alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
We are committed to a strong and resilient economy for all.We are committed to a strong and resilient economy for all.

Caregiving duties affect whether and how much parents work. Our blog discusses households' child care decisions and the effects on labor force participation.

  FOMC Lowers Federal Funds Rate Target Range 50 Basis Points

----

----

  Memphis Breakfast with the Fed - National and Regional Economic Outlook

----

## Pulse of the Economy

4.2%

August 2024

2.5%

July 2024

4.83%

September 19, 2024

FRED® Data

Explore Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED)

## Who We Are

### Our Leadership 

                        -  President Alberto G. Musalem 
                        -  Management Committee 
                        -  Board of Directors 
                        -  Advisory Councils 

### Our Offices 

                        -  St. Louis Headquarters 
                        -  Little Rock Branch 
                        -  Louisville Branch 
                        -  Memphis Branch 

### Our Culture 

                        -  Vision, Mission & Values 
                        -  Diversity, Equity & Inclusion 
                        -  Employee Resource GroupsCareers
          What We Do
Promote Financial Stability

Explore banking topics in our blog series

Convene Communities
community-development  target="" class="outline-fix">                         
Discover community development work

Provide Thought Leadership
timely-topics  target="" class="outline-fix">                         
Hear from research experts in our podcasts

Advance Economic Equity
institute-for-economic-equity  target="" class="outline-fix">                         
Meet the Institute for Economic Equity

Engage Main Street
dialogue-with-the-fed  target="" class="outline-fix">                         
Watch our Dialogue with the Fed events

Share Economic Knowledge
education/teaching-new-tools-of-monetary-policy  target="" class="outline-fix">                         
Teach students about monetary policy tools
  careers" class="a-link-no-underlinee white-link outline-fix-2" target="" >                    
Apply for a Job
/museum.stlouisfed.org" class="a-link-no-underlinee white-link outline-fix-2" target="" >                    
Visit the Economy Museum
events" class="a-link-no-underlinee white-link outline-fix-2" target="" >                    
Attend an Event
speakers-bureau" class="a-link-no-underlinee white-link outline-fix-2" target="" >                    
Request a Speaker
           FOLLOW USSIGN UP FOR EMAIL ALERTSReceive updates in your inbox as soon as new content is published.SIGN UPQUICK LINKSAbout UsLegal InformationContact UsPrivacy PolicyCareersDoing Business with the FedEventsFRB Services & FedNowVisiting the St. Louis FedFederal Banking Regulations
§ 556.801 How do I seek approval of an assignment of my operating rights? ( a ) The Regional Director will provide the form to document the assignment of an operating rights interest. You must request approval of each assignment of operating rights and submit to BOEM two originals of each instrument that transfers ownership of operating rights within 90 days after the last party executes the transfer instrument. You must pay the service fee listed in § 556.106 with your request and your submission must include evidence of payment via *pay.gov.*
( b ) A new operating rights owner must file a designation of operator, in accordance with § 550.143, along with the request for the approval of the assignment.
( c ) If an operating rights owner assigns an undivided ownership interest in its operating rights, that assignment creates a joint ownership in the operating rights.
( d ) Before BOEM approves a sublease or re-assignment of operating rights, BOEM may consult with and consider the views of the Attorney General.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains consolidated summary financial information extracted from
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 1999 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           72,319,000
<SECURITIES>                                     89,181,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                166,683,000
<PP&E>                                            7,290,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (2,123,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  171,850,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            25,512,000
<BONDS>                                              43,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             38,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      146,257,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    171,850,000
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          0
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 77,920,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (73,423,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (73,423,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (73,423,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (2.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (2.34)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Verdant Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Curd, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



November 17, 2008



| |     |                                      
| | --- | -------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ DAVID J. CURD                    
| |     | David J. Curd
Chief Executive Officer
2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-29-2002

Charles v. Tina D'Angelo Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 99-1598

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Charles v. Tina D'Angelo Inc" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 59.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/59
 UNREPORTED - NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ___________ 

 No. 99-1598 

 ___________ 

 TRYONE A. CHARLES 

 v. 

 TINA D'ANGELO, INC., d/b/a TINA'S BRIDAL BOUTIQUE; 

 LEE WYCOFF, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF 

 TINA D'ANGELO-WYCOFF, DECEASED; LEE WYCOFF 

 Appellants. 

