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

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 18295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07274]

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

FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL

[Docket No. AS14-05]

Appraisal Subcommittee Notice Of Meeting

AGENCY: Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions 
Examination Council.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

DESCRIPTION: In accordance with Section 1104(b) of Title XI of the 
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, 
as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee 
(ASC) will meet in closed session:
    Location: Federal Reserve Board--International Square location: 
1850 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006.
    Date: April 9, 2014.
    Time: Immediately following the ASC open session.
    Status: Closed.
    Matters To Be Considered:
    Personnel.

    Dated: March 27, 2014.
James R. Park,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2014-07274 Filed 3-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6700-01-P
```
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3448

To modify the boundaries for a certain empowerment zone designation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 5, 2003

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To modify the boundaries for a certain empowerment zone 

designation.

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF BOUNDARY OF AROOSTOOK 

4 COUNTY EMPOWERMENT ZONE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Aroostook County empower6 ment zone, located in Aroostook County, Maine, shall in7 clude, in addition to the area designated as of the date 

8 of the enactment of this Act, the remaining area of Aroos9 took County not included in such designation, notwith10 standing the size requirement of section 1392(a)(3)(A) of 
2

•HR 3448 IH 

1 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the population re2 quirements of section 1392(a)(1)(B) of such Code. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) shall take ef4 fect as of the effective date of the designation of the 

5 Aroostook County empowerment zone by the Secretary of 

6 Agriculture.

Æ
§ 628.45 Recognition of credit risk mitigants for securitization exposures. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) An originating System institution that has obtained a credit risk mitigant to hedge its exposure to a synthetic or traditional securitization that satisfies the operational criteria provided in § 628.41 may recognize the credit risk mitigant under § 628.36 or § 628.37, but only as provided in this section.
( 2 ) An investing System institution that has obtained a credit risk mitigant to hedge a securitization exposure may recognize the credit risk mitigant under § 628.36 or § 628.37, but only as provided in this section.
( b ) *Mismatches.* A System institution must make any applicable adjustment to the protection amount of an eligible guarantee or credit derivative as required in § 628.36(d), (e), and (f) for any hedged securitization exposure. In the context of a synthetic securitization, when an eligible guarantee or eligible credit derivative covers multiple hedged exposures that have different residual maturities, the System institution must use the longest residual maturity of any of the hedged exposures as the residual maturity of all hedged exposures.
§ 611.1156 Ongoing requirements. A System institution that organizes or invests in a UBE must also comply with the following requirements: ( a ) Maintain and ensure FCA's access to all books, papers, records, agreements, reports and other documents of each UBE necessary to document and protect the institution's interest in each entity;
( b ) Divest, as soon as practicable, the institution's equity or beneficial interest in, and sever any relationship with a UBE: ( 1 ) That conducts activities beyond those authorized to carry out its limited purpose or that are contrary to the Act or FCA regulations, or as otherwise directed to do so by FCA; or
( 2 ) Where non-System persons or entities obtain control as defined under GAAP. This paragraph does not apply to UBEs formed for the purpose of acquiring and managing unusual or complex collateral associated with multiple-lender loan transactions in which non-System persons or entities are participants.
#### Buck Duane WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 85-2502.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 14, 1986.*

Decided Oct. 14, 1986.

Earle Partington, Honolulu, Hawaii, for petitioner-appellant.

Elliott Enoki, Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

Before KENNEDY, FARRIS and HALL, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel was unanimously of the opinion that oral argument was not required in this case. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Walker was convicted, among other offenses, of the interstate transportation of stolen property from Palmyra Island to the state of Hawaii, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. We affirmed Walker’s conviction in *United States v. Walker,*575 F.2d 209 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*439 U.S. 931, 99 S.Ct. 320, 58 L.Ed.2d 325 (1978). Walker was later indicted for murder, and we rejected his attempt to bar trial under the doctrines of double jeopardy and res judicata. *United States v. Stearns,*707 F.2d 391 (9th Cir.1983), *cert. denied,*464 U.S. 1047, 104 S.Ct. 720, 79 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).

The present appeal is from denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in which Walker makes a collateral attack on his earlier conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2314. His contention is that Palmyra Island is not a possession of the United States within the meaning of the relevant statutes. We disagree and affirm the district court’s denial of his petition.

