alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

|   | (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                as of the dates and for the periods referred to in the                Report. |

|                                       |            |                                      |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                                       |            |                                      |
| Date: November                9, 2006 | By:   |  /s/M.              Christine Jacobs |
|                                       |            | M.                Christine Jacobs        |
|                                       |            | Chief                Executive Officer    |
#### § 34.6 Applicability of state law to Federal savings associations and subsidiaries.

In accordance with section 1046 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 25b), Federal savings associations and their subsidiaries shall be subject to the same laws and legal standards, including regulations of the OCC, as are applicable to national banks and their subsidiaries, regarding the preemption of state law.

[76 FR 43569, July 21, 2011]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROOSEVELT REED, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

ELEANOR VERNELL; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35497 

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05800-RJB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 9, 2017**

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Roosevelt Reed appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process 

violations by prison officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-35497 

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Reed’s procedural 

due process claim concerning deductions from his prison postage subaccount 

because Reed failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he 

lacked an adequate post-deprivation remedy under Washington law. See Hudson v. 

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (“[A] . . . deprivation of property by a state 

employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due 

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation 

remedy for the loss is available.”); Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 918 (9th Cir. 

2000) (holding that Washington State Department of Corrections’ grievance 

process and Washington State’s tort claim process are adequate post-deprivation 

remedies for allegedly improper deductions from a prisoner’s account).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Reed’s substantive 

due process claim because Reed failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as 

to whether defendants’ conduct was egregious or shocks the conscience. County of 

Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845-49 (1998) (substantive due process 

challenge must establish “egregious official conduct” that “shocks the 

conscience”).

Defendants’ request, set forth in the answering brief, that this court 

determine that the appeal is frivolous and constitutes a strike under 28 U.S.C. 
3 15-35497 

§ 1915(e)(2), (g), is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Form 20-F of our report dated January 31, 2001, included in
the Company's 2000 Annual Report previously filed on Form 6-K, and to the
incorporation by reference of our report included in this Form 20-F into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8, File
No. 33-28473, Form S-8, File No. 333-6958, Form S-8, File No. 333-11178,
Form F-3, File No. 33-51798, Form F-3, File No. 33-96994, and Form F-3, File
No. 333-6960. It should be noted that we have not audited any financial
statements of the Company subsequent to November 30, 2000 or performed any audit
procedures subsequent to the date of our report.

                                          /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

New York, New York
May 29, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  audited  financial  statements for the six months ended September
30,  1997 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                  5,429
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             226
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        6,077
<PP&E>                                 79,063
<DEPRECIATION>                         13,141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         73,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     969
<BONDS>                                21,721
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             50,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           73,356
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        2,984
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           2,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        948
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (278)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                             (278)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (2.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (2.05)
        

</TABLE>
§ 303.103 Processing. ( a ) *Processing.* The 30-day notice period specified in § 303.102(a) shall begin on the date substantially all information required to be submitted by the notificant pursuant to § 303.102(c)(1) is received by the appropriate FDIC office. The FDIC shall notify the FDIC-supervised institution submitting the notice of the date on which the notice is accepted for processing and of the date on which the 30-day notice period will expire. If processing cannot be completed with 30 days, the notificant will be advised in writing, prior to expiration of the 30-day period, of the reason for the delay in processing and of the additional time period, not to exceed 60 days, in which processing will be completed.
( b ) *Commencement of service* — ( 1 ) *At expiration of period.* A proposed director or senior executive officer may begin service after the end of the 30-day period or any other additional period as provided under paragraph (a) of this section, unless the FDIC disapproves the notice before the end of the period.
( 2 ) *Prior to expiration of the period.* A proposed director or senior executive officer may begin service before the end of the 30-day period or any additional time period as provided under paragraph (a) of this section, if the FDIC notifies the FDIC-supervised institution and the individual in writing of the FDIC's intention not to disapprove the notice.
( c ) *Notice of disapproval.* The FDIC may disapprove a notice filed under § 303.102 if the FDIC finds that the competence, experience, character, or integrity of the individual with respect to whom the notice is submitted indicates that it would not be in the best interests of depositors of the FDIC-supervised institution or in the best interests of the public to permit the individual to be employed by, or associated with the FDIC-supervised institution. Subpart L of 12 CFR part 308 sets forth the rules of practice and procedure for a notice of disapproval.
[85 FR 3245, Jan. 21, 2020]
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3097

