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 November 12, 2005

|Filer                                 | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                   | End of Comment Period                          
|------------------------------------- | ----------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|WHITAKER BANK CORPORATION OF KENTUCKY | * 3A3       | Whitaker Bank Corporation of Kentucky, Lexington, KY to acquire the voting shares of Berea Community Bank, Inc., Berea, KY (fka Berea National Bank) pursuant to Section 3(a)(3) of the Bank Holding Company Act. | Newspaper:12/03/2005Federal Register:12/05/2005
|Newspaper:                            | 12/03/2005 
|Federal Register:                     | 12/05/2005 

## 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
§ 195.11-30 Portable tanks. ( a ) All portable tanks, whether hazardous or nonhazardous commodities, shall be loaded and stowed in accordance with the stability requirements of the vessel.
( b ) Portable tanks for flammable or combustible liquids in bulk (see § 188.05-30(b) of this subchapter) shall not be carried on vessels.
( c ) Portable tanks containing other hazardous materials shall be in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR parts 171-179.
[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1156, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by CGD 86-033, 53 FR 36027, Sept. 16, 1988]
# C_2013225EN.01004801.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/48

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Harald Wohlfahrt v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ferrero SpA

(Case C-357/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 8(1)(b) and 43(2) - Word sign ‘Kindertraum’ - Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier national word mark Kinder)

2013/C 225/83

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Harald Wohlfahrt (represented by: M. Loschelder and V. Schoene, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent), Ferrero SpA (represented by: F. Jacobacci and L. Ghedina, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2012 in Case T-580/10 Wohlfahrt v OHIM — Ferrero (Kindertraum) by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2010 (Case R 815/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero SpA and Mr Harald Wohlfahrt — Registration of the word sign ‘Kindertraum’ for goods in Classes 16 and 28 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier word mark ‘Kinder’ — Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 42(2), and 75, first sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

Wohlfahrt

OHIM — Ferrero (Kindertraum)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Harald Wohlfahrt shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Harald Wohlfahrt shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JACOB J. DANLEY and

JEFFREY J. MACINTYRE, JR.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 15-CV-11535

vs.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC.,

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, and

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

On this date the court held a Rule 16 conference with counsel in the abovecaptioned case. At the conference, defendants’ counsel indicated his desire to further

investigate the contractual provisions that can be proven to govern the relationship

between the parties and the enforceability of the putative arbitration agreement. 

Counsel asked for an additional 60 days to renew the request for an order referring the

matter to arbitration. The court GRANTS the request for an additional 60 days and

accordingly, defendants have until March 14, 2016 to renew their motion to compel

arbitration. In advance of filing their renewed motion, defendants are required to

produce all evidence they rely upon to establish the contractual provisions in place, if

any, that govern the determination of the motion. Failure to renew the request for

referral to arbitration with satisfactory evidence to establish the terms and conditions

pertinent to the motion will result in an order denying same with prejudice. 

-1-

2:15-cv-11535-GCS-EAS Doc # 35 Filed 01/13/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 883
The court next considered a request by plaintiffs’ counsel for additional time to

conduct discovery before bringing a motion to amend their motion for class certification

[doc. 12]. The motion for class certification was filed May 18, 2015, and briefing on the

motion was stayed by stipulated order filed June 15, 2015. Now, therefore, for

purposes of case administration only, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court GRANTS plaintiffs’ request for additional time to

amend, giving plaintiffs until September 1, 2016 to file a renewed motion for class

certification. 

Dated: January 13, 2016

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 13, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

-2-

2:15-cv-11535-GCS-EAS Doc # 35 Filed 01/13/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 884
§ 32.56-10 Navigation positions—T/ALL. ( a ) No navigation position may be above the cargo area unless it is approved by the Commandant as necessary for the safe operation of the vessel.
( b ) Each navigation position that is above the cargo area must be separated from the deck by an unenclosed space that extends at least 2 meters (6.6 feet) from the deck to the navigation position.
( c ) Openings to navigation positions above cargo areas, except air locks, must be at least 2.4 meters (7.9 feet) above the deck.
# C_2014395EN.01000701.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Michal Zeman v Krajské riaditeľstvo Policajného zboru v Žiline

