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 March 24, 2007

|Filer                    | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                                  
|------------------------ | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|Bank of Marin Bancorp    | 3A1            | Bank of Marin Bancorp to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Bank of Marin, both of Novato, California.                                                                               | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:               | Not applicable
|Federal Register:        | Not applicable
|CAPITAL PACIFIC BANCORP  | 3A1            | Capital Pacific Bancorp to become a bank holding company by aquiring 100 percent of Capital Pacific Bank, both of Portland, Oregon.                                                                         | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:               | Not applicable
|Federal Register:        | Not applicable
|FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC. | * 3A3          | Franklin Resources, Inc., San Mateo, California, to retain 8.11 percent of Coast Financial Holdings, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain its subsidiary, Coast Bank of Florida, both of Bradenton, Florida. | Newspaper:04/02/2007Federal Register:04/02/2007        
|Newspaper:               | 04/02/2007    
|Federal Register:        | 04/02/2007    

## 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
#### GRAND LODGE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ORDER SONS OF ITALY IN AMERICA, ET AL., APPELLANT, v. ROSARIO FERRETTI ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Submitted October 12, 1928

Decided April 11, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justice Parker.

For the appellant, *Walter S. Keown.*

For the respondents, *Samuel P. Orlando.*

Per Curiam.

It is a fundamental rule of practice in error in civil causes (and the rule is based on reasons of the most meritorious character), that a ruling of the trial court claimed on appeal to be erroneous, and urged for a reversal of the judgment below, must have been excepted to below in order to be available on appeal. The reasons for that rule are explained in a long line of cases, of which late instances are the following: Kar*gman*v. *Carlo,*85 *N. J. L.*632; *Miller*v. *Transportation Co., Id.*700; *Lams*v. *Fish,*86 *Id.*321; *Daly*v. *Ewald,*88 *Id.*707; *Chrisafides*v. *Motor Co.,*90 *Id.*313; *Burt*v. *Brownstone Realty Co.,*95 *Id.*457; *Leiferant v. Progressive Agency,*98 *Id.*526.

We deal with this point at some length, because the only-ground of appeal argued is that “the trial court erroneously directed a verdict for the defendants.” Such a verdict was in fact directed, and after rather extended argument; but no exception to that direction was taken, and consequently it stands legally unchallenged, and the judgment must be affirmed.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2485 

To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 

1968 to include nongovernmental and volunteer firefighters, ground and 

air ambulance crew members, and first responders for certain benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2009 

Mr. ELLISON (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, 

Mr. PETERSON, Mr. WALZ, Mr. WELCH, Mr. TONKO, and Ms. CLARKE) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

Streets Act of 1968 to include nongovernmental and 

volunteer firefighters, ground and air ambulance crew 

members, and first responders for certain benefits. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN NONGOVERNMENTAL 

4 EMERGENCY SERVICE OFFICERS. 

5 Section 1204 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 

6 and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b) is amend7 ed— 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2485 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (7) by striking ‘‘employee’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘or nongovernmental employee or vol3 unteer’’; and 

4 (2) in paragraph (9)— 

5 (A) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking 

6 ‘‘or’’ after the semicolon; 

7 (B) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking 

8 the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

9 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(D) a nongovernmental employee or vol11 unteer— 

12 ‘‘(i) of a fire department, ground or 

13 air ambulance service, or first responder or 

14 rescue squad, which is licensed or recog15 nized by the State or local government; 

16 and 

17 ‘‘(ii) who is performing official duties 

18 serving the public in fire suppression, res19 cue, or emergency medical and ambulance 

20 services.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
# C_2011269EN.01005301.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/53

---

Action brought on 6 July 2011 — Hand Held Products v OHIM — Orange Brand Services (DOLPHIN)

(Case T-361/11)

2011/C 269/117

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hand Held Products, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. Curell Aguilà, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Orange Brand Services Ltd (Bristol, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Partially annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 April 2011 in case R 1443/2010-1, and reject CTM application No 5046231; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Partially annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 April 2011 in case R 1443/2010-1, and reject CTM application No 5046231; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DOLPHIN’, for inter alia goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No 5046231

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 936229 of the word mark ‘DOLPHIN’, for goods in class 9

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Opposition division

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to make a global analysis of the relevant factors but merely rejected the opposition on the basis that the goods are different, establishing minimal differences between them, and without giving the adequate weight in the comparative analysis to the identity in the signs ‘DOLPHIN’.

