alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-4265

___________ Gabriel Chehadeh; Chedco * Development, Inc., a Minnesota * corporation, * * Plaintiffs, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Roffe Containers, Inc., a dissolved * Minnesota corporation; David Thomas, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendants-Appellees, * * Jerry Aamot, * * Defendant-Appellant, * * George Corbey; Donald Scott; * Aamot/Thomas Partnership, a * Minnesota partnership, * * Defendants-Appellees. * *

___________ Submitted: November 20, 1997 Filed: December 12, 1997

___________ Before BEAM, HEANEY, and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

___________The Honorable Jonathan Lebedoff, United States Magistrate Judge for th e 1 Distr ict of Minnesota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2- PER CURIAM. Jerry Aamot a

ppeals from the district court's order which compelled Aamot to 1 tr ansfer his entire interest in Roffe Container, Inc., (Roffe) to Roffe for $179,806.00, less the $40,000 in attorney fee s and costs awarded Roffe; compelled Aamot to return all sums paid by Chedco Development, Inc., pursuant to a purported stock transfe r agreement; and dismissed Aamot's remaining claims.
A f ter carefully reviewing the record and the parties' submissions, we conclude that the district court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. ATTEST: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 12
Federal Reserve Bank of: San Francisco

## Filings received during the week ending November 26, 2005

|Filer                                      | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                                 
|------------------------------------------ | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------
|BANK OF THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA | FBSEA          | Bank of the Federated States of Micronesia, Kolonia, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, to establish a limited service non-insured branch in Honolulu, Hawaii, pursuant to section 7(d)of the International Banking Act, and section 211.24(a)(1) of Regulation K. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                                 | Not available 
|Federal Register:                          | Not applicable
|OREGON COAST BANCSHARES, INC.              | * 3A1          | Oregon Coast Bancshares, Inc., Newport, Oregon, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Oregon Coast Bank, Newport, Oregon.                                                                                                                         | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:12/22/2005    
|Newspaper:                                 | Not available 
|Federal Register:                          | 12/22/2005    

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location       | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|VINTAGE BK, NAPA, CALIFORNIA | 91866  | 07/11/2005 | 11/22/2005     | S         | Large Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for First Quarter of 2006 (January 1, 2006 - March 31, 2006)

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Order entered November 23, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01335-CR

No. 05-16-01357-CR

EX PARTE MICHAEL CHARLES MCDERMOTT

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 380-80439-2015, 380-80437-2015

ORDER

We VACATE our order of November 18, 2016 setting scheduling in these appeals 

because the appellate cause number for cause no. 05-16-01357-CR was incorrect on the order. 

We issue this order to reset scheduling on these appeals.

The Court is in receipt of appellant’s notices of appeal from the trial court’s orders

denying relief on his pretrial applications for writ of habeas corpus. These are accelerated 

appeals and are governed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 31.

We ORDER the trial court to prepare certifications of appellant’s right to appeal and to 

file them within TEN DAYS of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a), (d);

Cortez v. State, 420 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

We ORDER the Collin County District Clerk to file the clerk’s records by

December 12, 2016. We ORDER that the clerk’s records contain copies of the indictments, the 
documents related to the applications for writ of habeas corpus, the trial court’s orders, and the 

trial court’s certifications of appellant’s right to appeal.

We ORDER the court reporter to file, by December 12, 2016, either the reporter’s 

record or written verification that no hearing was conducted.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief by January 3, 2017. We ORDER the State

to file its brief by January 24, 2017. After the records and briefs have been filed, the Court

will notify the parties of the submission date and panel.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Benjamin N. Smith, 

Presiding Judge, 380th Judicial District Court; Karla Kimbrell, Official Court Reporter, 380th

Judicial District Court; Lynne Finley, Collin County District Clerk; and counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
|   | i.   | The                  report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                  or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act 1934; and |
|--------|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated:  January                21, 2008  | /s/ MARTIN                  EULER                                                                   Name:                  Martin EulerTitle:                  Chief Executive Officer  |
|---------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# C_2015016EN.01002901.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Hesse and Lutter & Partner v OHIM — Porsche (Carrera)

