alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1212.2 Definitions. For purposes of subpart B of this part, the term: *Consultant* means a person who works directly on matters for, or on behalf of, a regulated entity or the Office of Finance.
*Director* means the Director of FHFA or his or her designee.
*Employee* means an officer or employee of FHFA, including a special Government employee.
Federal Home Loan Bank or Bank means a Bank established under the Federal Home Loan Bank Act; the term “Federal Home Loan Banks” means, collectively, all the Federal Home Loan Banks.
*Office of Finance* means the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, or any successor thereto.
*Regulated entity* means the Federal National Mortgage Association and any affiliate thereof, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and any affiliate thereof, any Federal Home Loan Bank; the term “regulated entities” means, collectively, the Federal National Mortgage Association and any affiliate thereof, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and any affiliate thereof, and the Federal Home Loan Banks.
*Safety and Soundness Act* means the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, Division A of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654 (2008).
*Senior examiner* means an employee of FHFA who has been: ( 1 ) Authorized by FHFA to conduct examinations or inspections on behalf of FHFA;
( 2 ) Assigned continuing, broad and lead responsibility for examining a regulated entity or the Office of Finance; and
( 3 ) Assigned responsibilities for examining, inspecting and supervising the regulated entity or the Office of Finance that— ( i ) Represents a substantial portion of the employee's assigned responsibilities; and
( ii ) Requires the employee to interact routinely with officers or employees of the regulated entity or the Office of Finance.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 199 (Friday, October 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 53272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24875]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Transporters, Receptors, and Synapses.
    Date: November 6, 2009.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Joanne T. Fujii, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 4184, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-
1178, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1670637c7f7f7c5675656438787f7e38717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1076657a79797a507363623e7e79783e777f66">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; HIV Program Project.
    Date: November 17, 2009.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20037.
    Contact Person: Hilary D. Sigmon, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5216, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 594-6377, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acdfc5cbc1c3c2c4eccfdfde82c2c5c482cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="304359575d5f5e58705343421e5e59581e575f46">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 8, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-24875 Filed 10-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1410** 

MICHAEL ANTONIO GOMEZ , Petitioner ,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Ap peals

.

Submitted : November 30, 2011 Decided: December 21, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ , Circuit Judges.

Petition d ismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
William J. Kovatch, Jr., Alexandria, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West , Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Eric W. Marsteller, U NITED S TATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Office of Immigration Litigation , Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Antonio Gomez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, has petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Gomez’s appeal of the Immigration Judge’s order declining to continue his case and ordering h im removed from the United States. The Attorney General has moved to dismiss the petition for review because Gomez has been convicted of a larceny offense that qualifies as an aggravated felony and two controlled substance offenses, which subject his

appe al to the jurisdictional bar set forth in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006). We retain jurisdiction, however, to address any constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006).
We have considered Gomez’s claims, including his contention that he should have been permitted to collaterally
attack his convictions under Padilla v. Kentucky , __ U.S. __,
130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) , in immigration court , and find them to
be without merit. See Waugh v. Holder , 642 F.3d 1279, 1283

- 84
(10th Cir. 2011); In re Madrigal , 21 I. & N. Dec. 323, 327 (BIA
1996). Accordingly, we grant the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Gomez’s motion to expedite as moot and dispense with oral argument because the
facts and l egal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 205 (Monday, October 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 54959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24965]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended 
by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments 
on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, 
for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to 
be used, are being manufactured in the United States.
    Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the 
regulations and be postmarked on or before November 16, 2009. Address 
written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be 
examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce in Room 3720.
    Docket Number: 09-055. Applicant: Hunter College/CUNY, 695 Park 
Ave., New York, NY 10065. Instrument: Electron Microscope. 
Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: The instrument will be 
used to study the three-dimensional structure, crystalline structure, 
internal cellular structure, elemental analysis, and atomic 
distribution of nanomaterials. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: No 
instruments of same general category are manufactured in the United 
States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: September 18, 
2009.
    Docket Number: 09-056. Applicant: University of California at 
Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616. Instrument: Electron 
Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: 
The instrument will be used for imaging nano range lines and spaces for 
electrical and biological applications. Justification for Duty-Free 
Entry: No instruments of same general category are manufactured in the 
United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: 
September 18, 2009.
    Docket Number: 09-057. Applicant: Northwestern University, 633 
Clark St., Evanston, IL 60208. Instrument: Electron Microscope. 
Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: The instrument will be 
used for cryoelectron microscopy of thicker/bulk-frozen samples, to 
capture tilt-series for tomographic reconstruction and to obtain any 
chemical/analytical information from biological specimens. 
Justification for Duty-Free Entry: No instruments of same general 
category are manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by 
Commissioner of Customs: September 28, 2009.