Pleas in law:

---
#### § 350.7 Special certificate of recognition.

The Maritime Administration is authorized to issue a special certificate of recognition of service to an individual, or the personal representative of an individual, whose service in the U.S. Merchant Marine has been determined to be active duty under an earlier Act of Congress (Pub. L. 95-202). The issuance of this certificate to any individual does not entitle that individual to any rights, privileges or benefits under any law of the United States.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DOVER SADDLERY, INC. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, 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 results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/     Stephen L. Day                  |   | /s/       David R. Pearce |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                              |   |                                          |
|                                              |   |                                          |
| Stephen   L. Day                                  |   | David   R. Pearce                             |
| President,   Chief Executive Officer and Director |   | Chief   Financial Officer                     |
| *(Principal Executive Officer)*                   |   | *(Principal Financial Officer)*               |
| * *                                          |   | * *                                      |
| * *                                          |   | * *                                      |
|  Date: November 13, 2013                |   | Date:   November 13, 2013                |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
MORRISON FRESH COOKING, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED MAY 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,939
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      321
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,412
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,470
<PP&E>                                         161,734
<DEPRECIATION>                                 100,834
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,453
<BONDS>                                            662
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            90
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,854
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,028
<SALES>                                        249,637
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               249,637
<CGS>                                           70,684
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  227,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,349
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,617
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,732
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,732
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        



</TABLE>
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                  MORRISON FRESH COOKING, INC.
                   MANAGEMENT RETIREMENT PLAN

      THIS  SECOND AMENDMENT is made on this 28th day  of  March,
1997, by Morrison Fresh Cooking, Inc. (the "Primary Sponsor"),  a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
Georgia.

                      W I T N E S S E T H:

      WHEREAS,  the Primary Sponsor maintains the Morrison  Fresh
Cooking, Inc. Management Retirement Plan (the "Plan"), which  was
established by indenture dated March 7, 1996;

      WHEREAS, the Primary Sponsor now desires to amend the  Plan
to  alter the definition of compensation in order to broaden  the
Plan's  eligibility criteria and to otherwise  conform  the  Plan
document with certain historical administrative practices;

      NOW,  THEREFORE, the Primary Sponsor does hereby amend  the
Plan,   by  deleting  Section  1.07  in  its  entirety   and   by
substituting the following:

           "1.07      'Compensation' means the total compensation
     that would be subject to tax under Code Section 3101(a) (but
     without  dollar  limitation of Code Section  3121(a)(1)  and
     excluding any amounts paid as Long-Term Disability Benefits)
     paid  to  a  Participant by the Company, or  any  Affiliate,
     during  the  Plan Year, increased by (a) amounts that  would
     have   been  paid  during  the  Plan  Year  but  which   are
     contributed  by  the  Plan  Sponsor  pursuant  to  a  salary
     reduction  agreement  and which are not  includable  in  the
     gross  income of the Participant under Code Section 125  and
     (b)   amounts   paid  or  credited  to  a   Participant   as
     nonqualified  deferred compensation by the  Company  or  any
     Affiliate,  notwithstanding the provisions of  Code  Section
     3121(v)(2).   In no event shall Compensation  in  excess  of
     $100,000  (as  adjusted  from  time  to  time  at  the  sole
     discretion  of  the  Company) be  counted  for  purposes  of
     determining a Participant's Accrued Benefit."

This  amendment will be effective as of March 7,  1996,  for  all
purposes  except for determining eligibility pursuant to  Article
II  of  the Plan.  This amendment will be effective as of January
1,  1997,  for  purposes of determining eligibility  pursuant  to
Article II of this Plan.

     Except as specifically provided herein, the Plan will remain
in full force and effect as prior to this Second Amendment.

      IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF, the parties hereto have  caused  this
Second  Amendment  to be executed as of the day  and  year  first
above written.

