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 May 20, 2006

|Filer                           | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                            | End of Comment Period                              
|------------------------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------
|FIRST NATIONAL BANK GROUP, INC. | * 3A3          | First National Bank Group, Inc., Edinburg, Texas, to acquire 9.90 percent of Southside Bancshares, Inc., Tyler, Texas, and indirectly acquire Southside Delaware Financial Corporation, Dover, Delaware, and Southside Bank, Tyler, Texas. | Newspaper:06/12/2006Federal Register:06/12/2006    
|Newspaper:                      | 06/12/2006    
|Federal Register:               | 06/12/2006    
|INDEPENDENT BANK OF TEXAS       | * Branch       | Independent Bank of Texas, Irving, Texas, to establish a branch to be located at 2601 Network Blvd., Suite 101, Frisco, Texas 75034.                                                                                                       | Newspaper:05/31/2006Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                      | 05/31/2006    
|Federal Register:               | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

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

## CRA Examinations scheduled for Third Quarter of 2006 (July 1, 2006 - September 30, 2006)

|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
#### § 327.34 Court action.

No person, surviving dependent or beneficiary, or legal representative, having a claim specified under 46 U.S.C. 30101(a) against the Maritime Administration, shall institute a court action against the Maritime Administration unless an administrative claim has previously been properly presented and filed in accordance with §§ 327.22, 327.23, and 327.24, and such administrative claim has been subsequently denied in accordance with § 327.32 or § 327.33.
§ 249.5 Eligibility criteria. ( a ) *U.S. Underwriters.* Underwriters licensed to do business in a state are eligible to participate without further consideration, provided they have at least a B security rating, as published in the latest edition of A.M. Best's Insurance Reports, and the amount of insurance does not exceed the limitation on risk prescribed in § 249.8.
( b ) *Foreign Underwriters.* ( 1 ) Underwriters at Lloyds are eligible to participate without further consideration.
( 2 ) Underwriters which are members of the Institute of London Underwriters (ILU) (i.e., *member* companies, not parents or affiliates of the member companies) are eligible to participate without further consideration, provided that the ILU member company actually underwriting the risk maintains a trust fund in the United States for the benefit of its U.S. policyholders in an amount at least equal to the minimum provided in § 249.7(d), and the amount insured does not exceed the limitation on risk prescribed in § 249.8. Parent companies or affiliates of the ILU member companies are treated as other foreign underwriters under subsection (c) of this section. MARAD reserves the right to review this eligibility at any time.
( c ) *Other Foreign Underwriters.* Foreign underwriters, other than those specified in paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section, may also be eligible to participate in the writing of marine hull insurance on MARAD program vessels, if approved to do so in accordance with the procedures contained in §§ 249.6 and 249.7.
( d ) *Documentation of eligibility.* It shall be the responsibility of the vessel owner and its broker to ensure that the requirements of this section are met, and they should be able to provide MARAD, upon request, with documentation to that effect.
# C_2013129EN.01001202.xml

| 4.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/12

---

Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-333/12) (1)

1

2013/C 129/22

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

1

---
#### JOSEPH NEVIS, PLAINTIFF, v. PERTH AMBOY AUTO WRECKING COMPANY AND SAMUEL FELDMAN, DEFENDANTS.

Submitted October 13, 1928

Decided March 20, 1929.

Before Justices Tkenchard, Kaliscii and Lloyd.

Eor the rule, *Couli, Salz & Tomlinson.*

*Contra, John E. Toolan.*

*296Pee Cubiam.

This is defendants’ rule to show cause why a verdict in favor of the plaintiff should not be set aside. The case was tried at the Middlesex Circuit and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff and against both defendants for $12,500.

Both defendants attack the verdict on this rule, the only ground being that the verdict is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence, both with respect to the negligence of the defendant and with respect to plaintiff’s contributory negligence.

