 

Tier 1 plus Tier 2 capital less deductions �bn 

0-10 10-15 15-20 >20 
Conclusion/Issues 

•

All need to gain greater under

standin

g and co

m

fort w

r

ange of r

esults 

•

Q

I

S

-

3 data on best effor

ts basis & not subject to sup

rev

iew 

• 

I

mportant implications 

– 

Q

I

S 3 r

esults for individ

ual ban

ks 

m

a

y have subs

m

argins for error 

– 

C

o

m

mittee’s calibr

ation process should be ongoi

– 

The transition to B

asel II 

m

ust be 

m

anaged with 

• 

Potential competitive i

mplications? 

– 

Large banks vs s

mall 

– 

P

roduct lines (

e.g., 

m

o

r

tgages)
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5355]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-383-021]


Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

February 28, 2001.
    Take notice that on February 23, 2001, Dominion Transmission, Inc. 
(DTI) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised 
Volume No. 1, Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 1404, with an 
effective date of November 1, 2000.
    DTI states that the filing is being made to comply with the 
Commission's January 24, 2001, Letter Order in the Docket No. RP96-383-
016.
    DTI states that copies of its letter of transmittal and enclosures 
have been served upon DTI's customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protest must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission, and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-5355 Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 13-016]

                    On July 14, 2000, as supplemented September 7, 2000, the Green Island Power Authority (Authority) filed a notice, in accordance with section 14(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 807(a), stating that on July 11, 2000, the Supreme Court of the State of New York entered an order of condemnation whereby the property that constitutes the licensed Green Island Project No. 13 was vested in the Authority. Project No. 13 is located on the Hudson River, at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Troy Lock and Dam in Albany County, New York.[1] 

Section 14(a) of the FPA states that “the right of the United States or any State or municipality to take over, maintain, and operate any project licensed under this Act at any time by condemnation proceedings upon payment of just compensation is hereby expressly reserved.” The Authority's filing demonstrate that it is “municipality” as defined in Section 3(8) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 796(8)); that it has fulfilled the conditions of the condemnation court's order, which therefore vests the project's property in it; and that it intends to operate the project as the licensee.

In accordance with Section 14(a) of the FPA, the Authority is recognized as the licensee for Project No. 13.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             The Commission issued the original license for the project to Henry Ford and Son, Inc., in 1921.                         *See*                         First Annual Report of the Federal Power Commission, pp. 110, 195. It issued a new license for the project to Niagara Mohawk Power Company in 1977. 57 FPC 817. The new license expires at the end of March 2, 2011. Recently, the Commission approved a transfer of the project license to Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. 88 FERC ¶ 62,082 (1999),                         *reh'g denied*, 90 FERC ¶ 61,148 (2000).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 01-519 Filed 1-8-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: SESSIONS OF THE SUPREME 

COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

FOR THE YEAR 2019

:

:

:

No. 494

Judicial Administration 

Docket

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 5th day of January, 2018, it is ordered that the 

argument/administrative sessions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania shall be held in 

the year 2019 as follows:

Philadelphia February 5

th

 (Administrative Session)

 

Philadelphia March 4

th through March 8th

Harrisburg March 26

th

(Administrative Session)

Pittsburgh April 8

th through April 12th

Harrisburg May 13

th through May 17th

Pittsburgh June 4

th

(Administrative Session)

Philadelphia September 9

th through September 13th

Pittsburgh October 15th through October 18th

Harrisburg November 18th through November 22nd

Additional argument/administrative sessions may be scheduled as the Court 

deems necessary.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 1658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-525]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-162-009]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

January 3, 2001.
    Take notice that on December 22, 2000, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective 
May 22, 2000.

Sub Original Sheet No. 119
2nd Sub Original Sheet No. 110

    Panhandle assets that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the Commission's Order on Rehearing and Compliance Filing issued on 
November 24, 2000 in Docket No. RP00-162-005 and RP00-162-006, 93 FERC 
para.61,211 (2000), to revise the charge for takes in excess of 
shipper's hourly delivery quantity under Rate Schedule HFT.
    Panhandle states that a copy of this filing is available for public 
inspection during regular business hours at Panhandle's office at 5444 
Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas 77056-5306. In addition, copies of this 
filing are being served on all affected customers, applicable state 
regulatory agencies and parties to this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-525 Filed 1-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1245 

CA 16-00497 

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

MARCIA WENTLAND, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

E.A. GRANCHELLI DEVELOPERS, INC., AND K.M. 

TREATS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.)

 

BROWN CHIARI LLP, BUFFALO (DAVID W. OLSON OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

LAW OFFICES OF DESTIN C. SANTACROSE, BUFFALO (LISA DIAZ-ORDAZ OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT E.A. GRANCHELLI DEVELOPERS, INC.