To amend the Federal Education Right to Privacy Act to improve the access 

of the victims of crimes to information concerning the outcome of disciplinary proceedings by institutions of higher education. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2003

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL

To amend the Federal Education Right to Privacy Act to 

improve the access of the victims of crimes to information concerning the outcome of disciplinary proceedings 

by institutions of higher education.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘David Shick Honesty 

5 in Campus Justice Act’’. 
2

•HR 3097 IH 

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO GENERAL EDUCATION PROVI2 SIONS ACT. 

3 Section 444(b)(6) of the General Education Provi4 sions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)) is amended by striking 

5 subparagraph (A) and inserting the following: 

6 ‘‘(6)(A) Nothwithstanding any other provision of this 

7 section, an institution of postsecondary education shall 

8 disclose to the alleged victim of any crime of violence (as 

9 that term is defined in section 16 of title 18), or a nonforc10 ible sex offense, the final results of any disciplinary pro11 ceeding conducted by such institution against a student 

12 who is the alleged perpetrator of such crime or offense 

13 with respect to such crime or offense. If the alleged victim 

14 of such crime or offense is deceased, the next of kin of 

15 such victim shall be treated as the alleged victim for pur16 poses of this subparagraph.’’.

Æ
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3181

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act to reauthorize the predisaster mitigation program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2003

Mr. LATOURETTE (for himself and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to reauthorize the predisaster mitigation program, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Predisaster Mitigation 

5 Program Reauthorization Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION. 

7 Section 203(m) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

8 Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 5133(m)) is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2003’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2006’’. 
2

•HR 3181 IH 

1 SEC. 3. HAZARD MITIGATION. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The last sentence of section 

3 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

4 Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘7.5’’ and inserting ‘‘15’’. 

6 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub7 section (a) shall apply with respect to a major disaster 

8 declared by the President after September 30, 2002. 

9 SEC. 4. REPAIR ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSE10 HOLDS. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 408(c)(2) of the Robert 

12 T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

13 (42 U.S.C. 5174(c)(2)) is amended—

14 (1) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ‘‘initial’’ 

15 before ‘‘assistance’’ the first place it appears; 

16 (2) in subparagraph (C)—

17 (A) in the subparagraph heading by insert18 ing ‘‘INITIAL’’ before ‘‘ASSISTANCE’’; and 

19 (B) by inserting ‘‘initial’’ before ‘‘assist20 ance’’; and 

21 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

22 ‘‘(D) ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE.—Subject 

23 to the limitation contained in subsection (h), 

24 the President may provide additional repair as25 sistance under this paragraph to an individual 

26 or household that is unable to complete the re-
3

•HR 3181 IH 

1 pairs described in subparagraph (A) using in2 surance proceeds, loans, or other financial as3 sistance, including assistance from the Small 

4 Business Administration.’’. 

5 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub6 section (a) shall apply with respect to a major disaster 

7 declared by the President after the date of enactment of 

8 this Act. 

9 SEC. 5. STUDY REGARDING COST REDUCTION. 

10 Section 209 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 

11 (42 U.S.C. 5121 note; 114 Stat. 1571) is amended by 

12 striking ‘‘3 years after the date of the enactment of this 

13 Act’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2005’’.

Æ
### Regular Totals (Operators)

Airport = JFK Season = S Operator = 0001(Exclude) Status Date = 01/01/2012 (Current & Future) 04/05/2012 12:21:39



### Query Parameters:

### 04/05/2012 12:21:39

Carrier 

### Regular Totals (Operators) Excludes FAA Held Slots Held less than 5 days are Excluded JFK Season = SUMMER PF7 Status Date = 01/01/2012 (Current & Future)