                              MORRISON FRESH COOKING, INC.



                              By:  /s/ Ronnie L. Tatum
                                    Ronnie L. Tatum
                              Title:  Chief Executive Officer


ATTEST:



By:  /s/ Mitchell S. Block
      Mitchell S. Block
Title:  Secretary

          [CORPORATE SEAL]
#### § 30.10-23 Flame arrester—TB/ALL.

The term *flame arrester* means any device or assembly of a cellular, tubular, pressure, or other type used for preventing the passage of flames into enclosed spaces.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Energy Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2011 (the “Report”), I, John Conklin, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date:  July 14, 2011
/s/ John ConklinJohn ConklinPresident, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
§ 171.012 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish a notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .* It is also available for inspection at the Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-ENG-2), Attn: Naval Architecture Division, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509. The material is also available from the source listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) International Maritime Organization (IMO), Publications Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, + 44 (0)20 7735 7611, *http://www.imo.org/ .* ( 1 ) Resolution MSC.216(82), Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea, 1974, As Amended (IMO Res. MSC.216(82), Adopted on 8 December 2006, incorporation by reference (IBR) approved for §§ 171.001 and 171.080.
( 2 ) Resolution MSC 267(85), Adoption of the International Code on Intact Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code), Adopted on 4 December 2008, IBR approved for § 171.050.
[USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78085, Dec. 14, 2010, as amended by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59788, Oct. 1, 2012; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60163, Sept. 30, 2013]
§ 381.8 Subsidized vessel participation. ( a ) For the purpose of approving subsidized U.S.-flag liner and bulk vessels competing for the carriage of dry bulk preference cargoes, each department or agency having responsibility under the Cargo Preference Act of 1954 (46 U.S.C. 1214(b)), shall evaluate bids received from the operators of such vessels in the manner described in this section.
( b ) When a subsidized vessel operator is the apparent low U.S.-flag responsive bidder for a dry bulk preference cargo, the responsible department or agency shall evaluate the subsidized operator's bid by: ( 1 ) Requesting from MARAD an amount for the operating-differential subsidy (ODS) likely to be paid for the carriage of such cargo expressed as a cost per ton for performing the voyage by the apparent low responsive subsidized bidders;
( 2 ) Deriving “augmented bids” for the subsidized operators by adding the ODS amount to each subsidized operator's bid;
( 3 ) Comparing the augmented bids of the subsidized operators and the bids of unsubsidized operators to determine the apparent low responsive bidder;
( 4 ) Requesting from MARAD a fair and reasonable guideline rate for the apparent low responsive bidder which shall be based on MARAD's calculation of anticipated costs (less ODS in the case of a subsidized vessel) for the voyage plus a reasonable amount for profit for the voyage; and
( 5 ) Determining whether the subsidized operator's unaugmented bid or the unsubsidized operator's bid, whichever was determined to be the lowest responsive bid pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section, is at or below the fair and reasonable guideline rate.
( c ) If the amount of dry bulk cargo to be shipped is changed at any time prior to award, the department or agency shall request that MARAD provide new ODS amounts applicable to the carriage. The department or agency shall redetermine the augmented bids before determining the lowest responsive bid and requesting from MARAD a revised fair and reasonable guideline rate in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) Whenever a bid is submitted for a U.S.-flag vessel for the transportation of dry bulk preference cargo, the responsible department or agency shall only approve bids that apply to an individual vessel, and may not accept combined bids submitted for more than one vessel. If two or more vessels are offered, separate bids shall be submitted for each vessel. A bidder may submit a conditional lower bid for each vessel to be effective only if more than one vessel is contracted to carry the cargo.
( e ) The requirements of this section shall apply only to those departments or agencies that directly pay or finance all or part of U.S.-flag ocean freight transportation costs for the carriage of dry bulk preference cargoes, in accordance with this part.
( f ) The requirements of this section shall not apply to foreign aid consisting of direct cash transfer payments under specific agreements between departments or agencies and the recipient country with respect to the utilization of U.S.-flag vessels for transportation of commodities purchased with such funds.
[53 FR 24272, June 28, 1988]