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: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending September 2, 2006

|Filer                     | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    | End of Comment Period                          
|------------------------- | ----------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|ALLIANCE BANCSHARES, INC. | CIC         | Notice by Ms. Mary Lucy McCorkle, Sulphur Springs, Texas, to increase her ownership to 10.49 percent in Alliance Bancshares, Inc., Sulphur Springs, Texas, and thereby indirectly, SSSB Delaware Bancorporation, Inc., Dover, Delaware, and Alliance Bank, Sulphur Springs, Texas. | Newspaper:09/30/2006Federal Register:09/15/2006
|Newspaper:                | 09/30/2006 
|Federal Register:         | 09/15/2006 
|LINDEN BANCSHARES, INC.   | CIC         | Notice by Mr. John R. Rountree, Linden, Texas, to control up to 57 percent of the voting common stock of Linden Bancshares, Inc., Linden, Texas, and indirectly The First National Bank of Linden, Linden, Texas.                                                                  | Newspaper:09/19/2006Federal Register:09/15/2006
|Newspaper:                | 09/19/2006 
|Federal Register:         | 09/15/2006 

## 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
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

§ 2.01-60 Overtime compensation. ( a ) *General.* Extra compensations for overtime services performed by inspectors of vessels and their assistants who may be required to remain on duty between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. or on Sundays or holidays to perform services in connection with the inspection of vessels or their equipment, supplying or signing on or discharging crews of vessels is authorized by 46 U.S.C. 2111 and regulations in part 9 of this chapter, together with the method of computing such extra compensation.
( b ) *Application and certification of time.* Application for the performance of such overtime services and certification of services performed is made by the master, owner, or agent of a vessel to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, on Form CG-830, Application for and Certificate of Overtime Service.
( c ) *Collection.* The bill for the collection of the overtime compensation is submitted by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection to the master, owner, or agent on whose vessel overtime services are performed on Form CG-832, Bill for Collection Overtime Services. Payment is made to the Collector of Customs of the port designated.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16604, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51041, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2000-7790, 65 FR 58458, Sept. 29, 2000]
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: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending April 15, 2006

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                              | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|TRADITION BANK    | * Branch       | Tradition Bank, Houston, Texas, to establish a branch to be located at 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77006. | Newspaper:04/24/2006Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 04/24/2006    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## 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
# C_2013313EN.01002501.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Anbouba v Council

(Case T-592/11) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Presumption of innocence - Burden of proof - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of defence - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 313/49

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Issam Anbouba (Homs, Syria) (represented by: M.-A. Bastin, J.-M. Salva and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and M.-M. Joséphidès, then R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and A. Vitro, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 33), of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), of Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 18), of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), and of Council Implementing Regulation No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 Implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 126, p.3) in so far as the applicant is named in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, and, second, application for payment of compensation for damage suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Mr Issam Anbouba to pay his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Issam Anbouba to pay his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
Sec. 17 Performance of work resulting from damage sustained while undergoing repairs. ( a ) When damage is sustained by a vessel during performance of repairs under the NSA Master Contract, negotiations for accomplishment of work necessary to correct such damage are to be made with the repair contractor involved, if practicable, and a job order issued to the contractor for the repair of damage. Such job orders are to be assigned a new number and are not to be supplemental to the original award. The following “without prejudice” clause is to be made a part of and place on each job order issued for the performance of work discussed in this section. It is understood and agreed that the work covered by this job order is awarded and accepted without prejudice to, or waiver of, any rights of the United States or the Contractor.
( b ) If it is determined that the contractor is at fault and the contractor refuses to accept the responsibility, the procedure outlined in Article 27 of the master repair contract shall be followed. It is to be understood that the payment of this type of account is to be withheld pending establishment that the contractor involved is relieved of all responsibility for the damage.
( c ) In the event other than the original contractor effects the damage repairs immediate arrangements are to be made by and through the General Agent to collect from the contractor considered responsible for the damages.
( d ) A damage survey is to be conducted in all such cases and a report thereon submitted to the Chief, Division of Ship Repair and Maintenance, Washington, DC.
# C_2014045EN.01001001.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v Fulmen, Fereydoun Mahmoudian, European Commission

(Case C-280/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to substantiate the measure)

2014/C 45/17

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Fulmen, Fereydoun Mahmoudian (represented by: A. Kronshagen and C. Hirtzberger, avocats), European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Interveners in support of the appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Beeko and A. Robinson, Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister), French Republic (represented by: E. Ranaivoson and D. Colas, Agents)

Interveners in support of the appellant:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10 Fulmen and Mahmoudian v Council, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), of Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) — Specific restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of law — Error of assessment — Burden of proof

Fulmen and Mahmoudian

Council

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.

1

---
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Denied as Moot, Motion for Extension of Time 

to File Motion for Rehearing Denied as Moot, Motion to Withdraw Appeal 

Denied as Moot, Appeal Dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed July 21, 

2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00107-CR

NO. 14-22-00108-CR

JARIEN DESEAN ROSS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1593041 & 1593102

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of evading arrest with a motor vehicle and burglary 

of a habitation pursuant to a plea bargain and sentenced to concurrent fifteen-year 

terms of incarceration on March 15, 2019. Appellant timely filed motions to 

withdraw his guilty pleas on April 5, 2019 that were the equivalent of motions for 
2

new trial. See State v. Evans, 843 S.W.2d 576, 577–78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal regarding each of his convictions was due by

June 13, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2).