(Case C-543/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 91/477/EEC - Issuing of the European firearms pass - National legislation according to which that pass is issued only to holders of a firearms licence issued for hunting or target shooting use))

(2014/C 395/08)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michal Zeman

Defendant: Krajské riaditeľstvo Policajného zboru v Žiline

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, as amended by Directive 2008/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises the issue of a European firearms pass only to holders of weapons used for hunting and target shooting purposes.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

---
<PAGE>
                                                              EXHIBIT 10.17


                    AERIAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                             DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLEMENTAL
                     BENEFIT AGREEMENT WITH DONALD W. WARKENTIN
                                DATED AUGUST 2, 1996.

     In 1996, the Company entered into a nonqualified supplemental benefit
agreement with Donald W. Warkentin which requires the Company to pay a
supplemental retirement benefit to Mr. Warkentin.  The agreement was entered
into when Mr. Warkentin left employment with TDS and took employment with the
Company at the completion of the initial public offering of the Company's
Common Shares in 1996 and, as a result, he was no longer eligible to
participate in the TDS Pension Plan.  Under the supplemental benefit
agreement, the Company is obligated to pay Mr. Warkentin an amount equal to
the difference between the retirement benefit he will receive from the TDS
Pension Plan and that which he would have received had he continued to work
for TDS, less any amounts which he is entitled to receive under any other
qualified defined benefit or money purchase pension plan (such as the
Wireless Pension Plan).  The Company will pay any such benefit at the same
time as Mr. Warkentin receives payments from the TDS Pension Plan.  The
actual benefits payable to Mr. Warkentin upon retirement will be based upon
the facts that exist at the time and will be determined actuarially.  The
nature of this agreement is a defined benefit arrangement.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JANET S. GUTHRIE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.  No. 00-2189

BLUE RIDGE SAVINGS BANK,

INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.

Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.

(CA-00-92-1)

Submitted: November 9, 2000

Decided: November 17, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Janet S. Guthrie, Appellant Pro Se. William Andrew Parker, LONG,

PARKER, WARREN & JONES, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina;

Kimberly Anderson Lyda, HARTSELL, HARTSELL & WHITE,

Concord, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Janet S. Guthrie appeals the district court’s adoption of the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and its dismissal of her retaliation

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e (Title VII) (West Supp.

2000), against Blue Ridge Savings Bank (Blue Ridge), her former

employer. The district court dismissed the suit on the ground that the

time lapse between Guthrie’s filing of the charge of discrimination on

which she based her current retaliation action, and her placement on

administrative leave and ultimate termination, was too great to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. 

To prevail on her Title VII retaliation claim, Guthrie must satisfy

the three step proof scheme established in McDonnell Douglas Corp.

v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and is required to prove that: (1) she

engaged in a protected activity; (2) an adverse employment action

was taken against her; and (3) there was a causal connection between

the first two elements. Hopkins v. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 77 F.3d

745, 754 (4th Cir. 1996). 

We agree with the district court that Guthrie’s action is subject to

dismissal for lack of a causal connection. "To satisfy the third element, the employer must have taken the adverse employment action

because the plaintiff engaged in a protected activity." Dowe v. Total

Action Against Poverty, 145 F.3d 653, 657 (4th Cir. 1998). Here,

Guthrie asserts that she was placed on administrative leave, and ultimately fired, based upon her filing an EEOC complaint almost three

years earlier. This time lapse "negates any inference that a causal connection exists between the [filing of the EEOC charge and termination]." Id.

Accordingly, we agree with the district court that Guthrie cannot

establish the necessary causal connection to support a prima facie

2 GUTHRIE v. BLUE RIDGE SAVINGS BANK
case, and we find that the district court did not err in granting Blue

Ridge judgment as a matter of law. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

GUTHRIE v. BLUE RIDGE SAVINGS BANK 3
#### The People of the State of New York *v.*Charles G. Fairman, Superintendent, etc.

