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: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending October 21, 2006

|Filer                             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | End of Comment Period                                  
|--------------------------------- | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION      | Investment     | KeyBank is seeking prior Board approval to invest an additional amount in excess of 10 percent of its capital and surplus in its agreement corporations.  KeyBank requests that the Board grant authorization for an investment by KeyBank in it agreement corporations of up to an additional $45,000,000 pursuant to Section 211.5(h)of Reg K | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                        | Not applicable
|Federal Register:                 | Not applicable
|STATE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, THE | * Branch       | The State Bank and Trust Company, Defiance, OH to establish a branch at 12832 Coldwater Road, Fort Wayne, IN.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable 
|Newspaper:                        | Not available 
|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
#### Faust et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Smith, Defendant in Error.

1. Pleading.

A complaint in an action against a firm, wbicb alleges a distinct and independent indebtedness against each member thereof, does not state a cause of action.

2. Pleading — Joindbb. ob Causes ob Action.

Several causes of action which do not affect the parties in the same character and capacity may not be united in the same complaint.

*Error to the County Court of Phillips County.*

Messrs. Bartels & Blood and Mr. W. D. Kelsey, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. J. S. Bennett and Mr. P. J. Dempster, for defendant in error.

Thomson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Frank M. Smith brought his action in the court below against William H. Faust and Mahlon Faust, partners under the firm name and style of the Faust Lumber Company. A writ of attachment was issued in the case, under and in pursuance of which certain moneys due the copartnership were garnished. The cause of action stated in the complaint is an indebtedness from William H. Faust for medical services rendered and medicines furnished to him by the plaintiff, and at his special instance and request, and an indebtedness from Mahlon Faust for medical services rendered and medicines furnished to him by plaintiff, and at his special instance and request. The defendants demurred to the complaint, for the following among other reasons: First, that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and, second, that several causes of action were improperly united in the complaint. The demurrer was overruled, and judg*506ment given against each defendant for the amount of plaintiff’s claim against him. The defendants bring the case here by writ of error.

The plaintiff’s theory of his case is not obvious. Whether it was intended as a suit against the copartnership, or as a suit against the individual defendants, does not very clearly appear from the record. The cause is entitled against the firm. The summons is directed to the copartnership by its firm name, and the writ of attachment commands the sheriff to attach the property of .the firm, while the complaint alleges a distinct and independent indebtedness against each, member of the firm. If we consider this as a suit against the firm, then no cause of action is stated in the complaint, because the indebtedness it sets forth is not a partnership indebtedness. If, on the other hand, we regard it as a suit against the individual defendants, then severaTcauses of action are improperly united. Section 70 of the Civil Code permits certain causes of action to be united in a complaint, but they must affect the parties in the same character and capacity. Here a claim is made against each defendant, with which the other has no connection, direct or remote, and by which he is not affected in any character or capacity. In either view of the case, the demurrer should have been sustained, and because it was overruled the judgment must be reversed.

*Reversed.*
#### § 119.540 Ballast systems.

Solid and water ballast must comply with the requirements of subpart L of part 116 of this subchapter.
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 May 13, 2006

----

Discount RatesDiscount and Advance Rates  -- increase in the primary credit rate from 5-3/4 percent to 6 percent by the Federal Reserve Banks of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Dallas, and San Francisco.					-Approved, May 10, 2006 					Discount and Advance Rates  -- increase in the primary credit rate from 5-3/4 percent to 6 percent by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.					-Approved, May 11, 2006 					

EnforcementHuntington Bancshares Incorporated, Columbus, Ohio  -- written agreement dated February 28, 2005, terminated May 10, 2006.					-Announced, May 10, 2006 					United Bank, Parkersburg, West Virginia  -- issuance of a consent order of assessment of a civil money penalty.					-Announced, May 10, 2006 					

FormsForms  -- final Board review to extend without revision the Notice Requirements in Connection with Regulation W (Reg W) and Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements in Connection with Regulation Z (Truth in Lending).					-Approved, May 8, 2006 					

Regulations And PoliciesComplex Structured Finance Activities  -- publication for comment of the revised Interagency Statement on Sound Practices Concerning Elevated Risk Complex Structured Finance Activities (Docket No. OP-1254).					-Announced, May 9, 2006 					