JFK

140 AAL AMERICAN AIRLINES 2 AAR ASIANA AIRLINES 1 ABX ABX AIR 2 AEA AIR EUROPA 2 AEW AEROSVIT AIRLINES 2 AFL AEROFLOT 10 AFR AIR FRANCE 2 AIC AIR INDIA 5 AJM AIR JAMAICA 7 AMX AEROMEXICO 2 ANA ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS 2 AUA AUSTRIAN 4 AVA AVIANCA 6 AZA ALITALIA 18 BAW BRITISH AIRWAYS 2 BER AIR BERLIN 5 BWA CARIBBEAN AIRLINES 4 CAA ATLANTIC SOUTHEAST AIRLINES (code 2 CAO AIR CHINA CARGO 2 CAY CAYMAN AIRWAYS 2 CCA AIR CHINA 2 CES CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES 32 CHQ CHAUTAUQUA 1 CMP COPA AIRLINES 83 COM COMAIR AIRLINES 6 CPA CATHAY PACIFIC 165 DAL DELTA AIR LINES 7 DLH DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA 2 DYA DYNAMIC AIRWAYS 58 EGF AMR EAGLE HOLDING COPR. (FORMERLY 1 EIA EVERGREEN 4 EIN AER LINGUS 5 ELY EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES 2 ETD ETIHAD 4 FDX FED EX 2 FIN FINNAIR 52 FLG PINNACLE AIRLINES (dba NORTHWEST 4 IBE IBERIA AIRWAYS 2 ICE ICELANDAIR 2 IMP HELLENIC AIRWAYS 2 JAI JET AIRWAYS 3 JAL JAPAN AIR LINES 311 JBU JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP. 1 KAC KUWAIT AIRWAYS 3 KAL KOREAN AIR 4 KLM KLM ROYAL DUTCH 6 LAN LAN AIRLINES 2 LNE LAN ECUADOR 2 MSR EGYPT AIR 3 MXA MEXICANA DE AVIACION 2 QFA QANTAS AIRLINES

Page 2

### 04/05/2012 12:21:39

Carrier 

### Regular Totals (Operators) Excludes FAA Held Slots Held less than 5 days are Excluded JFK Season = SUMMER PF7 Status Date = 01/01/2012 (Current & Future)

JFK

3 QTR QATAR AIRWAYS 2 RAM ROYAL AIR MAROC 2 RJA ROYAL JORDANIAN 2 SAA SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS 4 SCX SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES, INC. 2 SIA SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED 6 SWR SWISS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES (SWISSAIR 2 TAI TACA AIRLINES 6 TAM TAM BRAZILIAN AIRLINES 4 THY TURKISH AIRLINES, INC. 4 UAE EMIRATES 26 UAL UNITED AIRLINES 1 UPS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 10 USA US AIRWAYS 6 VIR VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIR 19 VRD VIRGIN AMERICA

Page 3
#### § 308.301 Purpose.

Section 39 of the FDI Act requires the FDIC to establish safety and soundness standards. Pursuant to section 39, a bank or savings association may be required to submit a compliance plan if it is not in compliance with a safety and soundness standard established by guideline under section 39(a) or (b). An enforceable order under section 8 of the FDI Act may be issued if, after being notified that it is in violation of a safety and soundness standard established under section 39, the bank or savings association fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan or fails in any material respect to implement an accepted plan. This subpart establishes procedures for requiring submission of a compliance plan and issuing an enforceable order pursuant to section 39.
#### § 4.75 Waivers.

The post-employment restrictions set forth in section 10(k) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1820(k)) and § 4.74 do not apply to any officer or employee of the OCC, or any former officer or employee of the OCC, if the Comptroller of the Currency certifies, in writing and on a case-by-case basis, that granting the individual a waiver of the restrictions would not affect the integrity of the OCC's supervisory program.

