alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
427 A.2d 245

#### Mifflin Shops, Inc., et al. v. Deiseroth et ux., Appellant. Mifflin Shops, Inc., et al., Appellants v. Deiseroth et ux.

Argued November 12, 1979.

Wray G. Zelt, III, for appellants at No. 318 and for appellees at Nos. 332 and 437.

James H. McCune, submitted a brief on behalf of appellants at Nos. 332 and 437 and appellees at No. 318.

Before HESTER, MONTGOMERY and LIPEZ, JJ.

The granting of specific performance of the contract is affirmed. The claim for damages by the plaintiff-appellant, Staudt, in his cross-appeal, is denied.
§ 614.4360 Lending and leasing limit violations. ( a ) Each loan, except loans that are grandfathered under the provisions of § 614.4361, shall be in compliance with the lending and leasing limit on the date the loan is made, and at all times thereafter. Except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, loans which are in violation of the lending and leasing limit shall comply with the provisions of § 615.5090 of this chapter.
( b ) Under the following conditions a loan that violates the lending and leasing limit shall be exempt from the provisions of § 615.5090 of this chapter: ( 1 ) A loan in which the total amount of principal outstanding and undisbursed commitments exceed the lending and leasing limit because of a decline in permanent capital after the loan was made.
( 2 ) Loans on which funds are advanced pursuant to a commitment that was within the lending and leasing limit at the time the commitment was made, even if the lending and leasing limit subsequently declines.
( 3 ) A loan that exceeds the lending and leasing limit as a result of the consolidation of the debt of two or more borrowers as a consequence of a merger or the acquisition of one borrower's operations by another borrower. Such a loan may be extended or renewed, for a period not to exceed 1 year from the date of such merger or acquisition, during which period the institution may advance and/or readvance funds not to exceed the greater of: ( i ) 110 percent of the advances to the borrower in the prior calendar year; or
( ii ) 110 percent of the average of the advances to the borrower in the past 3 calendar years.
( c ) For all lending and leasing limit violations except those exempted under § 614.4360(b)(3), within 90 days of the identification of the violation, the institution must develop a written plan prescribing the specific actions that will be taken by the institution to bring the total amount of loans and commitments outstanding or attributed to that borrower within the new lending and leasing limit, and must document the plan in the loan file.
( d ) All leases, except those permitted under § 614.4361, reading “effective date of this subpart” in § 614.4361(a) and “effective date of these regulations” in § 614.4361(b) as “effective date of this amendment,” must comply with the lending and leasing limit on the date the lease is made, and at all times after that.
( e ) Nothing in this section limits the authority of the FCA to take administrative action, including, but not limited to, monetary penalties, as a result of lending and leasing limit violations.
[58 FR 40321, July 28, 1993. Redesignated and amended at 64 FR 34517, June 28, 1999]
§ 347.109 Limitations on indirect investments in nonfinancial foreign organizations. ( a ) A bank may, through a subsidiary authorized by §§ 347.105 or 347.106, or an Edge corporation if also authorized by the FRB, acquire and hold equity interests in foreign organizations that are not foreign banks or foreign banking organizations and that engage generally in activities beyond those listed in § 347.105(b), subject to the following: ( 1 ) The amount of the investment does not exceed 15 percent of the bank's Tier 1 capital;
( 2 ) The aggregate holding of voting equity interests of one foreign organization by the bank and its affiliates must be less than: ( i ) 20 percent of the foreign organization's voting equity interests; and
( ii ) 40 percent of the foreign organization's voting and nonvoting equity interests;
( b ) The bank or its affiliates must not otherwise control the foreign organization; and
( c ) Loans or extensions of credit made by the bank and its affiliates to the foreign organization must be on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the same time for comparable transactions between the bank or its affiliates and nonaffiliated organizations.
FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ug. 11, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 08- 10148 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -003 72 -C R -08-W S D -1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s V I C T O RH U G O D O R A N T E S - H E RN A N D E Z , a .k .a . V ic to rD o r an te n , D e f e n d an t- A p p e llan t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 11, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an dB A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E RC U R I A M:2

S . R alph M art i n, Jr . , coun se l for V i ct or D orant es -H ernand ez i n thi s di re ct c r i m i na l appe a l , ha s m ove d t o w i thdr aw f r om f urthe rr e pr e s e nt a t i on of the ap p e llan t an df

ile dab r ie f

p u r s u an t to A n d e r s v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S .C t. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L .E d .2 d4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . O u rin d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls th atco u n sel ’ s assessm en to f th e rel at i v e m eri to f th e ap p eal i s co rrect . B ecau se in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o ar g u ab le is s u e s o f m e r it, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and H e rnande z ’ s c onvi c t i on and sen t en ce i s A FFI R M ED .
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 34,472

5 TAYLOR CRABB, 

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TORRANCE COUNTY

8 Mercedes C. Murphy, District Judge

9 Hector Balderas, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 for Plaintiff-Appellee

12 Taylor Crabb

13 Hobbs, NM

14 Pro Se Appellant

15 MEMORANDUM OPINION

16 VIGIL, Chief Judge.
2

1 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

3 been filed and the time for doing so has expired. AFFIRMED.

