alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1278.1 Definitions. *Constituent Bank* means a Bank that is proposing to merge with one or more other Banks. Each Bank entering into a merger is a Constituent Bank, regardless of whether it is also a Continuing Bank.
*Continuing Bank* means a Bank that will exist as the result of a merger of two or more Constituent Banks, and when used in the singular shall include the plural.
*Disclosure Statement* means a written document that contains, to the extent applicable, all of the items that a Bank would be required to include in a Form S-4 Registration Statement under the Securities Act of 1933 (or any successor form promulgated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission governing disclosure required for securities issued in business combination transactions) when prepared as a prospectus as directed in Part I of the form, if the Bank were required to provide such a prospectus to its shareholders in connection with a merger.
*Effective Date* means the date on which the organization certificate of the Continuing Bank becomes effective as provided under § 1278.7.
*Financial Statements* means statements of condition, income, capital, and cash flows, with explanatory notes, in such form as the Banks are required to include in their filings made under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
Merge or Merger means: ( 1 ) A merger of one or more Banks into another Bank;
( 2 ) A consolidation of two or more Banks resulting in a new Bank;
( 3 ) A purchase of substantially all of the assets, and assumption of substantially all of the liabilities, of one or more Banks by another Bank or Banks; or
( 4 ) Any other business combination of two or more Banks into one or more resulting Banks.
*Record Date* means the date established by a Bank's board of directors for determining the members that are entitled to vote on the ratification of the merger agreement and the number of ballots that may be cast by each in the election.
[76 FR 72833, Nov. 28, 2011, as amended at 78 FR 2328, Jan. 11, 2013; 81 FR 76300, Nov. 2, 2016]
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4359 Supplemental loans. ( a ) Any loan for the alteration, repair, improvement, extension, replacement, or expansion of a home, with respect to which a guaranteed or insured obligation of the borrower is currently outstanding, may be reported for guaranty or insurance coverage, if such loan is made by the holder of the currently outstanding obligation, notwithstanding the fact no guaranty entitlement remains available to the borrower; *Provided*, that if no entitlement remains available the maximum amount payable on the revised guaranty shall not exceed the amount payable on the original guaranty on the date of closing the supplemental loan, and the percentage of guaranty shall be based upon the proportion the said maximum amount bears to the aggregate indebtedness, or, in the case of an insured loan, no additional credit to the holder's insurance account may be made: *Provided* further, that the prior approval of the Secretary shall be required if: ( 1 ) The loan will be made by a lender who is not the holder of the currently guaranteed or insured obligation; or
( 2 ) The loan will be made by a lender not of a class specified in 38 U.S.C. 3702(d); or
( 3 ) An obligor liable on the currently outstanding obligation will be released from personal liability.
( b ) In any case in which the unpaid balance of the prior loan currently outstanding is combined or consolidated with the amount of the supplemental loan, the entire aggregate indebtedness shall be repayable in full within the maximum maturity currently prescribed by statute for the original loan. No supplemental loan for the repair, alteration, or improvement of residential property will be eligible for guaranty or insurance unless such repair, alteration, or improvement substantially protects or improves the basic livability or utility of the property involved.
( c ) Such loans shall be secured as required in § 36.4355: *Provided*, that a lien of lesser dignity than therein specified will suffice if the lien obtained is immediately junior to the lien of the original guaranteed or insured obligation: *Provided further*, that the liens of successive supplemental loans may be of lesser dignity so long as they are immediately junior to the lien of the last previous guaranteed or insured obligation having a lien of required dignity.
( d ) Upon providing or extending guaranty or insurance coverage in respect to any such supplemental loan, the rights of the Secretary to the proceeds of the sale of security shall be subordinate to the right of the holder to satisfy therefrom the indebtedness outstanding on the original and supplemental loans.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3703(c)(1), 3710(b)(6))
[73 FR 6310, Feb. 1, 2008. Redesignated at 75 FR 33705, June 15, 2010, as amended at 80 FR 34319, June 16, 2015]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 42.108 Institution of *inter partes* review.

(a) When instituting *inter partes* review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.

(b) At any time prior to a decision on institution of *inter partes* review, the Board may deny all grounds for unpatentability for all of the challenged claims. Denial of all grounds is a Board decision not to institute *inter partes* review.

(c) *Inter partes* review shall not be instituted unless the Board decides that the information presented in the petition demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. The Board's decision will take into account a patent owner preliminary response where such a response is filed, including any testimonial evidence. A petitioner may seek leave to file a reply to the preliminary response in accordance with §§ 42.23 and 42.24(c). Any such request must make a showing of good cause.

[85 FR 79129, Dec. 9, 2020]
Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Rackman

Regional Airline Associiltion Dave Lotterer

Organization

National Busin('ss Aircraft Association

AT.'\.