(Case T-173/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Carrera - Earlier Community and national word marks CARRERA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Partial substitution of a party to the proceedings)

(2015/C 016/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer) and Lutter & Partner GmbH (Garching, Germany) (represented by: H. Lindner, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2011 (Case R 306/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG and Mr Kurt Hesse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Kurt Hesse and Lutter & Partner GmbH to bear their own costs and orders each of them to pay one half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Kurt Hesse and Lutter & Partner GmbH to bear their own costs and orders each of them to pay one half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

---
Financial Planning Fringe Benefit Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 CAMDEN NATIONAL CORPORATION 
  

Financial Planning Fringe Benefit Plan 
  

	1.	Introduction. The name of the plan is the Camden National Corporation Financial Planning Fringe Benefit Plan (the “Plan”). The purpose of the Plan is to encourage
and enable select officers of Camden National Corporation (the “Company”) and its subsidiaries to engage the services of an advisor for personal estate planning and/or financial planning purposes. 

  

	2.	Eligibility. Participation in the Plan shall be limited to those officers of the Company or its subsidiaries selected by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors
of the Company (the “Committee”). 

  

	3.	Benefits. Participants in the Plan shall be eligible to receive up to $3,000 per calendar year for personal estate planning and financial planning purposes. Participants may
select their own advisors. Any unused benefit under the Plan for a year may not be carried over to another year. 

  

	4.	Administration. The Plan shall be administered by the Committee in its sole discretion. All decisions and interpretations of the Committee shall be binding on all persons.
The Committee may amend or terminate the Plan at any time. 

  

	5.	Effective Date. The Plan shall be effective as of January 25, 2005.
#### § 167.65-1 Emergency training, musters, and drills.

Onboard training, musters, and drills must be in accordance with subchapter W (Lifesaving Appliances and Arrangements) of this chapter.

[CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25311, May 20, 1996]
§ 180.75 Life jacket lights. ( a ) Each life jacket carried on a vessel on oceans, coastwise, or Great Lakes route, must have a life jacket light approved in accordance with § 161.012 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.112. Each life jacket light must be securely attached to the front shoulder area of the life jacket.
( b ) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, life jacket lights are not required for life jackets on: ( 1 ) Ferries; and
( 2 ) Vessels with Certificates of Inspection endorsed only for routes that do not extend more than 20 miles from a harbor of safe refuge.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 975, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2015-0867, 80 FR 62470, Oct. 16, 2015]
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0551. ANGELA BROWN v. KEITH BROWN.

Upon consideration, Angela Brown’s application for discretionary appeal is

hereby DENIED. Keith Brown’s request for sanctions pursuant to Court of Appeals

Rule 10 is hereby DENIED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 09, 2017

08/09/2017
**EXHIBIT31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Neil M. Kurtz, M.D.,certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of TorreyPines Therapeutics, Inc. for the quarterended June 30, 2007;

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

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2007
|        |   | /s/ Neil M.  Kurtz, M.D.               |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | Neil M. Kurtz,  M.D.                   |
|   |   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

 

----
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending November 19, 2005

----

Bank Holding CompaniesJPMorgan Chase & Co., New York, New York  -- to engage in physical commodity trading activities on a limited basis as an activity that is complementary to a financial activity.					-Approved, November 18, 2005 					Zions Bancorporation, Salt Lake City, Utah  -- to acquire Amegy Bancorporation, Inc., Houston, Texas; and its subsidiary, Amegy Bank, National Association.					-Approved, November 18, 2005 					

Regulations And PoliciesAvailability of Funds and Collection of Checks (Regulation CC)  -- final amendments to define "remotely created checks" and create transfer and presentment warranties for such checks; and conforming amendments to Regulation J (Collection of Checks and Other Items by Federal Reserve Banks and Funds Transfers through Fedwire).					-Approved, November 17, 2005 					Fair Credit Reporting (Regulation V)  -- final interagency amendments that specify when creditors may obtain and use, and when affiliates may share, consumers' medical information.					-Approved, November 8, 2005 					(AC)One-Year Post-employment Restrictions for Senior Examiners  -- final interagency rule implementing the special post-employment restrictions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Docket No. R-1230)					-Approved, November 10, 2005 					(AC)

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: November 23, 2005
#### § 188.10-41 Liquefied compressed gas.