4 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 _______________________________

6 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge

7 WE CONCUR:

8 ___________________________________

9 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

10 _________________________________

11 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
Opinion filed January 29, 2021

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

Nos. 11-21-00012-CR & 11-21-00013-CR

__________

IN RE KEVIN EARL SCOTT

Original Mandamus Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator, Kevin Earl Scott, filed these original petitions for writ of mandamus 

in which he requests that we instruct the Honorable Don Gosnell, presiding judge of 

the City of Cross Plains Municipal Court, to transmit Relator’s notice of appeal to 

this court and to make a finding as to Relator’s indigency and that we instruct the 

clerk of the City of Cross Plains Municipal Court to transmit to Relator all responses 

required by Article 2.21 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Attached to 

Relator’s petitions for writ of mandamus is a copy of a notice of appeal filed in the 

municipal court in which Relator states that he is appealing Judge Gosnell’s denial 

of Relator’s “Motion for Time Served and Affidavit of Indigency” in two different 

cases.
2

This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by Section 22.221 of the 

Texas Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2020). 

Section 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals 

to (1) writs against a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals’

district, (2) writs against a district judge acting as a magistrate in a court of inquiry 

in the court of appeals’ district, and (3) writs necessary to enforce the court of 

appeals’ jurisdiction. Id. We have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against 

a municipal court judge or a municipal court clerk unless it is necessary to enforce 

our jurisdiction. See In re Chang, 176 S.W.3d 451, 452 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 2004, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see also In re Minfee, No. 04-12-00421-

CV, 2012 WL 3025953, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 18, 2012, orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (“Thus, this court has no authority to issue a 

writ of mandamus against a municipal court judge or municipal court clerk unless it 

is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.”).

A judgment or conviction in a municipal court may be appealed to the 

appropriate county court in the county in which the municipality is located. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. § 4.08 (West 2015), § 45.042(a) (West 2018); Schinzing v. 

State, 234 S.W.3d 208, 211 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.). Because any notice 

of appeal from Judge Gosnell’s rulings must be filed in the county court of Callahan 

County rather than this court, none of the relief requested by Relator is necessary to 

protect this court’s jurisdiction.

We dismiss the petitions for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

January 29, 2021 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
§ 614.4055 Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation loan participations. Subject to the requirements of subpart H of this part 614: ( a ) Any Farm Credit System bank or direct lender association may buy from, and sell to, the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, participation interests in “qualified loans.”
( b ) The Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation may buy from, and sell to, any Farm Credit System bank or direct lender association, or lender that is not a Farm Credit System institution, participation interests in “qualified loans.”
( c ) For purposes of this section, “qualified loans” means qualified loans as defined in section 8.0(9) of the Act.
[67 FR 1285, Jan. 10, 2002]
§ 28.50 Authority, purpose, and scope. ( a ) *Authority.* This subpart is issued pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.,* 93a, 161, and 1818; and the International Lending Supervision Act of 1983 (Pub. L. 98-181, title IX, 97 Stat. 1153, 12 U.S.C. 3901 *et seq.*).
( b ) *Purpose.* This subpart implements the requirements of the International Lending Supervision Act of 1983 (12 U.S.C. 3901 *et seq.*),
( c ) *Scope.* This subpart requires national banks to establish reserves against the risks presented in certain international assets and sets forth the accounting for various fees received by the banks when making international loans.
[61 FR 19532, May 2, 1996, as amended at 73 FR 22251, Apr. 24, 2008]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: A.A.P., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.G.P., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 764 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: M.M.P., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.G.P., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 765 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: P.E.P., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.G.P., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 766 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
March 19, 2012

The Honorable Ray LaHood

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Alaska Airlines’ application for SAN-DCA, Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0029. 

Dear Secretary LaHood:

CONNECT fully supports the application of Alaska Airlines for air service between San Diego and Washington 

Reagan National Airport (DCA). San Diego is the largest region without direct service to DCA. Additionally, 

due to the profound community of interest between San Diego and the nation’s capital, the region 

generates the largest passenger market demand without nonstop service to the convenient and closein airport serving our nation’s capital. 

San Diego’s sheer market size to Washington coupled with the fact that San Diego to Dulles average airfares 

are the highest of west coast cities, should qualify for the limited slots available for this flight. The high airfare 

is exacerbated when factoring in taxi fares from Dulles to Washington’s city center that average about $60

each way. This means travelers between Washington’s city center and San Diego via Dulles can pay on 

average close to $400 one-way. 