    Dated: October 9, 2009.
Richard Herring,
Acting Director, IA Subsidies Enforcement Office.
[FR Doc. E9-24965 Filed 10-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE M
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00235-CR

JON DREW RICH,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 78-25040

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant seeks to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment nunc 

pro tunc which he filed nearly three years after imposition of sentence. The Clerk of 

this Court advised the parties that the appeal is subject to dismissal for want of 

jurisdiction because it appears there has been no appealable order. See Everett v. State, 

82 S.W.3d 735, 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. dism’d). The Clerk also notified the 

parties that the appeal may be dismissed unless a response was filed showing grounds 

for continuing the appeal.
Rich v. State Page 2

No response has been filed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction. Id.

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 22, 2008

Do not publish

[CR25]
§ 628.21 Capital bylaw or board resolution to include equities in tier 1 and tier 2 capital. In order to include otherwise eligible purchased and allocated equities in tier 1 capital and tier 2 capital, the System institution must adopt a capitalization bylaw, or its board of directors must adopt a binding resolution, which resolution must be acknowledged by the board on an annual basis in the capital adequacy plan described in § 615.5200, in which the institution undertakes the following, as applicable: ( a ) The institution shall obtain prior FCA approval under § 628.20(f) before: ( 1 ) Redeeming or revolving the equities included in common equity tier 1 (CET1) capital;
( 2 ) Redeeming or calling the equities included in additional tier 1 capital; and
( 3 ) Redeeming, revolving, or calling instruments included in tier 2 capital other than limited life preferred stock or subordinated debt on the maturity date.
( b ) The equities shall have a minimum redemption or revolvement period as follows: ( 1 ) 7 years for equities included in CET1 capital, except that the statutory borrower stock described in § 628.20(b)(1)(x) may be redeemed without a minimum holding period and that equities designated as unallocated retained earnings (URE) equivalents cannot be revolved without submitting a written request to the FCA for prior approval;
( 2 ) a minimum no-call, repurchase, or redemption period of 5 years for additional tier 1 capital; and
( 3 ) a minimum no-call, repurchase, redemption, or revolvement period of 5 years for tier 2 capital.
( c ) The institution shall submit to FCA a written request for prior approval before: ( 1 ) Redesignating URE equivalents as equities that the institution may exercise its discretion to redeem other than upon dissolution or liquidation;
( 2 ) Removing equities or other instruments from CET1, additional tier 1, or tier 2 capital other than through repurchase, cancellation, redemption or revolvement; and
( 3 ) Redesignating equities included in one component of regulatory capital (CET1 capital, additional tier 1 capital, or tier 2 capital) for inclusion in another component of regulatory capital.
( d ) The institution shall not exercise its discretion to revolve URE equivalents except upon dissolution or liquidation and shall not offset URE equivalents against a loan in default except as required under final order of a court of competent jurisdiction or if required under § 615.5290 in connection with a restructuring under part 617 of this chapter.
( e ) The minimum redemption and revolvement period (holding period) for purchased and allocated equities starts on the common cooperative equity issuance date, as defined in § 628.2.
[86 FR 54359, Oct. 1, 2021]
#### Solomon Davis et al., Respondents, *v.*William H. Bingham et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment and order of the General Term of the City Court of the city of Mew York, affirming a judgment of the City Court.

Thompson & Maloney, for appellants.

H. S. Mack, for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

Judgment and order appealed, from affirmed, with costs, with leave to the defendants to serve their answer to the complaint herein, within six days after service upon their attorney of a copy of the order entered on this appeal, and upon payment of the costs.

Present: Tbuax, P. J., Scott and Dugbo, JJ.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendants to serve their answer, within six days after service upon their attorney of a copy of order, entered on this appeal, upon payment of costs.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alliance Financial Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Daniel Mohr, Treasurer and Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: May 11, 2009



/s/ J. Daniel MohrName:

J. Daniel MohrTitle:

Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer




- 38 -
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.5(b)

Facility Site Lease Agreement (Dickerson L2) between Southern Energy Mid-
Atlantic, LLC, Dickerson OL2 LLC and Southern Energy MD Ash Management, LLC
dated as of December 19, 2000

Facility Site Lease Agreement (Dickerson L3) between Southern Energy Mid-
Atlantic, LLC, Dickerson OL3 LLC and Southern Energy MD Ash Management, LLC
dated as of December 19, 2000

Facility Site Lease Agreement (Dickerson L4) between Southern Energy Mid-
Atlantic, LLC, Dickerson OL4 LLC and Southern Energy MD Ash Management, LLC
dated as of December 19, 2000
Editorial Note on Part 30
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 30 appear at 69 FR 77616, Dec. 28, 2004.

