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 June 3, 2006

|Filer                    | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     | End of Comment Period                              
|------------------------ | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|Sir Barton Bancorp, Inc. | * 3A1          | Application by Sir Barton Bancorp, Inc., Lexington, KY to form a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of First National Bank of Lexington, Lexington, KY pursuant to Section 3(a)(1) of the Bank Holding Company Act. | Newspaper:06/17/2006Federal Register:06/19/2006    
|Newspaper:               | 06/17/2006    
|Federal Register:        | 06/19/2006    
|SKY BANK                 | * Branch       | Sky Bank, Salineville, OH to establish a branch facility at 1340 Freeport Road, Pittsburgh, PA.                                                                                                                                                     | Newspaper:06/10/2006Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:               | 06/10/2006    
|Federal Register:        | Not applicable
|SKY BANK                 | * Branch       | Sky Bank, Salineville, OH to establish a branch facility at 3224 Northwest Boulevard, Upper Arlington, OH.                                                                                                                                          | Newspaper:06/10/2006Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:               | 06/10/2006    
|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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DAVID ST. ANN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 5:15-cv-11770 

v. Judge Judith E. Levy 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

TODD MCLEAN, 

DEAN POTILA, 

SAMUEL MORGAN, 

THOMAS HAYNES, and 

KELLY BUCZEK 

 Defendants. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO NOTIFY COURT OF 

STATUS OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE REGARDING DISCOVERY (DE 56) 

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s above titled motion, in which he asks 

that it “consider his Motion/Brief that he submitted on September 18, 2017 in 

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion/Brief for Summary Judgment.” (DE 56 at 1-2; 

referring to DE 50 and DE 51, its supporting exhibits.) The instant motion is 

unopposed and is GRANTED, as the Court has indeed read and considered 

Plaintiff’s summary judgment response and brief, despite the fact that it is 93 pages 

long, far in excess of the 25 pages permitted by the rules. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 
7.1(d)(3)(A). The Court has also considered Plaintiff’s 270 pages of exhibits. (DE 

51.) Thus, Plaintiff’s fear that he would have to “redraft/duplicate another Brief” 

in response to the summary judgment motion is unfounded. (DE 56 at 5.) 

However, Plaintiff is forewarned that future filings which do not strictly adhere to 

this Court’s page limitations will be stricken. 

Dated: January 3, 2018 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on January 3, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 4 - 0 5 32 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 4 - CE - 0 16 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7 (a)(l)(i), announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, royalty-bearing, revocable license within the geographic area of the United States of America and its territories and possessions to U.S. Patent application 11/279,027, filed April 7, 2007 entitled “Artillery Rocket Kinetic Energy Rod Warhead”, to General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems with its principal place of business at 4565 Commercial Drive, Niceville, FL 32578. 

# ADDRESSES:

                        Commander, U.S. Army Research Development and Engineering Command,                         *ATTN:*                         AMSRD-AMR-AS-PT-TR, Bldg 5400, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For licensing issues, Dr. Russ Alexander, Office of Research & Technology Applications, (256) 876-8743. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

One object of the present invention is to realize a highly accurate Kinetic Energy (KE) rod warhead. Another object is to provide an easily assembled KE rod warhead. Yet another object is to provide a warhead that removes the problems inherent with unexploded ordnance. These and other objects are provided by a warhead having a plurality of tier pack bulkheads arranged in a stacked formation around a center column to form a plurality of tier packs. A plurality of skin severance trays are connected to the plurality of tier pack bulkheads. A bulkhead collar and an aft bulkhead are connected to the center column with the plurality of tier packs being positioned between the bulkhead collar and the aft bulkhead. A plurality of holding trays, separated by dividers, is positioned within the plurality of tier packs, the holding trays being positioned between respective tier pack bulkheads. The holding trays are filled with KE rods. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer 

[FR Doc. 07-2261  Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THEODORE CHANDLER,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 15-20246

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS

TO GOVERNMENT'S PRODUCTION OF SENTENCING MATERIALS [170]

In accordance with the Court's June 29, 2017 order, the Government has produced

certain materials to Defendant Theodore Chandler relating to a sentencing enhancement

that the Government intends to pursue at Defendant's forthcoming sentencing. On July 18,

2017, Defendant filed objections to the Government's document production, and the Court

addressed these objections at a hearing held on July 26, 2017. For the reasons stated on

the record at the July 26 hearing,

The Court hereby SUSTAINS IN PART and OVERRULES IN PART Defendant's July

18, 2017 objections (Dkt. 170). As indicated at the July 26 hearing, the Government has

agreed to provide certain additional materials to Defendant relating to another suspect in

the disappearance and murder of Dynasty Myles. Apart from this additional production,

Defendant's objections are overruled.

Case 2:15-cr-20246-NGE-EAS ECF No. 172, PageID.880 Filed 07/27/17 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: July 27, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of

record on July 27, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol J. Bethel 

Case Manager

2

Case 2:15-cr-20246-NGE-EAS ECF No. 172, PageID.881 Filed 07/27/17 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2432 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2432

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction for 
                      State and local sales taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2009

  Ms. Kosmas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction for 
                      State and local sales taxes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State Sales Tax Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ELECTION TO DEDUCT STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAXES.

    Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
``January 1, 2011''.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.003-1 Applicable specifications. ( a ) There are no other specifications applicable to this subpart.
( b ) [Reserved]
# C_2019044EN.01004801.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/48

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 – Oppenheim v Commission

(Case T-586/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sal. Oppenheim jr. & Cie AG & Co. KGaA (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: initially, W. Deselaers, J. Brückner and M. Haisch, then, T. Bernard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche, M. Adam and M. Noll-Ehlers, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Noll Ehlers and finally, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Sal. Oppenheim jr. & Cie AG & Co. KGaA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Sal. Oppenheim jr. & Cie AG & Co. KGaA;

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---
#### § 201.113 Submission to witness, changes, signing.

When the testimony is fully transcribed the deposition of each witness shall be submitted to him for examination and shall be read to or by him. Any changes in form or substance which the witness desires to make shall be entered upon the deposition by the officer with a statement of the reasons given by the witness for making them. The deposition shall then be signed by the witness, unless the parties by stipulation waive the signing or the witness is ill or cannot be found or refuses to sign. If the deposition is not signed by the witness, the officer shall sign it and state on the record the fact of the waiver or of the illness or absence of the witness or the fact of the refusal to sign, together with the reason, if any, given therefor; and the deposition may then be used as fully as though signed, unless upon objection the presiding officer holds that the reasons given for the refusal to sign require rejection of the deposition in whole or in part.
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 January 28, 2006

----

Bank Holding CompaniesHuntington Bancshares, Incorporated, Columbus, Ohio  -- to acquire Unizan Financial Corp., Canton, and Unizan Bank, National Association.					-Approved, January 25, 2006 					Synovus Financial Corp., Columbus, Georgia  -- commenter's request for review of the approval by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta of the application to acquire Banking Corporation of Florida, Naples, Florida, and First Florida Bank. 					-Denied, January 26, 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: February 2, 2006
- 1 - 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 15-20283 

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

 

D-1 BORIS ZIGMOND, 

 

 Defendant. 

__________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF 

A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (DOC. 279, 280, 281, 282 and 283) AND 

DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM 

 This matter is presently before the Court on defendant Boris 

Zigmond’s motions for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. (Doc. 

279, 280, 281, 282 and 283). The Court finds that defendant has satisfied 

his burden under United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). Id. at 699-

700. 

 Defendant’s motions are GRANTED. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a subpoena duces tecum shall be 

issued for the following witnesses to produce records outlined in 

Attachment A of the subpoena forthwith, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(b) 

and (c): 

Case 2:15-cr-20283-GCS-MKM ECF No. 291, PageID.2422 Filed 01/10/18 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

Allstate Insurance Company

C/O General Counsel 

2775 Sanders Rd., Bldg. A2W 

Northbrook, IL 60062 

Geico Insurance 

c/o General Counsel 

One GEICO Plaza 

Washington, D.C. 20076 

Liberty Mutual Insurance

C/O General Counsel 

175 Berkeley Street 

Boston, MA 02116 

State Farm Insurance 

Resident Agent 

CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company 

601 Abbot Road 

East Lansing, MI 48823 

Traveler’s Insurance 

c/o General Counsel 

385 Washington Street 

St. Paul, MN 55102 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the witnesses identified above shall 

appear at Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, 

Detroit, MI 48226-2700, to produce the documents requested in the 

subpoena. The witness need not appear if prior to the date outlined in the 

attached subpoena, the witness complies with the subpoena by serving the 

required documents upon attorney Ronald W. Chapman, II at 1441 W. 

Case 2:15-cr-20283-GCS-MKM ECF No. 291, PageID.2423 Filed 01/10/18 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

Long Lake Rd., Troy, MI 48098. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that nothing in this Order shall restrict or 

prevent the recipient of the subpoena from filing timely objections to the 

subpoena and/or filing a timely motion to quash the subpoena with this 

Court. Defendant shall serve a copy of this Order with the subpoena. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 10, 2018 

 s/George Caram Steeh 

 GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on 

January 10, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Marcia Beauchemin 

Deputy Clerk 

Case 2:15-cr-20283-GCS-MKM ECF No. 291, PageID.2424 Filed 01/10/18 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

Case 2:15-cr-20283-GCS-MKM ECF No. 291, PageID.2425 Filed 01/10/18 Page 4 of 4
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS 

 The Court held sentencing in this matter on June 21, 2019. (See Judgment, 

ECF #585.) For the reasons stated on the record at the sentencing hearing, the 

following motions that Defendant Curtis Scott has filed are DENIED: ECF ## 554, 

558, 559, 561, 564, 565, 568, 570, 571, 580, 583, and 584. In addition, any other 

pending request for relief made or filed by Defendant Curtis Scott in this action is 

DENIED for lack of merit. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 26, 2019 
2 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on June 26, 2019, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
8040.5

!;AA,- 2010- 070 J

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Colli

-

Regional Airline Association Da\'e Loiterer

~

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Roberl Hadunan

---

ATA Craig Fabian

--

ATA M Lopez ./'

09129/06
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                       INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Lycos, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 
333-47677, 333-51593 and 333-61821) on Form S-8 and the registration statements 
(Nos. 333-47679, 333-51591, 333-60101 and 333-61413) on Form S-3 of Lycos, Inc. 
of our report dated August 18, 1998 relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of Lycos, Inc. as of July 31, 1998, and 1997, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended July 31, 1998, which report appears in the
July 31, 1998, annual report on Form 10-K/A of Lycos, Inc.


                                        /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
January 29, 1999