One of the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 is that the stolen property was transported in “interstate commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 10 defines “interstate commerce” as “commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia.” Palmyra Island is a possession of the United States. *See*48 U.S.C. § 644a (placing Palmyra and seven other American Pacific Islands under the jurisdiction of the District of Hawaii); *United States v. Fullard-Leo,*331 U.S. 256, 67 S.Ct. 1287, 91 L.Ed. 1474 (1947) (recognizing that Palmyra is under United States sovereignty); *cf. Yandell v. Trans-ocean Air Lines,*253 F.2d 622, 623 (9th *1107Cir.1957) (describing Wake Island, which is also listed in 48 U.S.C. § 644a, as a United States possession). As a result, Walker’s transportation of a stolen boat from Palmyra to Hawaii falls squarely within the prohibition of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. There is no reason to suppose that Congress intended a silent exception in the statute where the transportation is in interstate commerce wholly within the confines of a single judicial district. The jurisdictional lines of the district court are irrelevant for purposes of the interpretation and implementation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 10, 2314.

The denial of the petition by the trial court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            1674
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        8
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1683
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              186
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1497
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1683
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   181
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        9
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   132
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     40
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 40
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        40
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32



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-QSB of Dynatem, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ending August 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Quarterly Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Dated: October 14, 2005



/s/    MICHAEL HORANMichael Horan, Chief Executive Officer




/s/    BELEN RAMOSBelen Ramos, Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Epolin, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended  November 30, 2009, as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  the undersigned certifies,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, 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.

Dated: January 13, 2010                 By: /s/ Greg Amato
       ----------------                     --------------
                                            Greg Amato,
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: January 13, 2010                 By: /s/ James Ivchenko
       ----------------                     ------------------
                                            James Ivchenko,
                                            President
                                            (Principal Financial Officer)
#### § 704.16 Contracts/written agreements.

Services, facilities, personnel, or equipment shared with any party shall be supported by a written contract, with the duties and responsibilities of each party specified and the allocation of service fee/expenses fully supported and documented.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                              [BALDWIN LETTERHEAD]
                              BALDWIN NEWS RELEASE

CONTACTS: Perry Schwartz                                Joel Pomerantz
          Baldwin Piano                                 The Dilenschneider Group
          (513) 576-4518                                (212) 922-0900

                    NEW MANUFACTURING EFFICIENCIES ELIMINATE
                    78 JOBS AT FOUR BALDWIN PIANO FACILITIES

                 COMPANY EXPECTS SAVINGS OF $1 MILLION IN 1997;
                               MORE IN LATER YEARS

     LOVELAND, OH, April 22, 1997 -- Baldwin Piano & Organ Company,
(NASDAQ:BPAO) said today that its piano manufacturing initiative, which includes
the implementation of synchronous manufacturing, has made it possible to
eliminate 78 manufacturing jobs at its facilities in Conway, Arkansas; Trumann,
Arkansas; Greenwood, Mississippi; and Juarez, Mexico. This represents nearly 8
percent of the total workforce at the four plants.

     Baldwin said it expects the reductions to result in 1997 savings of
approximately $1 million dollars, net of severance cost, with even greater
savings in future years. Nearly all of the eliminated jobs are hourly jobs. No
special charges are anticipated.

     "We are making tremendous strides in streamlining our manufacturing
processes, and the implementation of synchronous manufacturing is a key element
of this initiative," said Karen L. Hendricks, Baldwin's president, chairman and
chief executive officer. "Over time the savings will go well beyond just
personnel costs."

     Ms. Hendricks indicated that this marks the first tangible, bottom-line
effect of the manufacturing initiative and that she expects this initiative to
produce additional long-term savings before the end of 1997.


                                     -more-


<PAGE>   2
                                     -2-

     Baldwin Piano & Organ Company has manufactured and marketed keyboard
musical products for 135 years and has been providing consumer financing for its
instruments for nearly a century. The market leader in acoustic pianos in the
United States, Baldwin also manufactures electronic and electro-mechanical
components for Original Equipment Manufacturers.

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

"Safe Harbor" statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995: 

This release contains forward looking statements that are subject to risks
and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the impact of competitive
products and pricing, product demand and market acceptance, reliance on key
strategic alliances, fluctuations in operating results and other risks detailed
from time to time in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

                                      # # #

April 22, 1997
#### § 380.31 Scope.

Nothing in this subpart C shall apply to any liability or obligation of a bridge financial company or its assets or liabilities, or to any extension of credit from a Federal reserve bank or the Corporation to a covered financial company.