A court of appeals may grant an extension of time if, within 15 days after the 

deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the party files (a) the notice of appeal in the 

trial court, and (b) a motion for extension of time in the court of appeals. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 26.3; see also Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(2) (governing motion for extension 

of time to file notice of appeal). The fifteenth day after June 13, 2019, was June 28, 

2022. 

Appellant filed his notice of appeal regarding both of his convictions on 

February 8, 2022, a date that is not within 15 days of the due date.

A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. 

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). When a notice of 

appeal is not filed within the 15-day period, the court of appeals can take no action 

other than to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id.

On March 16, 2022 the parties were notified that the court would consider 

dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant demonstrated that 

the court has jurisdiction. Appellant’s responses, filed both through counsel and pro 

se, do not demonstrate this court’s jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All pending 

motions1are denied as moot.

1 Currently pending before the court are appellant’s appointed counsel’s motion to 

withdraw as counsel, appellant’s pro se motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing, 

and appellant’s motion to withdraw his appeal.
3

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Wilson.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
#### § 201.61 Petition for issuance, amendment, or repeal of rule or regulation.

Any interested person may file with the Administration a petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law, policy, organization, procedure, or practice requirements of the Administration. The petition shall set forth the interest of petitioner and the nature of the relief desired, shall include any facts, views, arguments, and data deemed relevant by petitioner, and shall be subscribed to. If such petition is for the amendment or repeal of a rule, it shall be accompanied by proof of service on all persons, if any, specifically named in such rule, and shall conform in all other aspects to subpart D of this part. Answers to such petition shall conform to the requirements of subpart D of this part.
EPA Meeting with Vista June 20 , 2012
**Attendees:** EPA OUST: Liz McDermott, Linda Gerber , Paul Miller, Tim Roberts, Erin Knighton , Tim Smith , dave Hamnett Vista Precision Solutions: Doug Mann At this meeting EPA and Vista discussed the proposed changes to the UST regulations . The discussion focused on airport hydrant sy stems and the capabilities of release detection on these ty pes of sy stems.
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF MAY 17, 2016

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD78749 Diane Accurso vs. Division of Employment Security

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

None
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 12 (Friday, January 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-227]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, February 16, 2007.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-227 Filed 1-17-07; 11:27 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
# C_2011238EN.01002001.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/20

---

Action brought on 31 May 2011 — Ewald v OHIM — Kin Cosmetics (Keen)

(Case T-280/11)

2011/C 238/36

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rita Ewald (Frauenwald, Germany) (represented by: S. Reinhardt, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kin Cosmetics, SA (Sant Feliu de Guixols, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2011 in Case R 1383/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2011 in Case R 1383/2010-1;

| — | Reject the opposition filed at OHIM on 24 July 2008 under No B 1359944 by KIN COSMETICS, SA against Community trade mark application No EM 006 498 621‘Keen’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Reject the opposition filed at OHIM on 24 July 2008 under No B 1359944 by KIN COSMETICS, SA against Community trade mark application No EM 006 498 621‘Keen’;

| — | In the alternative, in the event that the Court cannot itself reach a decision under the second head of claim, refer the case back to OHIM for a fresh decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, in the event that the Court cannot itself reach a decision under the second head of claim, refer the case back to OHIM for a fresh decision;

| — | Order the defendant and KIN COSMETICS, SA, in so far as it decides to participate in the proceedings, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and KIN COSMETICS, SA, in so far as it decides to participate in the proceedings, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Keen’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 44 — application No 6 498 621

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kin Cosmetics, SA

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Community and national word and figurative marks ‘KIN’, ‘KinBooKs’, ‘KINWORKS’ and ‘KINSTYLIUM’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 35 and 44

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

Pleas in law:

---
PUBLIC LAW 111–219—AUG. 3, 2010 124 STAT. 2371 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5099 (S. 3465): 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

May 18, 19, considered and passed House. 

July 14, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–219 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 15 South 

Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Michael C. Rothberg Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. MICHAEL C. ROTHBERG POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Michael C. Rothberg Post 

Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any references in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Michael C. Rothberg Post Office’’. 

Approved August 3, 2010. 

Aug. 3, 2010 

[H.R. 5099] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
# C_2014045EN.01001402.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Walter Vapenik v Josef Thurner

(Case C-508/12) (1)

1

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European enforcement order for uncontested claims - Requirements for certification as an enforcement order - Situation in which the judgment was given in the Member State of the creditor in a dispute between two persons not engaged in commercial or professional activities)

2014/C 45/25

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Walter Vapenik

Applicant:

Defendant: Josef Thurner

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Salzburg — Interpretation of Article 6(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15) — Conditions for certification as an enforcement order in a decision relating to an uncontested claim — Situation in which the decision has been delivered in the creditor’s Member State in a dispute between two consumers.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to contracts concluded between two persons who are not engaged in commercial or professional activities.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

1

---