The plaintiff was riding his motorcycle in a southerly direction along his right hand side of Amboy avenue in Perth Amboy. The defendant Perth Amboy Auto Wrecking Company’s automobile was being operated in a northerly direction along the same street, being driven by the defendant Eeldman. The proofs-tended to show, as we think, that Eeldman, after leaving the place where he had parked for a moment, cut across the highway to-his left immediately in front of plaintiff’s motorcjrcle, intending to go into his garage which was on the other side of the street, and that he did this without giving any signal of such intention whatsoever. The collision took place, according to plaintiff’s witnesses, about three or four feet from the westerly curb, or the curb to the right of the plaintiff as he was proceeding, the left front of defendant’s car striking plaintiff’s left leg. We think, after considering the testimony produced by the defendant, more or less contradictory of that which we have recited, that the jury was justified in finding that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant driver, and that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. Also we are unable to say that the verdict in either respect is against the weight of the evidence.

The rule to show cause will be discharged.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2265 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 

Magna Water District water reuse and groundwater recharge project, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2009 

Mr. CHAFFETZ (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, and Mr. MATHESON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the Magna Water District 

water reuse and groundwater recharge project, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Magna Water District 

5 Water Reuse and Groundwater Recharge Act of 2009’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2265 IH

1 SEC. 2. MAGNA WATER DISTRICT. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

3 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h 

4 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 16ll. MAGNA WATER DISTRICT WATER REUSE AND 

6 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE PROJECT, UTAH. 

7 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera8 tion with the Magna Water District, Utah, may partici9 pate in the design, planning, and construction of perma10 nent facilities needed to establish recycled water distribu11 tion and wastewater treatment and reclamation facilities 

12 that will be used to provide recycled water in the Magna 

13 Water District. 

14 ‘‘(b) COST SHARING.— 

15 ‘‘(1) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of 

16 the capital cost of the project described in subsection 

17 (a) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total cost of 

18 the project. 

19 ‘‘(2) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Each cost in20 curred by the Magna Water District after January 

21 1, 2003, relating to any capital, planning, design, 

22 permitting, construction, or land acquisition (includ23 ing the value of reallocated water rights) for the 

24 project described in subsection (a) shall be credited 

25 towards the non-Federal share of the costs of the 

26 project. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2265 IH

1 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—Funds provided by the Secretary 

2 shall not be used for operation or maintenance of the 

3 project described in subsection (a). 

4 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

5 is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

6 $12,000,000.’’. 

7 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec8 tions in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authoriza9 tion and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. prec. 371) 

10 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 

11 16ll the following: 

‘‘Sec. 16ll. Magna Water District water reuse and groundwater recharge 

project, Utah.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 14.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of Cimatron Ltd. on Form S-8, File number 333-12458 and each prospectus constituting a part thereof, of our report dated February 17, 2004 of the
consolidated financial statements of Cimatron Ltd. included in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/ BRIGHTMAN ALMAGOR & CO.CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTSA MEMBER OF DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU

Tel Aviv, Israel
  June 29, 2004

---
#### White v. Tisdale’s Executor.

(Decided May 13, 1919.)

Appeal from Campbell Circuit Court.

1. Appeal and Error — Amount.—On appeal by a plaintiff, the amount in controversy is the difference between the amount sued for and the sum recovered.

2. Appeal and Error — Allowance of Appeal — Amount.—The circuit court is without jurisdiction to grant an appeal from a money judgment where the amount in controversy is less than $500.00. The appeal can be granted only by the Court of Appeals upon proper application.

HORACE W. ROOT and A. M. CALDWELL for appellant.

ARTHUR HALL for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

William Rogers Clay, Commissioner

Dismissing the appeal.

Alleging that he had performed services for J. M. Tisdale of the reasonable value of $512.40, plaintiff, J. D. White, brought this suit against his executor to recover that sum, subject to a credit of $14.50. A trial before a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment in his ■favor for $100.00. The appeal by plaintiff was granted below.

