alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            420
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          1,402
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          3,831
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            3,778
<LOANS>                                        20,603
<ALLOWANCE>                                       172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 26,857
<DEPOSITS>                                     22,858
<SHORT-TERM>                                    1,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               168
<LONG-TERM>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                      2,830
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 26,857
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   413
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  65
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   20
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  498
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                257
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                277
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             221
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       8
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    67
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         43
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                       43
<EPS-BASIC>                                     .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.39
<LOANS-NON>                                        26
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  176
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       4
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 172
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              172
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0


</TABLE>
#### § 1.03-25 Appeals from decisions or actions of a District Commander.

Any person directly affected by a decision or action of a District Commander made pursuant to § 1.03-20 of this subpart, may make a formal appeal of that decision or action, via the office of the cognizant District Commander, to the Commandant, in accordance with the procedures contained in § 1.03-15 of this subpart.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1570
RONALD LOUIS STAVES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES T. PETERS, JR., Director; WILLIAM R. MYERS, JR., Senior Structural Engineer; CLAUDE G. COOPER; DYETT B. ELLIS, Senior Building Inspector, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1038-R) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Ronald Louis Staves, Appellant Pro Se. Beverly Agee Burton, Assistant City Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders dismissing his employment discrimination action and denying reconsideration of the dismissal. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Staves v. Peters , No. CA-95-1038-R (E.D. Va. Mar. 12 & 20, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 144.300 Stability standards for an existing vessel. ( a ) The owner or managing operator of an existing vessel operating under a stability document must be able to readily produce a copy of such document.
( b ) The owner or managing operator of an existing vessel not operating under a stability document must be able to show at least one of the following: ( 1 ) The vessel's operation or a history of satisfactory service does not cause the stability of the vessel to be questioned by either the Coast Guard or a TPO engaged to perform an audit or survey.
( 2 ) The vessel performs successfully on operational tests to determine whether the vessel has adequate stability and handling characteristics.
( 3 ) The vessel has a satisfactory stability assessment by means of giving due consideration to each item that impacts a vessel's stability characteristics which include, but are not limited to, the form, arrangement, construction, number of decks, route, and operating restrictions of the vessel.
#### § 108.135 Boundary bulkheads, decks of galleys, and combustible material lockers.

Each boundary bulkhead and deck of each galley, each combination galley and messroom, and each combustible material storage locker must be an A class bulkhead and A class deck respectively.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TIMOTHY KERRIGAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, Case No. 14-cv-12693 

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

VISALUS, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

CAPRECE BYRD, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 17-cv-12626 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

VISALUS, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER REQUIRING MEDIATION 

 The parties in these actions have retained Mr. Thomas McNeill of the 

Dickinson Wright law firm to act as a private mediator. The parties are HEREBY 

ORDERED to hold another mediation session with Mr. McNeill as soon as 

practicable, but in no event later than October 5, 2018. A representative for each 

party with full settlement authority shall attend the mediation in person (each 

Plaintiff and Defendant does not need to personally appear so long as someone 
2

appears at the mediation on their behalf with full settlement authority). In addition, 

authorized representatives from QBE Insurance Corporation and Federal Insurance 

Company (who the Court understands are the relevant insurance carriers) with full 

settlement authority shall also attend the mediation in person.1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: September 6, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on September 6, 2018, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764

                                                            

1

 The Court understands that there may be insurance coverages disputes and that 

QBE and/or Federal Insurance may contend that they have no obligation to defend 

and/or indemnify the Defendants. The Court nevertheless will require an authorized 

representative with full settlement authority from each insurance company to attend 

the mediation.
Presidential Documents

16693 

Federal Register 

Vol. 72, No. 64 

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 

Title 3— 

The President 

Executive Order 13428 of April 2, 2007 

Renaming a National Forest in the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the Act of 

June 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. 473) and section 1 of the Act of July 1, 1902 

(48 U.S.C. 746), and to rename the Caribbean National Forest in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

Section 1. The Caribbean National Forest in the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico is hereby renamed the ‘‘El Yunque National Forest.’’ 