#### § 615.5462 Restrictive endorsement of bearer securities.

When consolidated and Systemwide bearer securities of the Farm Credit banks are being presented to Federal Reserve Banks, for redemption, exchange, or conversion to book entry, such securities may be restrictively endorsed. The restrictive endorsement shall be placed thereon in substantially the same manner and with the same effects as prescribed in United States Treasury Department regulations, now or hereafter in force, governing like transactions in United States bonds; and consolidated or Systemwide securities of the Farm Credit banks so endorsed shall be prepared for shipment and shipped in the manner prescribed in such regulations for United States bearer securities. (See 31 CFR part 328.)
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3414

To prohibit offering homebuilding purchase contracts that contain in a single 

document both a mandatory arbitration agreement and other contract 

provisions, and to prohibit requiring purchasers to consent to a mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition precedent to entering into 

a homebuilding purchase contract. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2003

Mr. GONZALEZ (for himself and Mr. RODRIGUEZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL

To prohibit offering homebuilding purchase contracts that 

contain in a single document both a mandatory arbitration agreement and other contract provisions, and to 

prohibit requiring purchasers to consent to a mandatory 

arbitration agreement as a condition precedent to entering into a homebuilding purchase contract.

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 ‘‘American Homebuyers 

5 Protection Act’’. 
2

•HR 3414 IH 

1 SEC. 2. MANDATORY ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—No person engaged in the con3 struction of new houses may require a purchaser to enter 

4 into a mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition 

5 precedent to entering into a contract for the purchase of 

6 a new house. 

7 (b) SEPARATE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED.—No person 

8 engaged in the construction of new houses may offer a 

9 purchaser a contract for the purchase of a new house 

10 which includes an agreement on mandatory arbitration 

11 unless such agreement is a separate document which con12 tains only language pertaining to the mandatory arbitra13 tion agreement. The separate document containing the 

14 mandatory arbitration agreement shall also contain the 

15 following statement: ‘‘By Agreeing to Binding Arbitration 

16 You Are Giving Up Your Right To Go To Court’’. 

17 (c) ARBITRATOR.—The mandatory arbitration agree18 ment shall not name an independent arbitrator and shall 

19 contain a procedure that adequately guarantees the pur20 chaser an opportunity to participate in the selection of an 

21 arbitrator which shall occur only after a dispute regarding 

22 the homebuilding contract has arisen. 

23 (d) ENFORCEMENT.—If any person violates sub24 section (a), (b), or (c), the agreement on mandatory arbi25 tration will be of no effect.

Æ
#### William Graham, Plaintiff, *v.*The City of New York, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Trial Term,

November, 1900.)

Municipal corporation — Not liable to one appointed without compliance with city civil service rules.

A person employed by a municipality, through the proper official, but without compliance with the charter or the civil service rules made thereunder, cannot recover of the municipality for services rendered to it, ,as the employment is invalid.

Action to recover for services rendered as blacksmith’s helper in the park department. Defense that plaintiff’s employment was in violation of local civil service regulations.

Ingle Carpenter, for plaintiff.

John Whalen, Corporation Counsel, and William B. Crowell, for defendant.

McAdam, J.

In order to establish a legal demand against the municipality, even for services rendered, there must first be an employment by lawful authority. In this instance the employment of the plaintiff was by the proper official, but without compliance with the provisions of the defendant’s charter (Laws of 1897, chap. 378, §§ 123-126) and the civil service rules made thereunder. As a consequence the employment and whatever was done under it created no legal charge against the city. McDonald v. Mayor, 68 N. Y. 23; 23 Am. Rep. 144. A person dealing with the agent of a municipal corporation has no right to presume that he is acting within the line of his duty, but must take care to learn the nature and extent of his authority. McDonald v. Mayor, *supra.*The cases relied on by the plaintiff do not relate to civil service rules made pursuant to statute, which would be defeated entirely if the courts were to hold that so long as one employed by a city official does work he is entitled to recover from the municipality irrespective of the question whether the employment was in accordance with or in violation of such rules. Such a principle, carried to its logical *57extent, would leave open the sole inquiry whether services had been rendered, and eliminate as irrelevant the question whether they were performed under a valid or illegal employment. The court can hardly be expected to subscribe to such a doctrine. There must be judgment for the defendant.

Judgment for defendant.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000494 17-MAR-2017 07:53 AM
EXHIBIT 99.1


THE  FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS BEING MADE TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SOLELY  FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350),  WHICH  CARRIES  WITH  IT  CERTAIN PENALTIES IN THE EVENT OF A KNOWING OR
WILLFUL  REPRESENTATION.


Securities  and  Exchange  Commission
450  Fifth  Street,  NW
Washington,  DC  20549

     RE:  MORLEX,  INC.

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:

     In  accordance  with  the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Lawrence Kaplan, President and Principal
Accounting  Officer  of  Morlex,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),  certify  that:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period
     ended  June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section  13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m  or  78o(d));  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  as  of  this  19th  day  of  August,  2002



                              /s/  Lawrence  Kaplan
                              ---------------------
                              Lawrence  Kaplan,
                              President  and  Principal  Accounting  Officer
#### § 390.289 Corporation.

The terms *Corporation* and *FDIC* mean the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.