Person Contacted

Eli CoW

Date Response

-

-
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Meredith

Minchew

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00330

- CV

Trial court case number: 2019

- 32212

Trial court: 333rd District Court of Harris County

Appellee, Meredith Minchew, has filed her fourth motion to extend the deadline to file her appellee’s brief. Appellant, Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, filed its appellant’s brief on October 27, 2021, mak ing appellee’s brief initially due to be filed on or before November 29, 2021. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(b). After obtaining three previous extensions, appellee’s brief is currently due to be filed on or before February 28, 2022. In our order granting ap pellee’s third motion for extension, appellee was notified that no further extensions would be granted.

On February 23, 2022, appellee filed her fourth motion to extend the deadline, requesting that her deadline for filing her appellee’s brief be extended to March 21, 2022

. In the motion, counsel for appellee states that while the Court notified appellee that no further extensions would be granted, the extension was necessary because counsel’s father recently passed away. Appellee’s motion further states that appellant is agreed to the relief requested in appellee’s motion.

Accordingly, appellee’s motion is granted

. Appellee’s brief is due to be filed on

or before March 21, 2022 . No further extensions will be considered, and the failure to file an appellee’s brief by the extended deadline may result in the Court setting the case

“at

- issue” and considering and deciding the case without an appellee’s brief. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 10.5(b), 38.6(d)

.It is so ORDE RED.

Judge’s signature: _____ /s/ April Farris

_____  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ March 1, 2022

____
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 6 (iv)

                         GRANT OF OPTION AND AGREEMENT
                          TO PURCHASE CORPORATE STOCK

     OPTION GIVEN this 11/th/ day of August, 1999, by Hydrogiene Corporation, of
San Diego, California ("grantor"), by the authority of the board of directors of
grantor corporation, in accordance with a resolution of the board adopted at a
board meeting on the 28/th/ day of March, 1999, to Michael N. Brette, of Rancho
California, California ("grantee"):

1. Grantor hereby grants to grantee an option to purchase 3 million (3,000,000)
shares of the common stock of grantor corporation. Such purchase shall be on the
terms and conditions stated in this option agreement.

2. This option is effective immediately when executed by grantor and will
expire at 5:00 o'clock p.m. on December 31, in the year 2002. Notice of the
option shall be provided grantee in writing.

3. Grantee may exercise this option only by delivering to grantor a written
notice thereof, signed by grantee, and tendering the consideration there set
forth, before the time set for expiration of the option. Any such notice, if
sent by registered or certified mail, shall be considered delivered when
deposited in the United States mail.

4. As consideration for the grant of this option, grantee has paid to grantor,
concurrently with the execution hereof, the sum of $100, and other valuable
consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged by grantor. This option is
exercisable either partially or in full during the option period. Grantee may
partially exercise the option as frequently and in such increments as grantee
desires, cumulatively, up to the total number of optioned shares.

5. The terms of this option are as follows: Grantee may purchase the stated
number of shares at the strike price calculated at fifteen percent (15%) of the
bid price of the stock on the date the option is exercised.

6. In the event grantee fails to exercise this option, grantor shall retain all
consideration paid as consideration for this option. If the option is exercised,
the sum paid as consideration for this option shall be applied to the purchase
price under the terms hereof.

                                      -1-

<PAGE>
7. This option agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of
the parties and their respective heirs, successors, or assigns.

GRANTOR: HYDROGIENE CORPORATION

By: /s/ Charles W. Kallmann                      Dated: 11 August, 1999
    ----------------------------------
    Charles W. Kallmann, Chairman

Attested:

By: /s/ Karl R. Rolls, Jr.                       Dated: 11 August, 1999
    ----------------------------------
    Karl R. Rolls, Jr., Secretary

                                      -2-
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

Description of Operating Committee Medical Coverage 

All members of the Operating Committee of Morgan Stanley (the “Company”) are eligible to participate in Company-sponsored health and insurance
benefit programs available in the relevant jurisdiction to similarly situated employees. Operating Committee members are also eligible to participate in Morgan Stanley’s Executive Health Program under which each Operating Committee member is
eligible to receive Company-funded access to a private primary care physician offering on-call services and an annual executive health care assessment. Operating Committee members who retire with three or more years of service with the Company are
eligible to receive retiree medical coverage for themselves and their eligible dependents paid by the Company. The Executive Health Program and retiree medical coverage for Operating Committee members may be amended or discontinued at any time,
including to curtail benefits for some or all covered individuals, to change the cost of coverage and to implement changes required by federal, state and local legislation.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CALEB JOSEPH PRICE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-30327

D.C. No. 3:06-cr-00209-HA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Ancer L. Haggerty, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 8, 2012

Portland, Oregon

Before: TASHIMA, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Caleb Joseph Price appeals the revocation of his term of supervised release

on the ground that the revocation violated his due process right to confront

witnesses against him. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

reverse.