Sec. 2. Previous references to the Caribbean National Forest in Executive 

Order 7059–A of June 4, 1935, and Executive Order 10992 of February 

9, 1962, shall, for all purposes hereafter, be deemed references to the ‘‘El 

Yunque National Forest.’’ 

Sec. 3. This order shall be implemented in accordance with applicable 

law and subject to the availability of appropriations. 

Sec. 4. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or 

benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any 

party against the United States, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or 

agents thereof, or any other person. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

April 2, 2007. 

[FR Doc. 07–1704 

Filed 4–3–07; 8:50 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with E0-D0GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 148.25 Activities covered by a special permit. ( a ) Each special permit covers any shipment of the permitted material by the shipper and also covers for each shipment— ( 1 ) Each transfer operation;
( 2 ) Each vessel involved in the shipment; and
( 3 ) Each individual involved in any cargo handling operation.
( b ) Each special permit is valid for a period determined by the Commandant (CG-ENG-5) and specified in the special permit. The period will not exceed 4 years and is subject to suspension or revocation before its expiration date.
§ 131.550 Maintenance of falls. ( a ) Each fall used with a launching appliance must be turned end for end at intervals of not more than 30 months.
( b ) Each fall used with a launching appliance must be renewed either when necessary because of deterioration or after the passage of not more than 5 years, whichever occurs earlier.
( c ) Each fall used with a launching appliance must have a corrosion-resistant tag permanently marked with— ( 1 ) The date the new fall was installed; and
( 2 ) The last date, if any, the fall was turned end for end.
§ 112.20-15 Transfer of emergency loads. ( a ) When the potential of the final emergency power source reaches 85 to 95 percent of normal value, the emergency loads under § 112.15-5 must transfer automatically to the final emergency power source and, on a passenger vessel, this transfer must be accomplished in no more than 45 seconds after failure of the normal source of power.
( b ) When the potential from the normal source has been restored, the emergency loads must be manually or automatically transferred to the normal source, and the final emergency power source must be manually or automatically stopped.
( c ) If the potential of the final emergency power source is less than 75 to 85 percent of normal value while supplying the emergency loads, the temporary emergency loads under § 112.15-1 must transfer automatically to the temporary emergency power source.
State Farm



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 19, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00143

- CV

Dennis OLIVARES

, Appellant

v.

STATE FARM BANK

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 3 70251

Honorable Jason Pulliam, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

By order dated August 14, 2014, appellant’s brief was STRICKEN from the record

because appellant’s brief did not contain citations to the record in the statement of facts and

arguments sections of his brief. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. Rule 38.1(g),(i). Appellant was ordered to file

an amended brief containing appropriate record citations in the statement of facts and arguments

sections of his brief no later than September 15, 2014.

On September 13, 2014, appellant fil ed a motion requesting a copy of the record. In his

motion, appellant acknowledges that he has been informed that he must review the record in this

court’s offices. See 4 th Tex. App. (San Antonio) Loc. R. 7.2(b) (“Parties who are representing

themselves and are not licensed attorneys may inspect a record only in designated areas of the

Court’s offices.”). Accordingly, appellant’s motion is DENIED. Appellant’s amended brief

containing appropriate citations to the record must be filed no later than Octobe r 3, 2014. If

appellant does not file a brief containing appropriate record citations by October 3, 2014, this

appeal will be dismissed for failure to comply with this court’s order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I h ave hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of September, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
§ 128.110 Equipment and systems. ( a ) Except as provided by this part, the design, installation, testing, and inspection of materials, machinery, pressure vessels, and piping for OSVs of less than 6,000 GT ITC (500 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) must comply with subchapter F of this chapter.
( b ) Except as specifically provided by § 128.310, the design, plan approval, installation, testing, and inspection of materials, machinery, automation, pressure vessels, and piping for OSVs of at least 6,000 GT ITC (500 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) must comply with subchapter F of this chapter.
( c ) This part contains requirements for equipment and systems commonly found on an OSV. If additional or unique systems, such as for low-temperature cargoes, are to be installed, they must comply with subchapter F of this chapter.
[USCG-2012-0208, 79 FR 48936, Aug. 18, 2014]
#### § 91.48 Remedial action by recipient.