This term means a gas which, under the charged pressure, is partially liquid at a temperature of 70 °F.
## United States Court of App eals F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 35 41

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *
* App el le e, *
* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e * W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i. Dian a Kay

Erick so n, *
* [UNPUBLISHED] App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Marc h 2 7, 2 01 2 Fi le d: May 31, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re MUR PHY, ARNOLD, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.
Und er the te rm s o f a writ te n pl ea agre em en t th at co nt ai ne d an app eal waiv er, Dian a Eric ks on pl ead ed gu il ty to m ai l frau d in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 13 41 , an d fil in g a fal se t a x r e t u r n in vi ol at io n of 26 U.S.C. § 72 06 (1 ). The di st ric t co ur t 1 im po se d a se nt en ce of 33 m on th s in pr is on an d 3 y ears of su pe r v i s e d rel eas e, an d

or de red he r to pa y $3 05 ,24 9.7 2 in res ti tu ti on

. Defe n s e c o un se l ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw an d s ub m it te d a bri ef u nd er An de rs v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 (19 67 ).

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.W e co nc lu de th at th e ap pe al waiv er sh ou ld be en fo rced as to al l is su es in th is

ap pe al

. See Uni te d Stat es v. And is , 33 3 F.3d 88 6, 88 9- 92 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (en ba nc ) (co ur t sh ou ld en fo rce ap pe al waiv er an d di sm is s ap pe a l whe re ap pe al fal ls wit hi n
sc op e o f waiv er, bo th pl ea ag reem en t an d waiv er were en te red in to kn owi ng ly an d

vo l u nt ari ly, an d no m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce wou ld res ul t); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Est rad a-Ba he na , 20 1 F.3 d 10 70 , 10 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (p er cu ria m ) (en fo rci ng ap pe al waiv er i n An de rs cas e).

Hav in g in de pe nd en tl y rev ie wed th e reco rd un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , we ha ve fo un d no no nf riv ol ou s is su e no t co ve red by th e waiv er. Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s th is ap pe al an d gr an t co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw, su bjec t to co un se l in fo rm in g Ms. Erick so n abo ut pr oc ed ur es fo r se ek in g reh eari ng or fil in g a p et it io n fo r cer ti or ari

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-4847 SEAN PATRICE CLARKSON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CR-95-49) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: June 16, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Charles C. Henderson, Trenton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, William A. Webb, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Sean Patrice Clarkson appeals from his sentence. Clarkson pledguilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute heroin, cocaine, and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and was sentenced to 108 months imprisonment. Clarkson's only contention in this appeal is that the sentencing court erred byrefusing to reduce his offense level by three levels based on acceptance of responsibility. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 3E1.1 (Nov. 1995). It is undisputed that Clarkson submitted two positive urine screensfor cocaine while he was on pretrial release in violation of the conditions of his bond. Further, he denied any involvement with selling drugs during any part of the conspiracy to the probation officer. We find that the district court did not clearly err, see United States v. Curtis , 934 F.2d 553, 557 (4th Cir. 1991), by finding that Clarkson was not entitled to a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility based on his continued drug use following his arrest and prior to sentencing. See United States v. Kidd , 12 F.3d 30, 34 (4th Cir. 1993) (continued use and illegal distribution of cocaine after indictment and plea agreement); United States v. Underwood , 970 F.2d 1336, 1338-39 (4th Cir. 1992) (continued use of marijuana after entering into plea agreement). Accordingly, Clarkson's sentence is affirmed. We deny Clarkson's motion requesting the appointment of another attorney. We dispensewith 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
2