FILED

MAY 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

In supervised release revocation proceedings, a releasee “enjoys a due

process right to confront witnesses against him.” United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d

980, 986 (9th Cir. 2005). To determine “whether the admission of hearsay

evidence violates the releasee’s right to confrontation in a particular case, the court

must weigh the releasee’s interest in his constitutionally guaranteed right to

confrontation against the Government’s good cause for denying it.” United States

v. Comito, 177 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 1999).

Price had a strong interest in confronting Keisha Kagawa, the key witness

against him. The evidence of Kagawa’s statements to the police officer, probation

officer, Price’s neighbor, and Price’s boss was crucial to the court’s ultimate

finding; it was the government’s only evidence that Price was responsible for the

assault. See Hall, 419 F.3d at 987; Comito, 177 F.3d at 1171. Moreover,

Kagawa’s statements were oral and unsworn, the “least reliable form of hearsay,”

Comito, 177 F.3d at 1171.

The government made no showing of good cause to justify denying Price his

right to confront Kagawa. It made no efforts to produce Kagawa at the hearing; it

did not explain to the district court its failure to produce her; and its post-hearing

unsworn representations in a brief to the court could not establish good cause. See

Orion Tire Corp. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 268 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir.
3

2001) (“[U]nsubstantiated versions of events proffered by counsel on appeal are, of

course, not evidence.”). Accordingly, the absence of Kagawa at the revocation

hearing violated Price’s due process right to confrontation.

The violation was not harmless. Without the hearsay evidence, there was

evidence only that Kagawa had been assaulted – not that Price was the culprit. See

Comito, 177 F.3d at 1170-71, 1173.

The order of the district court revoking Price’s supervised release is

reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE, ACCOUNTING ANDFINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Western Gaming Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I DeAnn Moore, Secretary/Treasurer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

 

/s/DeAnn MooreDeAnn MooreSecretary/Treasurer

March 17, 2005
#### Julius Lewin et al., Respondents, *v.*Bernard Towbin, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, first district, borough of Manhattan.

Abraham B. Schleimer, for appellant.

Robert L. Turk, for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The only point raised by the appellant requiring attention relates to the alleged irregularity in the form of the ' *781judgment rendered below. This being an action brought to recover a chattel, the judgment for the plaintiffs should award to them the possession of the chattel, or the sum fixed as the value thereof in possession cannot be procured. Lang Mun. Ct. Pr. 240. The judgment appealed from was not in the alternative, but it may be modified by providing that plaintiffs recover possession of the chattels in suit, and if delivery thereof cannot be made, then for the sum of eighty-one dollars, the value thereof, with seventeen dollars and fifty cents costs, and as so modified the judgment should be affirmed, without costs. Wolf v. Farley, 40 N. Y. St. Repr. 808.

Present: Beekmam, P. J.',- Giegerich and O’Gorham, JJ.

Judgment modified, and as modified affirmed, without costs.
§ 1092.205 Publication and correction of registration information. ( a ) *Internet publication of registration information.* The Bureau may make available to the public the information submitted to the nonbank registry pursuant to §§ 1092.202 and 1092.203 by means that include publishing such information on the Bureau's publicly available internet site within a timeframe determined by the Bureau in its discretion, except that: ( 1 ) The publication described in this paragraph (a) will not include the written statement submitted under § 1092.204, which will be treated as Bureau confidential supervisory information subject to the provisions of 12 CFR part 1070 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) The publication described in this paragraph (a) will not include administrative information.
( b ) *Other publications of information.* In addition to the publication described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Bureau may, at its discretion, compile and aggregate information submitted by persons pursuant to this subpart and make any compilations or aggregations of such information publicly available as the Bureau deems appropriate.
( c ) *Correction of submissions to the nonbank registry.* If any information submitted to the nonbank registry under this subpart was inaccurate when submitted and remains inaccurate, the covered nonbank shall file a corrected report in the form and manner specified by the Bureau within 30 days after the date on which such covered nonbank becomes aware or has reason to know of the inaccuracy. In addition, the Bureau may at any time and in its discretion direct a covered nonbank to correct errors or other non-compliant submissions to the nonbank registry made under this subpart.
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 Justice

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 25, 2009, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute—Cooperative Research Group on Clean Diesel V (“Clean Diesel V”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, China Automotive Engineering Research Institute Co. Ltd. (CAERI), Chongqing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, has been added as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Clean Diesel V intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On January 10, 2008, Clean Diesel V filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 25, 2008 (73 FR 10064).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 17, 2009. A notice was published in the                     **Federal                               ( print page 50246)                            Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 3, 2009 (74 FR 38474).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. E9-23401 Filed 9-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M