alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 June 17, 2006

|Filer                    | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                             
|------------------------ | ------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|ORANGE COMMUNITY BANCORP | * 3A1         | Orange Community Bancorp to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Orange Community Bank, both of Orange, California. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:06/30/2006
|Newspaper:               | Not available
|Federal Register:        | 06/30/2006   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

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
#### Billy Bowen et al. v. The State.

*No. 3065.*

*Decided October 19.*

Scire Facias—Bail *Bond.—“*Unlawfully Selling Liquor on Sunday,” as the offense is denominated in the bail bond, is not, *eo nomine,*an offense against the laws of this State. To be sufficient the bail bond should have recited the specific offense charged against the principal, that is that being a merchant, grocer, or dealer in wares and merchandise, or a trader in business, he as such did unlawfully sell liquor on Sunday—following and conforming to the charge in the indictment or information.

Error from the County Court of Tarrant. Tried below before Hon. Sam Furman, County Judge.

The opinion discloses the nature of the case. The amount of the bond and judgment tvas one hundred dollars.

*B. G. Johnson,*for the plaintiffs in error.

*104
      *W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Willson,

Judge.—It is recited in the bail bond that Bowen, the principal, stands lawfully charged in the County Court of Tarrant County with “unlawfully selling liquor on Sunday.” The obligation of the bond is for him to appear before said court and answer said charge.

We think the bail bond is void. It does not appear therefrom that the principal, Bowen, was charged with an offense against the laws of this State. “Unlawfully selling liquor on Sunday” is not an offense *eo nomine,*as is murder, theft, robbery, rape, and the like. It was essential therefore to the validity of the bail bond that the specific offense with which Bowen was charged should be set forth, to-wit, that he was charged with being a merchant, grocer, or dealer in wares and merchandise, or a trader in business, and that as such he did unlawfully sell liquor on Sunday—following and conforming to the charge contained in the indictment or information. Code Crim. Proc., art. 288; O’Brien v. The State, 8 Texas Ct. App., 671; Day v. The State, 21 Texas Ct. App., 213; Cravey v. The State, 26 Texas Ct. App., 84.

Because of the invalidity of the bail bond the judgment is reversed and the proceeding is dismissed.

*Reversed and dismissed.*

Hurt, J., absent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0001007800
<NAME> SIPEX CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          17,810
<SECURITIES>                                    32,337
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,715
<ALLOWANCES>                                       868
<INVENTORY>                                     20,860
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,879
<PP&E>                                          42,185
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,106
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,401
<BONDS>                                          6,981
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           213
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,689
<SALES>                                         91,961
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,961
<CGS>                                           52,188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,188
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,774
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   435
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 674
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,588
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,841
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,429
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,429
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .88


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,798
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,615
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,942)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,566
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,885
<PP&E>                                         119,091
<DEPRECIATION>                                (56,630)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,781
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           26,358
<PREFERRED>                                     25,197
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                    (85,508)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,577
<SALES>                                         53,346
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,346
<CGS>                                           36,795
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,795
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,601
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,857
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,524
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,265
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,259
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,259
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.65


</TABLE>
- 2046
- 2047
- 2048
- 2049
§ 174.070 General damage stability assumptions. For the purpose of determining compliance with § 174.065, the assumptions are made that during flooding and the resulting change in the unit's waterline— ( a ) The unit is not anchored or moored; and
( b ) No compartment on the unit is ballasted or pumped out to compensate for the flooding described in §§ 174.075 through 174.085.
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



     I, Richard H. Terzian,  Chief  Financial  Officer of Golden State  Holdings
Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, that:

(1) The Quarterly  Report on  Form 10-Q  of the Company for the quarterly period
    ended June 30, 2002  (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of
    Section 13 (a)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U. S. C. 78m; 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:  August 7, 2002


                                                    /s/ Richard H. Terzian
                                               _________________________________
                                               Richard H. Terzian
                                               Chief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 199
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 199 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59789, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 199.140 Stowage of rescue boats. ( a ) *General.* Rescue boats must be stowed— ( 1 ) To be ready for launching in not more than 5 minutes.
( 2 ) In a position suitable for launching and recovery;
( 3 ) In a way that neither the rescue boat nor its stowage arrangements will interfere with the operation of any survival craft at any other launching station; and
( 4 ) If it is also a lifeboat, in compliance with the requirements of § 199.130.
( b ) Each rescue boat must have a means provided for recharging the rescue boat batteries from the vessel's power supply at a supply voltage not exceeding 50 volts.
( c ) Each inflated rescue boat must be kept fully inflated at all times.
[CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25313, May 20, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 52819, Oct. 1, 1998]
§ 189.60-10 Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate. ( a ) All vessels on an international voyage are required to have a Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate.
( b ) All such vessels shall meet the applicable requirements of this chapter for vessels on an international voyage.
1 of 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

NANCY GUCWA, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JEFFREY LAWLEY, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-10815 

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

ANTHONY P. PATTI

 / 

ORDER STAYING CASE AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO DISMISS [27, 32, 33, 34, 36] 

 All Defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss [Dkt. #27, 32, 33, 34, 36]. On 

September 30, 2015, the Court scheduled a hearing on the Motions to Dismiss for 

November 16, 2015. On that date, the Court held a status conference with counsel 

for all parties and adjourned the hearing, to be rescheduled after counsel reported a 

decision by a workers’ compensation agency. On January 20, 2016, Plaintiffs’ 

counsel sent the Court an update on the workers’ compensation proceedings and a 

request to promptly reschedule the hearing. The Court held a hearing on the 

Motions to Dismiss on March 11, 2016. For the reasons stated on the record, 

2:15-cv-10815-AJT-APP Doc # 72 Filed 03/14/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 963
2 of 2 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is STAYED until May 31, 2016. Any party 

may at any time submit a request to lift the stay. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending Motions to Dismiss [27, 32, 