*Certiorari*reversed, with fifty dollars costs . and disbursements, under section 2140. Mem. by

Learned. P. J.
#### The Mutual Life Insurance Company, *Respondent, v.*John L. Blake, *as Executor, etc., of*Lowell Holbrook, *Deceased, Appellant, Impleaded, etc*.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                  AS ADDED BY
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Florida Business BancGroup, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Marti J. Warren,
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as added by ss. 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.   To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
     in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
     of the Company as of and for the period covered by the report.



Date: May 6, 2003                           By: /s/ Marti J. Warren
      -------------                         ------------------------------------
                                            Marti J. Warren, Principal Financial
                                            Officer
§ 122.700 Operational readiness. ( a ) Each launching appliance and each survival craft and rescue boat on a vessel must be in good working order and ready for immediately use before the vessel leaves port and at all times when the vessel is underway.
( b ) Each deck where survival craft or rescue boats are stowed or boarded must be kept clear of obstructions that would interfere with the boarding and launching of the survival craft or rescue boat.
#### Eliza O. Burt *v.*Marcus A. Kinne *&*al.

A declaration containing the usual money counts, and counts for goods sold and delivered, and for work and labor and materials found, cannot be amended by introducing a special count upon a lease, for unliquidated damages, for breach of the tenant’s agreement to carry on the farm in a husbandlike manner, and the like.

Assumpsit on the general counts, for money lent and advanced to, paid, laid out and expended for, money had and received by, interest on money due from, for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered to, and services and labor done and performed and materials provided for defendants at said defendants’ request.

Under general leave to amend, obtained at a former term, the plaintiff at this term filed amendments, one being a special count on a lease, and another upon an account annexed. These amendments were objected to, more particularly the first, and they were disallowed by the court, and plaintiff excepted. Said amendments are not to be printed, but sent to the chief justice with the printed case, 'to be treated as part of the case.

*Rands,*for plaintiff.

*Binghams,*for defendant.

Bellows, J.

The special count offered by way of amendment is for breach of defendant’s stipulations in a lease of a farm, he being the tenant of the plaintiff’s, and the damages sought to be recovered are unliquidated. The breaches alleged are that defendant did not carry on the farm in a husbandlike manner, did not repair the fences or buildings, did not harvest all the crops in good order, and deliver one half of the same to the plaintiff, did not tend and manage the stock in a husband-like manner, and others of a similar character; and we think this matter is wholly inconsistent with the original counts in any aspect in which it can be viewed, and therefore it is not admissible; *Wood*v. *Folsom,*42 N. H. 70, and cases cited; and the other new count appears to be unnecessary.
# C_2011238EN.01003201.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/32

---

Action brought on 14 June 2011 — Süd-Chemie v OHIM — BYK-Cera (CERATIX)

(Case T-312/11)

2011/C 238/53

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Süd-Chemie AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: W. Baron von der Osten-Sacken and A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyers)

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: BYK-Cera BV (Deventer, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 1585/2010-4); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 1585/2010-4);

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: BYK-Cera BV

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CERATIX’ for goods in Class 1 — application No 6 358 832

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: the national word mark ‘CERATOFIX’ for goods in Class 1

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15 and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the defendant:

Pleas in law:

| — | Erred in reducing the evidential value of the documents submitted by the applicant with the general reasoning that they are connected with the applicant itself; |
| --- | --- |

—

Erred in reducing the evidential value of the documents submitted by the applicant with the general reasoning that they are connected with the applicant itself;

| — | Did not take account of promotional measures as ‘genuine use’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Did not take account of promotional measures as ‘genuine use’;

| — | Did not include all the relevant circumstances in assessing whether the use of the trade mark was genuine and; |
| --- | --- |

—

Did not include all the relevant circumstances in assessing whether the use of the trade mark was genuine and;

| — | Did not examine the evidence of use provided as a whole. |
| --- | --- |

—

Did not examine the evidence of use provided as a whole.

---
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 Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”),
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
      Ben
      T. Morris, Chief Executive 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, as amended; 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/
      BEN T.
      MORRIS


Ben
      T.
      Morris


Chief
      Executive Officer





November
      8, 2005





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and will be retained by Sanders Morris Harris
      Group Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.






-46-