alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Holland quadrangle, Oregon:7.5-minute series (topographic)**
 
2012 | 2014 | 2015 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28/6:42123-B 5/
Item Number:0080-G-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000932657
 
January 31, 2018
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 and Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

              														Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 and Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, October 12, 1977.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1027,			accessed on September 9, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### GRAND CENTRAL DRUG CO et v F. J. O’NEILL MEDICINE CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10193.

Decided October 28, 1929

Mr. L. E. Appleton, Esq., Cleveland, for Central Drug Co.

Mr. S. C. Quigley, Esq., Cleveland, for O’Neill Medicine Co.

*701VICKERY, PJ.

An examination of this contract will show that there was a contract of purchase which w,ás complete in itself for which the acceptance was given and there was no condition attached to that contract, but at the same time, and perhaps as an inducing cause for the contract, .another and subsidiary contract was entered into, to-wit, the advertising contract.

Now the theory of the pleader of the answer in the court below apparently was that because this collateral contract was not complied with this would prevent a recovery by the plaintiff below for anything. That does not follow. Under the Sales law the receipt of these goods and the retention of them made a complete contract, and the acceptance having been given it was due and payable and the answer admits that the purchase was made.

We do not want to be understood as saying that the defendant below, the plaintiff in error here, would have had no redress, because if that part of the contract which related to the advertisement or the subsidiary contract was the inducing cause which occasioned the purchase of these goods, and that contract was not complied with, had the pleader set it up as it might have been set up, a counterclaim could have been predicated upon it which might have wiped out the entire claim of the plaintiff yea, and perhaps more than the plaintiff’s claim. But the pleader did not see fit to predicate his defense upon that kind of a lawsuit. He says that there was nothing due because the plaintiff company did not advertise, but a reading of the contract will show that this is not a proper interpretation of the contract. There was a complete sale and delivery of the goods and íhe price was agreed upon and the goods were kept, and if there was any reason why they should not have been paid for, it would be because of a counterclaim that the defendant had against plaintiff below to recover damages by reason of the non-compliance with the subsidiary contract. This not having been pleaded and there not being any evidence to show any damage, the judgment of the court below was right and mv?t be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
Exhibit 32.2 IDEAEDGE, INC. CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350
(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002) In connection with the Annual Report of IdeaEdge, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jonathan Shultz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that : (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  May 8, 2009/s/ Jonathan ShultzJonathan ShultzChief Financial Officer
#### § 91.705 [Reserved]
#### SPERO v CRUSADERS MUT INS CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9513,

Decided Jan. 14, 1929

Lawrence A Tucker, Cleveland, for Spero. S. McGhee, for Ins Co.

*88LEVINE, J

In the case of Mutual Life Ins. Co. vs Schmidtt, 6th O. Dec. (reprint) 901, the court held:

> “The evidence taken at a coroner’s-inquest and the verdict of the jury therein are not admissable in evidence to establish the cause of the death of the deceased party.”

In the opinion which appears on page 902, the court said:

> “The inquest of a coroner may be used to prove the fact of death of a party or of his insanity, in another proceeding, but the means of death or the cause cannot be established by the testimony of the witnesses as embodied in the inquest. They must be called and give testimony as other witnesses where the right to cross examination may be,exercised by the party to be affected thereby.”

This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Ohio in 40 O. S. 112.

We hold that the trial court committed error in admitting the coroner’s report as it did, to show the cause of death.

The judgment of the Municipal Court will therefore be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceeding according to law.

Vickery and Sullivan JJ, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TOWER FINANCIAL CORPORATION FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,696,415
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       3,232,527
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            23,651,890
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             1,706,969
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        15,466,304
<LOANS>                                    113,728,277
<ALLOWANCE>                                (1,704,509)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             159,777,873
<DEPOSITS>                                 137,662,847
<SHORT-TERM>                                   210,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            656,050
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,530,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,718,976
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             159,777,873
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,038,481
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              344,692
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               716,844
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,100,017
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,557,470
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,563,509
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,536,508
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,337,865
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (66,272)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (66,272)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (66,272)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                           (1,704,509)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### § 1450.7 Return of property.

Nothing contained in this regulation is intended to deter FMCS from demanding the return of specific property or from demanding, the return of the property or the payment of its value.
§ 91.407 Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration. ( a ) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless— ( 1 ) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) The maintenance record entry required by § 43.9 or § 43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made.
( b ) No person may carry any person (other than crewmembers) in an aircraft that has been maintained, rebuilt, or altered in a manner that may have appreciably changed its flight characteristics or substantially affected its operation in flight until an appropriately rated pilot with at least a private pilot certificate flies the aircraft, makes an operational check of the maintenance performed or alteration made, and logs the flight in the aircraft records.
( c ) The aircraft does not have to be flown as required by paragraph (b) of this section if, prior to flight, ground tests, inspection, or both show conclusively that the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration has not appreciably changed the flight characteristics or substantially affected the flight operation of the aircraft.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005)
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 17, 2000. 