Where HHS finds a recipient has discriminated on the basis of age, the recipient shall take any remedial action that HHS may require to overcome the effects of the discrimination. If another recipient exercises control over the recipient that has discriminated, HHS may require both recipients to take remedial action.
§ 122.410 Watchmen. ( a ) The owner, charterer, master, or managing operator of a vessel carrying overnight passengers shall have a suitable number of watchmen patrol throughout the vessel during the nighttime, whether or not the vessel is underway, to guard against, and give alarm in case of, a fire, a man overboard, or other dangerous situation.
( b ) Vessels described by 46 CFR 114.110(f) must submit plans to the cognizant OCMI, in accordance with 46 CFR 115.700, for the installation and use of monitoring device(s) to ensure the wakefulness of the watchmen required in paragraph (a) of this section. Vessels with a keel laid date after March 28, 2022, must include plans for the monitoring device(s) within the plan submissions required in 46 CFR 116.202. The Coast Guard will work with the vessel operators to determine a reasonable implementation schedule once the plans are accepted. The monitoring device(s) must: ( 1 ) Ensure the wakefulness of the crew in the event that the watchman required in paragraph (a) of this section is unresponsive;
( 2 ) Remain operable during the nighttime watch; and
( 3 ) Be arranged to ensure proper coverage of the passenger accommodation spaces, common areas, and spaces with potential fire hazards.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 935, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51352, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2021-0306, 86 FR 73171, Dec. 27, 2021]
(logo)WELLS FARGO BANK



                  ANNUAL CERTIFICATION FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1995



Dear Investor:

This is to certify the  following  items with  respect to real  estate  loans we
service on your behalf.

* We   have  complied  with  all applicable provisions of the executed servicing
  agreement and/or servicing guidelines.

* Servicing is in compliance with  applicable  state and federal laws, HUD or VA
  regulations, and all the terms of the loan documents.

* Taxes,  mortgage  insurance,  flood  and/or  hazard  insurance and assessments
  have been  paid,  if  applicable,  by Wells  Fargo Bank as required  by escrow
  agreements and regulations.  Payment of taxes and insurance by  borrowers,  if
  applicable,   is  tracked  and  verified  using  normal  industry  methods and
  standards.

* Insurance   policies   are   in   possession   of  Wells  Fargo  Bank,  or its
  authorized  insurance  vendor, as required   by  the  terms  of  our  mortgage
  impairment coverage.

* ARM   rate  and   payment  changes  are  made  according  to  contractual  and
  regulatory requirements,  and payment change notices sent  as required by law.
  An  ongoing  audit  process  ensures the integrity of our on-line information.

* Interest  is paid on escrow  funds in  compliance  with all  federal and state
  laws, regulations, and contracts.

* Loan  documents are  held in  our vault,  at  401 West  24th Street,  National
  City, California, 91950,  or by a document  custodian  pursuant to  applicable
  servicing contracts.

* All  IRS  information   returns,  including  IRS Forms, 1098 Mortgage Interest
  Statement,  and 1099-A  Acquisition or Abandonment  are filed  pursuant to IRS
  regulations.

Certified by: /s/William J. McClung
              William J. McClung, Senior Vice President
              Loan Servicing Manager, Mortgager, Mortgage Lending Servicing

(word\h:\word\certific)




                   P.O. Box 85071  San Diego, CA 92186-5071



LS35
#### § 81.106 Review by the Secretary.