§ 30.3 Determination and notification of failure to meet safety and soundness standards and request for compliance plan. ( a ) *Determination.* The OCC may, based upon an examination, inspection, or any other information that becomes available to the OCC, determine that a national bank or Federal savings association has failed to satisfy the safety and soundness standards contained in the Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safety and Soundness set forth in appendix A to this part, the Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information set forth in appendix B to this part, the OCC Guidelines Establishing Standards for Residential Mortgage Lending Practices set forth in appendix C to this part, the OCC Guidelines Establishing Heightened Standards for Certain Large Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and Insured Federal Branches set forth in appendix D to this part, or the OCC Guidelines Establishing Standards for Recovery Planning by Certain Large Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and Insured Federal Branches set forth in appendix E to this part.
( b ) *Request for compliance plan.* If the OCC determines that a national bank or Federal savings association has failed to satisfy a safety and soundness standard pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the OCC may request, by letter or through a report of examination, the submission of a compliance plan and the bank or savings association shall be deemed to have notice of the deficiency three days after mailing of the letter by the OCC or delivery of the report of examination.
[60 FR 35680, July 10, 1995, as amended at 63 FR 55488, Oct. 15, 1998; 64 FR 52641, Sept. 30, 1999; 66 FR 8633, Feb. 1, 2001; 70 FR 6332, Feb. 7, 2005; 79 FR 54543, Sept. 11, 2014; 81 FR 66800, Sept. 29, 2016]
§ 347.117 General consent. ( a ) *General consent to establish or relocate a foreign branch.* General consent of the FDIC is granted, subject to the written notification requirement contained in section 303.182(a) and consistent with the requirements of this subpart, for an: ( 1 ) Eligible bank to establish a foreign branch conducting activities authorized by section 347.115 of this section in any foreign country in which: ( i ) The bank already operates one or more foreign branches or foreign bank subsidiaries;
( ii ) The bank's holding company operates a foreign bank subsidiary; or
( iii ) An affiliated bank or Edge or Agreement corporation operates one or more foreign branches or foreign bank subsidiaries.
( 2 ) Insured state nonmember bank to relocate an existing foreign branch within a foreign country.
( b ) *General consent to invest in a foreign organization.* General consent of the FDIC is granted, subject to the written notification requirement contained in section 303.183(a) (unless no notification is required because the investment is acquired for trading purposes) and consistent with the requirements of this subpart, for an eligible bank to make investments in foreign organizations, directly or indirectly, if: ( 1 ) The bank operates at least one foreign bank subsidiary or foreign branch, an affiliated bank or Edge or Agreement corporation operates at least one foreign bank subsidiary or foreign branch, or the bank's holding company operates at least one foreign bank subsidiary in the country where the foreign organization will be located;
( 2 ) In any instance where the bank and its affiliates will hold 20 percent or more of the foreign organization's voting equity interests or control the foreign organization, at least one state nonmember bank has a foreign bank subsidiary or foreign branch (other than a shell branch) in the country where the foreign organization will be located;[3] and
( 3 ) The investment is within one of the following limits: ( i ) The investment is acquired at net asset value from an affiliate;
( ii ) The investment is a reinvestment of cash dividends received from the same foreign organization during the preceding 12 months; or
( iii ) The total investment, directly or indirectly, in a single foreign organization in any transaction or series of transactions during a twelve-month period does not exceed 2 percent of the bank's Tier 1 capital, and such investments in all foreign organizations in the aggregate do not exceed: ( A ) 5 percent of the bank's Tier 1 capital during a 12-month period; and
( B ) Up to an additional 5 percent of the bank's Tier 1 capital if the investments are acquired for trading purposes.
Footnotes -
347.117
[3] A list of these countries can be obtained from the FDIC's Internet Web Site at *http://www.fdic.gov .*
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-30422

Summary Calendar

____________

Barbara Johnson-Luster, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Christine Wormuth, Secretary of the Army, 

Defendant—Appellee.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:19-CV-2235

______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Barbara Johnson-Luster, a former employee of the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, sued after having resigned, raising numerous employmentrelated claims under, inter alia, Title VII and the ADA. She alleged discriminatory conduct in the form of constructive termination, failing to promote, 

failing to accommodate her disability, unequal terms and conditions of employment, retaliation, and harassment based on race, color, sex, and national 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 18, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30422 Document: 00516898037 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2023
No. 22-30422

2

origin. 

The parties consented, per 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to having the matter 

determined by the magistrate judge sitting as the district court. After three 

years of proceedings, the court granted the Secretary’s motion for summary 

judgment. The court carefully explored all of Johnson-Luster’s contentions 

and explained its reasons in a detailed 30-page order, Docket No. 74, entered 

on March 14, 2022.

Johnson-Luster appeals pro se. 

We have examined the briefs, pertinent parts of the record, and the 

applicable law. There is no reason to try to improve on the district court’s 

comprehensive explication of the issues on appeal. The summary judgment 

is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons advanced by the district court. 

Johnson-Luster’s motion for oral argument is DENIED. 

Case: 22-30422 Document: 00516898037 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2023
Entered:02/01/22 16:57:30 Desc:

of 1