As the CEO of CONNECT, an organization that has assisted in the formation and development of more than 

3,000 companies and links inventors and entrepreneurs with the resources they need for commercialization of 

innovative products, I have a vested interest in helping to bridge the gap between Washington D.C. 

professionals and San Diego businesses. There are countless San Diego-based and Washington-based 

businesses that are engaged in health science, telecommunications, and national defense that need quick and 

convenient access to Reagan National Airport. San Diego’s small business community has an immediate 

need for additional nonstop air service to D.C. to help them foster relationships in our nation’s capital that will 

help bring new, innovative products to market. Alaska Airlines service would add a much needed nonstop 

option to a primary gateway to Washington, DC. 

CONNECT joins with the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the San Diego Regional Economic 

Development Corporation, the World Trade Center San Diego, and the San Diego Regional Chamber of 

Commerce in support of Alaska Airlines’ application for San Diego – Washington Reagan National slots. We 

thank the Department of Transportation for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced docket and 

we hope to hear of a favorable review of Alaska Airlines’ San Diego – DCA proposal soon.

Sincerely,

Duane Roth

CEO, CONNECT

djroth@connect.org
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, November 18, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marianne Ayala at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7978.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, November 18, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Marianne Ayala. For more information please contact Mrs. Ayala at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7978, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: October 1, 2009.

Shawn F. Collins,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E9-24100 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
\€O Sr. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX PRO1 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 941O539O1 

## NOV 25 2013 Mr. Richard W. Corey Executive Officer California AirResources Board Post Office Box 2815 Sacramento, california 95812 Dear ‘ir. Corey: On September 30, 2013, CARB submittedrevisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We have reviewed materials submittedwith the following rule and foundthat it fulfills the completeness criteriain 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V.
APCD/AQMD Rule# Rule Title Negative Declaration ofSecondary Lead Antelope Valley 1101 Smelting/Sulfur Oxides This addresses all revisions in this submittal. Inthe coming months we will review the complete revisions for action pursuantto Clean AirAct section 110(k). Questions regarding our completeness review shouldbe directedto RobertMarinaro at 415-972-3019. Sincerely,

Deborah Jordan Director, Air Division

cc: Edie Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB Eldon Heaston, Executive Director, Antelope Valley AQMD Michael Guzzetta, Manager, Rule Evaluation Section, CARB

Printed on Rec-vcled PaperUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105.3901

Mr. RichardW. Corey Executive Officer California AirResources Board Post Office Bpx 2815 Sacrame lalifornia 95812 Dear,,’orey: 

## NOV 2 5 2D13

On September 30, 2013, CARB submittedrevisions to the California State ImplementationPlan (SIP). We have reviewedmaterials submitted with the following documents and found thatthey fulfill the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 

### 51, Appendix V.
APCD/AQMD Related EPA Submitted Document Document# EPA Negative Declaration regarding Surface Coating of El Dorado 450/2-78-015 Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products EPA Negative Declaration regarding Solvent Metal El Dorado 450/2-77-022 Cleaning EPA Negative Declaration regarding Graphic Arts

— El Dorado 450/2-78-033 Rotogravure and Flexography This addresses all revisions in this submittal. Inthe coming months we will reviewthe complete revisions for action pursuantto Clean AirAct section 110(k). Questions regarding our completeness review shouldbe directedto RobertMarinaro at 415-972-3019.

cc: Edie Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB Dave Johnston, AirPollution Control Officer, El Dorado AQMD Michael Guzzetta, Manager, Rule Evaluation Section, CARB S 47
.

Deborah Jordan Director, AirDivision

Printed on Rec-vcled Paper
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  Exhibit 10.6.1
                                  AMENDMENT TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         THIS AMENDATORY AGREEMENT is dated the 29th day of March, 2001, among
Hamilton Bancorp Inc., a Florida corporation, Hamilton Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"),
a national banking association located in Miami, Florida (collectively, the
"Company"), and Maura A. Acosta (the "Executive").

         WHEREAS the parties entered into an Employment Agreement dated October
1, 1999 ("Agreement") and desire to amend the Agreement.

         ACCORDINGLY, the parties hereby agree as follows:

         1. The first paragraph of Section 6 is amended to read as follows:

         "If a Change of Control occurs during the term of this Agreement, the
         Executive shall be paid a performance bonus equal to the Executive's
         compensation paid by the Company and its affiliates which was
         includible in the Executive's gross income during the most recent
         taxable year ending before the date of the Change of Control."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive and duly authorized Company officers
have signed this Amendatory Agreement.



EXECUTIVE:                                  COMPANY:

                                            HAMILTON BANCORP INC.


-------------------------
Maura A. Acosta                             By:
                                                -------------------------------
                                            Title:


Addresses:


                                            By:
                                                -------------------------------
                                            Title:




                                            HAMILTON BANK, N.A.



                                            By:
                                                -------------------------------
                                            Title:
3750 N.W. 87th Avenue
Miami, Florida  33178                       By:
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Title:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDLUE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          34,557
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,645
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,658
<INVENTORY>                                     96,264
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,635
<PP&E>                                          18,274
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,610
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 179,299
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          163,644
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,624,321
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,608,666)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   179,299
<SALES>                                         70,652
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,652
<CGS>                                           33,468
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,096)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,296)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,296)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>