 ___________ 

 ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 (D.C. Civil No. 97-cv-04113) 

 District Judge: The Honorable James T. Giles 

 ___________ 

 Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 JANUARY 22, 2002 

 BEFORE: NYGAARD and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges, 

 and CAPUTO, District Judge. 

 (Filed ) 

 ___________ 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT 

 ___________ 

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. 

 Tyrone A. Charles filed a complaint against appellants contending 

that they 

breached, or illegally ended, a contract with him because of his race. He 

is AfricanAmerican. A jury returned a verdict in favor of appellants and against 

Charles. 

Appellants filed a petition to amend the judgment to add an award of 

attorney's fees 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. The District Court denied their petition. 

We review this 

denial for an abuse of discretion. Finding none, we will affirm. 

 The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 

1988, 

permits the court to award attorney's fees to the "prevailing party" in 

suits brought under 

the federal civil rights statutes. The district courts have been given 

discretion to decide 

whether, in their judgment, a plaintiff's claim was frivolous or 

groundless. In this matter, 

the District Court compared the "thrust of the plaintiff's contention" 

with the evidence he 

adduced at trial, and concluded that attorney's fees were not indicated. 

We believe the 

decision was within the Court's discretion, see no abuse, and will affirm. 

TO THE CLERK: 

 Please file the foregoing opinion. 

 Richard L. Nygaard 

 Circuit Judge
#### § 56.9313 Roadway maintenance.

Water, debris, or spilled material on roadways which creates hazards to the operation of mobile equipment shall be removed.
#### Pearl Reiss, Appellant, v. Adler Properties, Inc., Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been sustained by reason of defendant’s negligence, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Bangs County, dated September 29, 1960, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
§ 550.163 If I have a State lease, will BOEM grant me a right-of-use and easement? ( a ) BOEM may grant a lessee of a State lease located adjacent to or accessible from the OCS a right-of-use and easement on the OCS.
( b ) BOEM will only grant a right-of-use and easement under this paragraph to enable a State lessee to conduct and maintain a device that is permanently or temporarily attached to the seabed (*i.e.,* a platform, artificial island, or installation). The lessee must use the device to explore for, develop, and produce oil and gas from the adjacent or accessible State lease and for other operations related to these activities.
### §21. Submarine cables; willful injury to; punishment

Any person who shall willfully and wrongfully break or injure, or attempt to break or injure, or who shall in any manner procure, counsel, aid, abet, or be accessory to such breaking or injury, or attempt to break or injure, a submarine cable in such manner as to interrupt or embarrass, in whole or in part, telegraphic communication, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.

(Feb. 29, 1888, ch. 17, §1, 25 Stat. 41.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title

Act Feb. 29, 1888, ch. 17, 25 Stat. 41, which enacted sections 21 to 33 of this title, is popularly known as the "Submarine Cable Act".

#### International Convention

The protection of submarine cables was made the subject of an international convention between the United States and Germany, Argentine Confederation, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Spain, United States of Columbia, France, Great Britain, Guatemala, Greece, Italy, Turkey, Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Salvador, Servia, Sweden and Norway, Uruguay, and the British Colonies. It was concluded Mar. 14, 1884, ratified Jan. 26, 1885, ratifications exchanged Apr. 16, 1885, proclaimed May 22, 1885, and entered into force for the United States May 1, 1888. Its provisions were set forth in 24 Stat. 989 to 1000.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 25, 2011

d0418 

# Order

April 25, 2011

142329

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142329 COA: 299310 Wayne CC: 08-012421-01-FH NATHANIEL NATHAN WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 10, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### §2112. Authority to change working hours

In a port at which the customary working hours begin before 8 a.m. or end after 5 p.m., the Secretary may regulate the working hours of the officers and employees referred to in section 2111 of this title so that those hours conform to the prevailing working hours of the port. However—

(1) the total period for which overtime pay may be required under section 2111 of this title may not be more than 15 hours between any 2 periods of ordinary working hours on other than Sundays and holidays;

(2) the length of the working day for the officers and employees involved may not be changed; and

(3) the rate of overtime pay may not be changed.

(Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 508.)

| Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
| --- | --- |
| 2112 | 46:382b |

Section 2112 provides the Secretary with the authority to regulate the working hours of civilian officers and employees of the Coast Guard to conform with the prevailing working hours of a port.
#### § 285.420 What effect does a suspension order have on my payments?

If BSEE orders a suspension, as provided in § 285.417, BOEM may waive or defer your payment obligations during the suspension. BOEM's decision to waive or defer payments will depend on the reasons for the suspension, including your responsibility for the circumstances necessitating a suspension.

[88 FR 6413, Jan. 31, 2023, as amended at 89 FR 42714, May 15, 2024]
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC, dba Brazos 

Licensing and Development, 

Appellant

v.

UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC, 

Appellee

______________________

2022-2267

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-

00378.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 22-2267 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 09/29/2022
2 WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC V. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

September 29, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: September 29, 2022

Case: 22-2267 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 09/29/2022
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Clarence Stanley Baum, Appellant.

Appeal by petitioner from an order of the Acting County Judge of Ulster County which denied his application for a writ of error *coram nobis.*Appellant was sentenced in the County Court of Ulster County on June 4, 1958 to a term of one to two years in prison upon his plea of guilty to an indictment charging him with the commission of a felony in violation of section 1694 of the Penal Law. It is not disputed that at the time of his escape he was under sentence for two other felonies. He contends the omission of the sentencing Judge to order that the second sentence be served successively presumes its term to be concurrent. In the situation presented the statute prescribes an automatic rule which makes the term of imprisonment imposed upon the subsequent felony conviction consecutive. (Penal Law, § 2190, subd. 2; *People*v. *Ingber,*248 N. Y. 302; *Matter of Browne*v. *Board of Parole,*10 N Y 2d 116.) Subdivision 4 of the same section has no application to the instant facts. Our consideration of the appeal on the merits does not imply that *co'ram nobis*is the appropriate remedy for the relief sought. Obviously it is not. *(People*v. *Sullivan,*3 N Y 2d 196.) Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1489

In re: ALEXANDER WHITE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:16-hc-02188-BO)

Submitted: August 23, 2018 Decided: August 27, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander White, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alexander White petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing the 

district court to vacate its order dismissing White’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We 

conclude that White is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. 

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 756

F.3d 282, 294 (4th Cir. 2014). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In 

re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by White is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### KEEFE et al., Appellants, v. THIRD NAT. BANK OF SYRACUSE et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 6, 1903.)

Action by Arthur J. Keefe and others against the Third National Bank of Syracuse and others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 4.3



 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated November 22, 2022, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 591 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement
on Form S-6 (File No. 333-266865) 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


November 22, 2022
#### § 5.40 Fee administration.

Applicants and approval holders will be billed for all fees, including actual travel expenses, if any, when approval program activities are completed. Invoices will contain specific payment instruction, including the address to mail payments and authorized methods of payment.
§ 556.107 Corporate seal requirements. ( a ) If you electronically submit to BOEM any document or information referenced in § 560.500 of this chapter, any requirement to use a corporate seal under this chapter will be satisfied, and you will not need to affix your corporate seal to such document or information, if: ( 1 ) You properly file with BOEM a paper, with a corporate seal and the signature of the authorized person(s), stating that electronic submissions made by you will be legally binding, as set forth in § 560.502 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) You make electronic submissions to BOEM through a secure electronic filing system that conforms to the requirements of § 560.500; or,
( b ) You may file with BOEM a non-electronic document, containing a corporate seal and the signature of an authorized person(s), attesting that future documents and information filed by you by electronic or non-electronic means will be legally binding without an affixed corporate seal. If you file such a non-electronic attestation document with BOEM, any requirement for use of a corporate seal under the regulations of this chapter will be satisfied, and you will not need to affix your corporate seal to submissions where they would have been otherwise required.
( c ) If the State or territory in which you are incorporated does not issue or require corporate seals, the document referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section need not contain a corporate seal, but must still contain the signature of the authorized person(s), a statement that the State in which you are incorporated does not issue or require corporate seals, and a statement that submissions made by you will be legally binding.
( d ) Any document, or information submitted without corporate seal must still contain the signature of an individual qualified to sign who has the requisite authority to act on your behalf.
( e ) Any document or information submitted pursuant to this section is submitted subject to the penalties of 18 U.S.C. 1001, as amended by the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996.