Within 20 days after an initial decision becomes a final decision pursuant to § 81.104(a) or within 20 days of the mailing of a final decision referred to in § 81.104(b), as the case may be, a party may request the Secretary to review the final decision. The Secretary may grant or deny such request, in whole or in part, or serve notice of his intent to review the decision in whole or in part upon his own motion. If the Secretary grants the requested review, or if he serves notice of intent to review upon his own motion, each party to the decision shall have 20 days following notice of the Secretary's proposed action within which to file exceptions to the decision and supporting briefs and memoranda, or briefs and memoranda in support of the decision. Failure of a party to request review under this paragraph shall not be deemed a failure to exhaust administrative remedies for the purpose of obtaining judicial review.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 14-13436 

vs. 

 Hon. George Caram Steeh 

EDWARD J. DAVIS, JR., 

 

 Defendant. 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

O’REILLY RANCILIO P.C. MONK-ADAMS, PLLC 

Craig S. Schoenherr, Sr. (P32245) Creighton V. Adams (P48850) 

Eric C. Turnbull (P76382) Attorney for Defendant 

Attorneys for Plaintiff P.O. Box 23563 

12900 Hall Road, Suite 350 Detroit, MI 48223 

Sterling Heights, MI 48313 (313) 727-5968 

(586) 726-1000 creightonpc@outlook.com 

cschoenherr@orlaw.com

eturnbull@orlaw.com

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

AMENDED JUDGMENT 

 The above entitled matter has come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, and in accordance with the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment entered on July 28, 2015: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against 

Defendant, Edward J. Davis, Jr., in the amount of $18,848.01. Post judgment interest shall accrue 

at the legal rate in effect pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961; 

IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that this resolves the last pending claim and 

closes the case. 

DATED: August 19, 2015 s/George Caram Steeh 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:14-cv-13436-GCS-MJH Doc # 16 Filed 08/19/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 116
#### § 111.75-18 Signaling lights.

Each self-propelled vessel over 150 gross tons when engaged on an international voyage must have on board an approved daylight signaling lamp that meets ISO 25861 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter).

[USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16365, Mar. 16, 2023]
#### FLORENCE M. LECHNER AND FRANK LECHNER, Sr., PLAINTIFFS, v. C. LEWIS LAVINE, DEFENDANT.

Decided November 4, 1929.

Before Justices Trenchard, Balisch and Lloyd.

Eor the rule, *James Mercer Davis.*

*Contra, Joseph Lanigan.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs, husband and wife, obtained a verdict in the Mercer Circuit, against the defendant, namely, for $1,000 *930in favor of the female plaintiff as compensation for injuries sustained by her, and $200 in favor of her husband, for medical expenses incurred, and loss of consortium, by reason of his wife’s injuries.

The female plaintiff, on the 10th of October, 1926, was a passenger riding on a trolley car in Trenton, which car was proceeding toward the center of that city. The defendant, by its servant, was operating an automobile truck, and was engaged in backing it out of and on a private driveway of the Westingliouse plant on Pennington avenue.

It was a long-bodied truck, and therefore it was within the knowledge of its operator, that when the truck was backed to its full length, it would extend across the tracks of the trolley company, upon which the trolley car was being propelled.

At the time of the happening of the accident it was near dusk, and there was a collision between an oncoming trolley car and the truck, in that the trolley ear ran into the side of the truck, whereby the female plaintiff, who was a passenger on the car was injured.

One of the factual questions presented by the evidence for the jury to decide was, whether the driver of the truck, in the exercise of reasonable Care, could have avoided the collision. If he could have done so, it is wholly immaterial whether the driver of the trolley car was also negligent and contributed to bringing about the collision.

Erom a careful reading of the testimony, we cannot say that the jury were not warranted in finding that the driver of the truck could, in the exercise of reasonable care, have avoided the collision.

The verdict is not so clearly against the weight of the evidence that it can be properly said to have been the product of mistake, partiality, prejudice or passion on part of the jury.

The rule to show cause is discharged, with costs.
Exhibit 31.1











Certification of Chief Executive Officer











I, Stephen S. Romaine, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A of Tompkins Financial Corporation;





2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.








Date: March 5, 2018








/s/ Stephen S. RomaineStephen S. RomainePresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 81.79 Cross-examination.

A witness may be cross-examined on any matter material to the proceeding without regard to the scope of his direct examination.