*255On appeal by a plaintiff, the amount in controversy is the difference between the sum sued for and the sum recovered. Here, the sum sued for was $497.90, and as the sum recovered was only $100.00, the amount in controversy is $397.90. On appeal from a money judgment, where the amount*in controversy is less than $500.00, the circuit court is without jurisdiction to grant the appeal. Childers v. Ratliff, 164 Ky. 123, 175 S. W. 25; Oman-Bowling Green Stone Co. v. Louisville & N. R. R. Co., 169 Ky. 832, 185 S. W. 118. In such a case an appeal can be granted only by this court upon proper application.
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Belcrest Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge: (a)
     the Annual Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(b)
     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period. Date: May 10, 2011 /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.Thomas E. Faust Jr.Chief Executive Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States District Court

Eastern District of Virginia

Richmond Division

The Real Truth About Obama, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v.

Federal Election Commission and

United States Department of Justice,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:08-cv-00483-JRS

Amended Notice of Appeal

Amended Notice of Appeal

Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff above named hereby appeals to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from the Order entered in this action on the 16th day of

June 2011 (Doc. #158).

Respectfully submitted,

James Bopp, Jr.,* jboppjr@aol.com

Richard E. Coleson,* rcoleson@bopplaw.com

Barry A. Bostrom,* bbostrom@bopplaw.com

Kaylan Phillips,* kphillips@bopplaw.com

BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM

1 South Sixth Street

Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510

812/232-2434 telephone

812/234-3685 facsimile

*admitted pro hac vice

Lead Counsel for Plaintiff

/s/Michael Boos

Michael Boos (VA State Bar No. 37524)

Law Office of Michael Boos

4101 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 313

Fairfax, VA 22030

703/691-7717 telephone

703/691-7543 facsimile

michael.boos@gte.net

Local Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 161 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 1431
Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 161 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 1432
i

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on July 15, 2011, I served upon the below listed persons copies of

this document by electronically filing this document for electronic transmission.

John Richard Griffiths

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

P.O. Box 883

Washington, DC 20044

john.griffiths@usdoj.gov

Debra Jean Prillaman

Office of U.S. Attorney

600 East Main Street, Suite 1800

Richmond, VA 23219

debra.prillaman@usdoj.gov

J. Gerald Hebert

J. Gerald Hebert, P.C.

5019 Waple Ln

Alexandria, VA 22304

ghebert@campaignlegalcenter.org

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 161 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 1433
ii

Thomasenia P. Duncan

tduncan@fec.gov

Audra Anne Hale-Maddox

ahale-maddox@fec.gov

David Kolkler. dkokler@fec.gov

Kevin Deeley, kdeeley@fec.gov

Holly Baker, hbaker@fec.gov

Vivien Clair, vclair@fec.gov

Seth Nesin, snesin@fec.gov

Adav Noti, anoti@fec.gov

Claire Rajan, crajan@fec.gov

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street NW

Washington, DC 20463

And I hereby certify that I will mail the document by U.S. mail to the following non-filing users:

Daniel R. Ortiz

John Allan Love Professor of Law

University of Virginia School of Law

580 Massie Road

Charlottesville, VA 22903-1738

Jonathan Lee Riches

F.C.I. Williamsburg

P.O. Box 340

Salters, SC 29590

Richard Briffault

Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of

Legislation

Columbia University School of Law

435 West 116th Street

New York, NY 10027

/s/

Michael Boos (VA State Bar No. 37524)

Law Office of Michael Boos

4101 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 313

Fairfax, VA 22030

703/691-7717 telephone

703/691-7543 facsimile

michael.boos@gte.net

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 161 Filed 07/15/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 1434
# C_2008019EN.01000101.xml

| 25.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/1

---

Notification by Romania concerning visa reciprocity (1)

1

(2008/C 19/01)

Brussels, 7 November 2007

Ref. No 9752

The Permanent Representation of Romania to the European Union presents its compliments to the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union and, further to the Permanent Representation's Verbal Note No 1629 of 21 February 2007 and on the basis of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 as regards the reciprocity mechanism, has the honour to communicate that, following the entry into force of the Agreement between the Government of Romania and the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil concerning the abolition of the visa system, as of 11 November 2007, Romanian citizens are exempt from the visa obligation for transit and journeys of short duration.