33, 34, 36] are ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Any defendant may reopen 

its motion by written request submitted with or after a request to lift the stay. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Arthur J. Tarnow 

 Arthur J. Tarnow 

Dated: March 14, 2016 Senior United States District Judge 

2:15-cv-10815-AJT-APP Doc # 72 Filed 03/14/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 964
**EXHIBIT
              32.1**
 
 
 **CERTIFICATION
              PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**
 **OF
              THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C SECTION 1350)**
 
 
 The
              undersigned, as the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
              of Matria
              Healthcare, Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and
              belief, the
              Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006,
              which
              accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements
              of Section
              13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained
              in
              the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
              financial
              condition and results of operations of Matria Healthcare, Inc. at the
              dates and
              for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant
              to
              Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)
              and shall
              not be relied upon for any other purpose.
 
 This
              20 th day of
              March 2007.
 
 /s/
              Parker H.
              Petit
 Parker H. Petit
 Chairman of the Board and
 Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 
 
 
 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 Matria Healthcare, Inc. and will
              be
              retained by Matria Healthcare, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
              and Exchange
              Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 The
              information in this Exhibit 32.1 shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
              Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor
              shall it be
              deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities
              Act of 1933,
              except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such
              filing.
§ 196.40-10 Draft marks and draft indicating systems. ( a ) All vessels must have draft marks plainly and legibly visible upon the stem and upon the sternpost or rudderpost or at any place at the stern of the vessel as may be necessary for easy observance. The bottom of each mark must indicate the draft.
( b ) The draft must be taken from the bottom of the keel to the surface of the water at the location of the marks.
( c ) In cases where the keel does not extend forward or aft to the location of the draft marks, due to raked stem, or cutaway skeg, the datum line from which the draft shall be taken shall be obtained by projecting the line of the bottom of keel forward, or aft, as the case may be, to the location of the draft marks.
( d ) In cases where a vessel may have a skeg or other appendage extending locally below the line of the keel, the draft at the end of the vessel adjacent to such appendage shall be measured to a line tangent to the lowest part of such appendage and parallel to the line of the bottom of the keel.
( e ) Draft marks must be separated so that the projections of the marks onto a vertical plane are of uniform height equal to the vertical spacing between consecutive marks.
( f ) Draft marks must be painted in contrasting color to the hull.
( g ) In cases where draft marks are obscured due to operational constraints or by protrusions, the vessel must be fitted with a reliable draft indicating system from which the bow and stern drafts can be determined.
[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1158, Jan. 27, 1988, as amended by CGD 89-037, 57 FR 41828, Sept. 11, 1992]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OLMAN ROSENDO MEJIA MEJIA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73236

Agency No. A088-964-177

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 15, 2013** 

Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Olman Rosendo Mejia Mejia, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

FILED

OCT 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards

governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. 

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review. 

Mejia has not raised any challenge to the agency’s dispositive finding that

his asylum claim is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259

(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

because Mejia’s testimony was both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with

the documentary evidence regarding the timing of his political activities and his

attack. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1270 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence

of credible testimony, Mejia’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v.

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Because Mejia’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found

not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is

more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Honduras, his CAT claim

also fails. See id. at 1156-57. 

2 11-73236
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Mejia’s contention that the IJ was

biased and prejudiced because he failed to raise it before the BIA. See Barron v.

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider

due process challenges that have not been administratively exhausted). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 11-73236
Exhibit 23.1

Independent Auditors' Report and Consent

The Board of Directors
   Siebel Systems, Inc.:

The audits referred to in our report dated January 21, 2002 included the related
financial statement schedule as of December 31, 2001, and for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2001, as listed in the Index in Item 14(a)2 herein.  The financial
statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on the financial statement schedule based on our audits.  In our opinion, the
financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects, the information set forth
therein.



We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Forms
S-3 (Nos. 333-47062, 333-68041, and 333-91777) and Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-07983, 333-22763, 333-40437,
333-53369, 333-72969, 333-85007, 333-94243, 333-41792, 333-49986, 333-51018, 333-52998, 333-55406,
333-59526, 333-72218, and 333-75052) of Siebel Systems, Inc. of our reports dated January 21, 2002,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Siebel Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December
31, 2000 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
31, 2001, and related consolidated financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the
December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Siebel Systems, Inc.



/s/ KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California
   March 25, 2002

---
§ 171.090 Aft peak bulkhead. ( a ) Each of the following vessels must have an aft peak bulkhead: ( 1 ) Each vessel 100 gross tons or more on an international voyage.
( 2 ) Each other vessel of more than 150 gross tons.
( b ) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, each portion of the aft peak bulkhead below the bulkhead deck must be watertight.
( c ) A vessel may have an aft peak bulkhead that does not intersect the bulkhead deck if approved by the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51017, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by CGD 88-070, 53 FR 34537, Sept. 7, 1988]
# C_2014409EN.01000601.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd, Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI)

(Case C-602/12 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - First indent of Article 2(7)(c) - Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 - Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China - Market economy treatment - Costs of major inputs substantially reflecting market values - State subsidy for the steel sector in general - Effect))

2014/C 409/07

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd, Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd (represented by: Y. Melin and V. Akritidis, avocats)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and S. Boelaert, Agents, assisted by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt), European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents), European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) (represented by: J. Bourgeois, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd and Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISLB (EIFI) in the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd and Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISLB (EIFI) in the present proceedings;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

1

---