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: May 18, 2006
§ 289.3 Provision in subsidy agreements and mortgages. ( a ) All construction-differential subsidy agreements and mortgages relative to vessels covered in § 289.2(a) shall provide, wherever possible, that the Maritime Administrator may, in his discretion, require the owner to insure, with commercial underwriters, the interest of the United States.
( b ) All future construction-differential subsidy agreements and future operating subsidy agreements shall require that owners insure vessels covered in § 289.2 (a) and (d) in amounts acceptable to the Maritime Administration.
#### § 308.526 Certificate for repayment of decrease of collateral deposit fund, Form MA-306.

The standard form of certificate for repayment of the amount of the decrease of the collateral deposit fund, Form MA-306, may be obtained from MARAD's underwriting agent or MARAD.
§ 185.728 Testing and servicing of Emergency Position Indicating Radiobeacons (EPIRB). The master of the vessel shall ensure that: ( a ) Each EPIRB, other than an EPIRB in an inflatable liferaft, must be tested monthly, using the integrated test circuit and output indicator, to determine that it is operative;
( b ) The EPIRB's battery is replaced after it is used, or before the date required by FCC regulations in 47 CFR part 80, whichever comes sooner; and
( c ) The EPIRB test required by paragraph (a) shall be logged or otherwise documented, as applicable.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 1005, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51050, Sept. 30, 1997]
# C_2013367EN.01001502.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-263/12) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Commission Decision ordering recovery of aid - Failure to comply with a Commission Decision)

2013/C 367/25

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos, K. Boskovits, G. Kanellopoulos and M. Karageorgou, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2011/452/EU of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Khrisos A.E. (notified under document C(2011) 1006) (OJ 2011 L 193, p. 27) — Failure to take all the measures necessary for the recovery of aid which has been found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from Ellinikos Khrisos A.E. the aid granted to that undertaking on the sale, by the Greek State, of immovable property, aid declared to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision C(2011) 1006 final of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Khrisos A.E., the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from Ellinikos Khrisos A.E. the aid granted to that undertaking on the sale, by the Greek State, of immovable property, aid declared to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision C(2011) 1006 final of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Khrisos A.E., the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision.

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

1

---
§ 169.692 Remote stop stations. In lieu of the remote stopping systems required by subpart 111.103 of this chapter, remote stop stations must be provided as follows: ( a ) A propulsion shutdown in the pilothouse for each propulsion unit,
( b ) A bilge slop or dirty oil discharge shutdown at the deck discharge,
( c ) A ventilation shutdown located outside the space ventilated, and
( d ) A shutdown from outside the engineroom for the fuel transfer pump, fuel oil service pump, or any other fuel oil pump.
# C_2013225EN.01005605.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/56

---

Order of the President of the Tenth Chamber of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-76/12) (1)

1

2013/C 225/109

Language of the case: French

The President of the Tenth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.

1

---
- 3216
- 3217
- 3218
- 3219
- 3220
- 3221
- 3222
#### § 174.030 Specific applicability.

Each mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) inspected under Subchapter IA of this chapter must comply with this subpart.
§ 185.704 Maintenance of falls. ( a ) Each fall used in a launching appliance on a vessel must be turned end for end at intervals of not more than 30 months.
( b ) Each fall must be renewed when necessary due to deterioration or at intervals of not more than 5 years, whichever is earlier.
( c ) Each fall must have a corrosion resistant tag with the following permanently marked on it: ( 1 ) The date the new fall was installed; and
( 2 ) If the fall has been turned end for end, the date it was turned.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification

Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2007 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Samuel L. Neese, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

/s/ Samual L. Neese

Samual L. Neese

Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer

March 26, 2008
§ 170.275 Special requirements for cargo space watertight doors. ( a ) A door between cargo spaces— ( 1 ) Must not be designed for remote operation;
( 2 ) Must be located as high as practicable; and
( 3 ) Must be located as far inboard of the side shell as practicable but in no case closer to the side shell than one-fifth of the beam of the vessel where the beam is measured at right angles to the centerline of the vessel at the level of the deepest load line.
( b ) If the door is accessible while the ship is in operation, it must have installed a lock or other device that prevents unauthorized opening.
( c ) Before installing a watertight door in a cargo space, approval must be obtained from the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51010, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by CGD 88-070, 53 FR 34537, Sept. 7, 1988]
# C_2011139EN.01002501.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/25