HAGELIN SPENCER LLC, BUFFALO (WILLIAM SWIFT OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT K.M. TREATS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Frank

Caruso, J.), entered January 22, 2016. The order denied the motion of

plaintiff to set aside a verdict. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Smith v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens,

155 AD2d 435; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). 

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 32

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

To our knowledge,  the undersigned  executive  officers of the Registrant hereby
certify that this  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2006 (the  "Report"),  fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
this Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition
and results of operations of the Registrant.

                                               By: /s/ Thomas A. Vann
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Thomas A. Vann
                                                   President and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   (Principal Executive Officer)



                                               By: /s/ William L. Wall
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   William L. Wall
                                                   Executive Vice President
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                  (Principal Financial Officer)


                                               Date: August 7, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         781,177                 781,177
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  425,116                 425,116
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,342,552               1,342,552
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,606,198               2,606,198
<PP&E>                                         448,480                 448,480
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,744,320               6,744,320
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,152,849               1,152,849
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        18,200                  18,200
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,465,994               5,465,994
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,744,320               6,744,320
<SALES>                                      1,928,513               3,203,954
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,347,611               3,892,326
<CGS>                                        1,474,174               2,595,059
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,260,881               3,770,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                101,802                 157,999
<INCOME-TAX>                                    34,640                  53,750
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             67,162                 104,249
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    67,162                 104,249
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04                     .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION FROM THE FORM 10-QSB FOR
THE FOUR MONTHS  ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   4-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         767
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  526
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,347
<PP&E>                                         9,104
<DEPRECIATION>                                 139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 26,483
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9,286
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          7
<PREFERRED>                                    4
<COMMON>                                       16
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,795
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   26,483
<SALES>                                        2,025
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,025
<CGS>                                          1,694
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,240
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,215)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,218)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (815)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,033)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.31)



</TABLE>
#### Golden Georgia Limited *v.*McManus.

Argued June 4,

Decided July 20, 1901.

Complaint on account. Before Judge Beid. City court of' Atlanta. January 15, 1901.

*Tomphins & Alston,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. G. Hartsfield, J. A. Anderson,*and *Goodwin & Hallman,*contra..

Little, J.

1. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff was sufficient to authorize the verdict rendered in his favor.

2. The trial judge committed no error in rejecting evidence of which complaint-was made. That which was excluded related to transactions between plaintiff and a third person, and was not pertinent to the issues involved in the case on trial.

3. The stenographic report of the evidence of the plaintiff on another trial was not documentary evidence. The judge committed no error in refusing to allow the same to be taken by the jury to their room when they retired to consider the case.

*4.*It does not'appear that the trial judge failed to state to the jury the contentions of the defendant with sufficient fullness and fairness.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated July 16, 2020, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 482 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-237689) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


July 16, 2020
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 10714 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:13

- cr - 00355

- TWT

- LTW

- 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,
versus JOSE JAIMEZ

- PADILLA, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Nor thern District of Georgia

________________________ (September 11, 2014) Before WILSON , PRYOR and ROSENBAUM , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-10714 Date Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 1 of 32 Jose Jaimez

- Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals his sentence of 18 months of imprisonment following his plea of guilty to ente ring the United States illegal ly after deport ment. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Jaimez

- Padilla argues that his sentence is unreasonable . We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion
. In June 2013, Jaimez

- Padilla entered the United States illegally a nd was arrested after he g a v e a false name to a police officer . Jaimez

- Padilla was deported in December 2011 following his conviction for two counts of family violence and was deported again in December 201 2. Based on that information , the dis trict court reasonably determined that a sentence at the low end of Jaimez

- Padilla’s advisory guideline range of 18 to 24 months of imprisonment was required to address the nature and circumstances of his offense and his recidivism , to provide adequate punishment, to promote respect for the law, and to avoid a sentencing disparit y with similarly

- situated offenders. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Jaimez

- Padilla argue d that he wa s entitled to a downward variance to account for hi s relatively m inor offenses and to offset the eight

- level enhancement of his sentence for being deported after being convicted of batter y involving violence , see United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2 (Nov. 2013), b ut the district court reasonably decided that a sentence of 18 months balance d the need to punish him for flouting the law with the need to compensate him for time served in the custody of immigration officers which

Case: 14-10714 Date Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 2 of 33 would not be credited by the Bureau of Prisons . Jaimez

- Padilla’s sentence, which is far below his maximum statutory punishment sentence of 20 years of imprisonment, is reasonable. We AFFIRM Jaimez

- Padilla’s sentence
. Case: 14-10714 Date Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 3 of 3