[76 FR 43564, July 21, 2011]
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.22(b)


Guaranty Agreement (Morgantown L2) between Southern Energy, Inc. and Morgantown
OL2 LLC dated as of December 19, 2000

Guaranty Agreement (Morgantown L3) between Southern Energy, Inc. and Morgantown
OL3 LLC dated as of December 19, 2000

Guaranty Agreement (Morgantown L4) between Southern Energy, Inc. and Morgantown
OL4 LLC dated as of December 19, 2000

Guaranty Agreement (Morgantown L5) between Southern Energy, Inc. and Morgantown
OL5 LLC dated as of December 19, 2000

Guaranty Agreement (Morgantown L6) between Southern Energy, Inc. and Morgantown
OL6 LLC dated as of December 19, 2000

Guaranty Agreement (Morgantown L7) between Southern Energy, Inc. and Morgantown
OL7 LLC dated as of December 19, 2000
*The Hon. William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Jud ge

for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation. _____________ No. 94-2816SD

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * On Remand from the * Supreme Court of * the United States. Richard Estrada, * also known as Taco Estrada, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 4, 1996 Filed: June 4, 1996

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, FAGG, Circuit Judge, and WILSON, * District Judge.

___________ WILSON, District Judge. Defendant/appellant Richard Es trada (“Estrada”) was convicted in the United States District Court, District of South Dakota, of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and using or carrying a firearm in relation to drug tra fficking, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Defendan t appealed and this Court affirmed both the conspiracy convict ion and the firearm conviction. United States v. Estrada , 45 F.3d 121 5 (8th Cir. 1995). After the decision was rendered in this ca se, the-2-

Uni tedStates Supreme Court decided Bailey v. United States , 51 6 U.S. ____, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). Estrada a ppealed this Court’s decision and the United States Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court vacated this Court’ s judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of its recent holding in Bailey, supra
. Estrada v. United States , ____ U.S. ____, 116 S.Ct. 664, 133 L.Ed.2d 516 (1995). In Bailey , the Supreme Court held that to sustain a convicti on under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), t he government must present “evidence sufficient to show an active employment of the firearm by th e defendant.” Bailey at 505. The Court further stated that t he mere storage of weapons in close pr oximity to drugs or drug proceeds is insu fficient to constitute “active employment.” Bailey at 508
. Additionally, the Court concluded that “[i]f the gun is no t dis closedor mentioned by the offender, it is not activel y employed, and it is not ‘used’.” Id. As this Court noted in its prior decision, a Mach 10 and a . 22 caliber revolver were found inco-conspirator Dosset’s bedroom. A partially loaded magazine for the Mach 10 was found within five to seven feet from the bed in Dosset’s bedroom. There was no e vidence at trial suggesting that Estrada “actively employed” the firearms
as that phrase has been defined by Bailey, supra . Absent suc h eviden ce, a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) cannot b e sustained. In light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Bailey , Estrada’s convictionfor using or carrying a firearm in relation to dru g trafficking is reversed for lack of evidence and the case i s rem andedto the district court for resentencing on the remainin g count. Estrada’s conspiracy conviction, however, is again af firmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT-3-
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 21.0

Ownership of Operating Subsidiaries
-----------------------------------

---------------------------------------
Sundance Homes, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Rembrandt Homes, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Sundance Suburban Properties, Inc.
---------------------------------------
SAR Development, Inc.
---------------------------------------
SRLB Development, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Hometown Development, Inc.
---------------------------------------
McCarty's Mill Development, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Sutton Development, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Georgian Ct. Development, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Heartland Meadows Development, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Chicago Urban Properties, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Lake-Wells Management, Inc.
---------------------------------------
1515 South Michigan Lofts, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Erie Center Tower, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Erie Center Lofts, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Sangamon Lofts, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Marathon Center, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Matteson Development, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Walnut Pointe Development, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Capital Hill Lofts, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Lockport Development, Inc.
---------------------------------------
Other Subsidiary Holdings, Inc.
---------------------------------------