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco**                     (Maria Villanueva, Consumer Regulation Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:                 

*1. Alan E. Knudson and the Knudson Family Trust,*                     Draper, Utah, to retain voting shares of Silver State Bancorp, Henderson, Nevada, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Silver State Bank, Henderson, Nevada.                 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 27, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-10964 Filed 5-2-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00028-CR

Fred CAMPBELL, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1984CR0397A

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 2, 2011

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court signed an order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction DNA 

testing on November 29, 2010. Because appellant did not file a motion for new trial, the notice 

of appeal was due to be filed December 29, 2010. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 64.05. A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on January 

13, 2011. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on January 10, 2011, but 

appellant did not file a motion for extension of time. 
04-11-00028-CR

- 2 -

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. See 

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A late notice of appeal may be 

considered timely so as to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction if (1) it is filed within fifteen 

days of the last day allowed for filing, (2) a motion for extension of time is filed in the court of 

appeals within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal, and (3) the 

court of appeals grants the motion for extension of time. See id. Because the appeal appeared to 

be untimely, we ordered appellant to show why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond to our order. Because appellant’s notice of appeal was 

not timely filed, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11941]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of approval of amendment to Tribal-State Compact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 
1988 (IGRA), Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2710, the Secretary of the 
Interior shall publish, in the Federal Register, notice of approved 
Tribal-State Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming 
activities on Indian lands. The Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, through his delegated authority, has 
approved an Amendment, executed on May 2, 2000, to the Gaming Compact 
between the Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana and the State of 
Louisiana.

DATES: This action is effective May 12, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 
20240, (202) 219-4066.

    Dated: May 3, 2000.
Kevin Gover,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-11941 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
§ 440.12 Duration of coverage for licensed reentry; modifications. ( a ) For reentry, insurance coverage required under § 440.9, or other form of financial responsibility, shall attach upon commencement of licensed reentry, and remain in full force and effect as follows: ( 1 ) For ground operations, until completion of licensed reentry at the reentry site; and
( 2 ) For other licensed reentry activities, 30 days from initiation of reentry flight; however, in the event of an abort that results in the reentry vehicle remaining on orbit, insurance shall remain in place until the FAA's determination that risk to third parties and Government property as a result of licensed reentry is sufficiently small that financial responsibility is no longer necessary, as determined by the FAA through the risk analysis conducted to determine MPL and specified in a license order.
( b ) Financial responsibility required under this part may not be replaced, canceled, changed, withdrawn, or in any way modified to reduce the limits of liability or the extent of coverage, nor expire by its own terms, prior to the time specified in a license order, unless the FAA is notified at least 30 days in advance and expressly approves the modification.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kirk L. Stevenson, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 466]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Covington, J.), rendered January 19, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12V2 to 25 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from introducing into evidence two purported prior inconsistent statements of the complainant. Under the circumstances surrounding each document, the alleged inconsistency could not be attributed to the complainant *(see, People v Reed,*257 AD2d 474). In any event, these rulings could not have caused any prejudice because defendant was still able to explore the alleged inconsistencies thoroughly without introducing the documents themselves *(see, People v Piazza,*48 NY2d 151, 164; *People v Messier,*191 AD2d 819, *lv denied*81 NY2d 1017; *People v Fortunato,*191 AD2d 221, 222, *lv denied*81 NY2d 1013).

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling was erroneous to the extent that it permitted the People to ask defendant whether he was convicted of robbery in a case where, as pointed out by defense counsel, defendant was actually adjudicated a youthful offender, since only the underlying facts of that case were admissible. However, we find the error to be harmless *(see, People v Shields,*46 NY2d 764). The remainder of the *Sandoval*ruling balanced the proper factors and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see, People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 459).

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The record supports the court’s finding that the lineup was not impermissibly suggestive. Since a photograph of the lineup was reviewed by the hearing court, the loss of the photograph sometime after the trial does not create a presumption of sug*69gestiveness *(People v Edmonds,*223 AD2d 455, *lv denied*88 NY2d 984). We have considered and rejected defendant’s other contentions regarding the *Wade*issues. Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
§ 29.1322 Warning, caution, and advisory lights. If warning, caution or advisory lights are installed in the cockpit they must, unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, be— ( a ) Red, for warning lights (lights indicating a hazard which may require immediate corrective action);
( b ) Amber, for caution lights (lights indicating the possible need for future corrective action);
( c ) Green, for safe operation lights; and
( d ) Any other color, including white, for lights not described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, provided the color differs sufficiently from the colors prescribed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section to avoid possible confusion.
[Amdt. 29-12, 41 FR 55474, Dec. 20, 1976]
#### CENTRAL OHIO TRANSIT CO v P U C

Ohio Supreme Court

No. 21317.

Decided Jan. 16, 1929.

ALLEN, J

AUTOMOBILES

(50 P2a) The requirements of Section 614-91 and 614-93, General Code, as to the procedure to be followed upon an-application for increase in equipment are jurisdictional, and an increase in equipment permitted without compliance with these requirements is void.

(50 P2b) The motor transportation statute was designed not for the benefit of motorbus operators, but to serve the public convenience and necessity. Hence a competing carrier which delays a considerable period before complaining of non-compliance by its competitor with the requirements of Section 614-91 and 614-93, General Code,, as to lan increase in equipment, has no power thereby to waive such requirements for the state.

Marshall, C J, Robinson and Matthias, JJ, concur. Kinkade, J, not participating.
Opinion issued November 15, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00539-CV

———————————

RAMESH KAPUR, Appellant

V.

FONDREN SOUTHWEST TEMPOS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2010-13051

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ramesh Kapur, has neither paid the required fees nor established 

indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; see also TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.941(a) (West 2013), 101.041 (West Supp. 2015); 

Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and 
2

Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 

(Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). Further, appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay 

the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). After being 

notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately 

respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(b), (c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and 

for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Lloyd.
#### § 1205.3 General Order No. 1.

General Order No. 1, issued August 14, 1934, is the only order the Board has issued since its creation in 1934. This order sent to the President of each carrier coming under the act transmitted a sample copy of the Mediation Board's Form MB-1 known as “Notice in re: Railway Labor Act.” The order prescribes that such notices are to be standard as to contents, dimensions of sheet, and size of type and that they shall be posted promptly and maintained continuously in readable condition on all the usual and customary bulletin boards giving information to employees and at such other places as may be necessary to make them accessible to all employees. Such notices must not be hidden by other papers or otherwise obscured from view.