---

Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Ripassa Zenato)

(Case T-154/11)

2011/C 139/47

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola Srl (Peschiera del Garda, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, 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 of OHIM: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Verona, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action, together with the related annexes, admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action, together with the related annexes, admissible;

| — | annul the decision of the Board of Appeal (points 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part) in so far as it upholds the appeal, upholds the opposition and rejects in its entirety the application for registration, and orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the opposing party in the opposition and appeal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Board of Appeal (points 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part) in so far as it upholds the appeal, upholds the opposition and rejects in its entirety the application for registration, and orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the opposing party in the opposition and appeal proceedings;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM 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: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘RIPASSA ZENATO’ (registration application No 5 877 865), for goods in Class 33

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian word mark “RIPASSO” (No 682 213), for goods in Class 33

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: To uphold the opposition and to reject in its entirety the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/09.

Pleas in law:

---
§ 176.625 Eligibility requirements for the Alternative Hull Examination (AHE) Program for certain passenger vessels. ( a ) Your vessel may be eligible for the AHE Program if— ( 1 ) It is constructed of steel or aluminum;
( 2 ) It has an effective hull protection system;
( 3 ) It has operated exclusively in fresh water since its last drydock examination;
( 4 ) It operates in rivers or protected lakes; and
( 5 ) It operates exclusively in shallow water or within 0.5 nautical miles from shore.
( b ) In addition to the requirements in paragraph (a), the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) will evaluate the following information when determining your vessel's eligibility for the AHE Program: ( 1 ) The overall condition of the vessel, based on its inspection history.
( 2 ) The vessel's history of hull casualties and hull-related deficiencies.
( 3 ) The AHE Program application, as described in § 176.630 of this part.
( c ) When reviewing a vessel's eligibility for the AHE program, the OCMI may modify the standards given by paragraph (a)(5) of this section where it is considered safe and reasonable to do so. In making this determination, the OCMI will consider the vessel's overall condition, its history of safe operation, and any other factors that serve to mitigate overall safety risks.
[USCG-2000-6858, 67 FR 21085, Apr. 29, 2002]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Capital, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William W. Harrod, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|      |  |                   |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                      
|----- |  | ----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      |  |                   |  | 
|      |  |                   |  | 
|DATE: |  | November 13, 2006 |  |  |  | BY: |  | /s/ William W. Harrod                                                                
|      |  |                   |  |  |  |     |  | William W. Harrod President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
Data Series 528
EAARL Coastal       Topography�Eastern Florida, Post-Hurricane Frances, 2004: Bare       Earth
Xan Yates,1 Amar Nayegandhi,1 Jamie M.       Bonisteel,1 C. Wayne Wright,2 A.H.       Sallenger,2 John C. Brock,3 Emily S.       Klipp,1 and David B. Nagle1

1Jacobs Technology Inc., St. Petersburg,       FL; 2U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center, St. Petersburg, FL;       3U.S. Geological Survey,       Coastal and Marine Geology Program, Reston, VA

This DVD contains lidar-derived bare-earth (BE) topography GIS datasets of a portion of       the eastern Florida coastline beachface, acquired post-Hurricane Frances       on September 9, 2004.

Click on a tile number (1 - 65) to view the corresponding images and       links to each data directory.

Suggested Citation: Yates, Xan, Nayegandhi, Amar, Bonisteel, J.M.,       Wright, C.W., Sallenger, A.H., Brock, J.C., Klipp, E.S., and Nagle, D.B.,       2010, EAARL coastal       topography�eastern Florida, post-Hurricane Frances, 2004: bare earth: U.S.       Geological Survey Data Series 528, 1 DVD.

Publications are available from USGS Information Services, Box       25286, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225-0046       (telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS; email: infoservices@usgs.gov).

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey URL: pubs.usgs.gov /ds/528/index.htmlPage Contact Information: FeedbackPage Last Modified: Monday, 30-Aug-2010 10:56:19 EDT