A similar notification has been sent to the European Commission.

The Permanent Representation of Romania takes this opportunity to once again assure the Council of the European Union of its highest consideration.

---

(1)  This notification is published in conformity with Article 2 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 (OJ L 141, 4.6.2005, p. 3) amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

1

---
G-20 Change-in-Terms Sample
 

Important Changes to Your Account Terms 

The following is a summary of changes that are being made to your account terms. You have the right to opt out of these 

changes. For more detailed information, please refer to the booklet enclosed with this statement. 

These changes will impact your account as follows: 

Transactions made on or after 4/2/12: As of 5/10/12, any changes to APRs described below will apply to these 

transactions. 

Transactions made before 4/2/12: Current APRs will continue to apply to these transactions. 

If you are already being charged a higher Penalty APR for purchases: In this case, any changes to APRs described below 

will not go into effect at this time. These changes will go into effect when the Penalty APR no longer applies to your 

account. 

Revised Terms, as of 5/10/12 

APR for Purchases 16.99% 

Late Payment Fee $32 if your balance is less than or equal to $1,000; 

$39 if your balance is more than $1,000
#### Tom Campbell v. The State.

*No. 6570.*

*Decided June 15.*

1. Unlawfully Carrying Pistol.—A person’s temporary residence is, for the time being, his “home and his own premises,” within the exception of the statute defining the offense of unlawfully carrying a pistol.

2. Same.—It is no violation of the law for a person to carry a pistol from his temporary to his permanent residence.

3. Same—“Traveler.”—A person while going from his temporary to his permanent home in another county is a “traveler” within the exception of the statute defining the offense of unlawfully carrying a pistol.

4. Same—Charge of the Court.—To supply omissions in the general charge of the court the defendant requested a special instruction embodying the rules announced above, which instruction was refused. *Held,*error.

Appeal from the County Court of Milam. Tried below before Hon. E. T. Terral, County Judge.

The conviction was for unlawfully carrying a pistol, and the penalty assessed was a fine of $25 and twenty days in the county jail.

The opinion discloses the case.

T. *S. Henderson,*for appellant.

*45
      *W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

When defendant was seen with the pistol he was at the house of one Jennings. He was temporarily residing at Jennings’s, and for the time being that was his home and his own premises. His permanent residence was in another county. When he left Jennings’s to return to his permanent home he carried the pistol with him. These facts do not constitute the offense of unlawfully carrying a pistol upon the person. He had the right to have and carry the pistol at Jennings’s house, because he was upon his own premises within contemplation of the law. He had the right to take the pistol to his permanent home when he left Jennings’s; and besides, while going from Jennings’s to his permanent home in another county, a distance of many miles, he was a person traveling within the meaning of the law. We think the evidence fails to show an offense.

The court did not charge fully and correctly the law of the case. Defendant excepted to the charge and requested a special instruction, which was refused, and he excepted.

Because the court did not charge the law of the case, and because the • evidence fails to show that defendant carried the pistol unlawfully, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*

Judges all present and concurring.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                        ICY SPLASH FOOD & BEVERAGE, INC.
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 Icy Splash Food & Beverage, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Joseph Aslan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Icy Splash Food & Beverage, Inc. and will be retained by Icy Splash
Food & Beverage, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

Date:  November 22, 2004

 /s/ Joseph Aslan
Joseph Aslan
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

Certificate 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 Capitol City Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tatina Brooks, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Tatina BrooksTatina Brooks, Senior Vice President of Accounting and Financial Reporting (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


August 14, 2009