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: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending July 22, 2006

|Filer                            | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | End of Comment Period                          
|-------------------------------- | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|FARMERS CAPITAL BANK CORPORATION | * 3A3       | Farmers Capital Bank Corporation, Frankfort, Kentucky, to acquire 100 percent of Citizens National Bancshares, Inc., Nicholasville, Kentucky, and thereby indirectly acquire Citizens National Bank of Jessamine County, Nicholasville, Kentucky. | Newspaper:08/16/2006Federal Register:08/18/2006
|Newspaper:                       | 08/16/2006 
|Federal Register:                | 08/18/2006 
|MERCANTILE BANCORP, INC.         | * 3A3       | Mercantile Bancorp, Inc., Quincy, Illinois, to acquire 100 percent of Royal Palm Bancorp, Inc., Naples, Florida, and thereby indirectly acquire Royal Palm Bank of Florida, Naples, Florida.                                                      | Newspaper:08/16/2006Federal Register:08/20/2006
|Newspaper:                       | 08/16/2006 
|Federal Register:                | 08/20/2006 

## 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
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: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending May 6, 2006

|Filer                 | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                                 
|--------------------- | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|CLEAR MOUNTAIN BANK   | * 18C* Branch  | Clear Mountain Bank, Bruceton Mill, West Virginia, to purchase certain assets and assume certain liabilities of the Rowlesburg, West Virginia branch of First Community Bank, NA, Bluefield, Virginia | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:            | Not available 
|Federal Register:     | Not applicable
|FIDELITY & TRUST BANK | * Branch       | Fidelity & Trust Bank, Bethesda, Maryland, proposes to establish a branch at 850 Sligo Avenue, Suite 100, Silver Spring, Maryland.                                                                    | Newspaper:05/30/2006Federal Register:Not applicable   
|Newspaper:            | 05/30/2006    
|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
§ 232.6 Financial report filing requirement. ( a ) *Reporting Frequency and Due Dates.* The contractor shall file a semiannual financial report and an annual financial report, in the format referred to in § 232.1(a)(2), which MARAD shall make available to the contractor. This Form MA-172 (Revised) shall be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and modified to the extent necessary to comply with this regulation. The annual financial report shall be reconciled to the financial statements audited by independent certified public accountants (CPAs) licensed to practice by a state or other political subdivision of the United States, or licensed public accountants licensed to practice by regulatory authority or other political subdivision of the United States on or before December 31, 1970. Both the annual and semiannual financial reports shall be due within 120 days after the close of the contractor's annual or semiannual accounting period. If certified (CPA) statements are not available when required, company certified statements are to be submitted within the due dates, and the CPA statements shall be submitted as soon as available. The respondent may, in place of any Schedule(s) contained in the Form MA-172, submit a schedule or schedules from its audited financial statements, or a computer print-out or schedule, consistent with the instructions provided in the MARAD formats. MARAD will accept electronic options (such as facsimile and Internet) for transmission of required information to MARAD, if practicable.
( b ) *Certification.* Annual and semiannual reports shall be approved by the Respondent and Official of Respondent whom MARAD may contact regarding the report in the reporting formats prescribed as the MA-172 submission.
( c ) *Presumption of confidentiality.* MARAD will initially presume that each part of the financial reports or data submitted as prescribed by this Regulation, other than Schedule 101—Identity of Respondent and Schedules 102 and 103, only with respect to the names and titles of directors and principal officers and employees, is privileged or confidential within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). In the event of a subsequent request for any portion of the reports or data under 5 U.S.C. 552, the submitter will be notified of such request and given the opportunity to comment. The contractor shall claim confidentiality at that time by memorandum or letter stating the basis, in detail, for such assertion of exemption, including but not limited to statutory and decisional authorities. Those parts not so claimed by the submitter to be confidential will be disclosed, and those parts so claimed will be subject to initial determination by the Freedom of Information Act Officer.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2133-0005) [48 FR 30122, June 30, 1983, as amended at 68 FR 62537, Nov. 5, 2003; 69 FR 61449, Oct. 19, 2004]
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2439 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing oil and gas leases 

on portions of the Outer Continental Shelf located off the coast of 

New Jersey. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2009 

Mr. LOBIONDO (for himself, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. LANCE, and Mr. 

SMITH of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing oil 

and gas leases on portions of the Outer Continental 

Shelf located off the coast of New Jersey. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OIL AND GAS LEASING OFF 

4 THE COAST OF NEW JERSEY. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—The Secretary of the Interior 

6 shall not issue a lease, permit, or license for the explo7 ration for or extraction of oil or gas on or from submerged 

8 lands described in subsection (b). 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2439 IH

1 (b) LANDS DESCRIBED.—The submerged lands with 

2 respect to which subsection (a) applies are all submerged 

3 lands seaward from the landward boundary of the Outer 

4 Continental Shelf that lie within 125 miles of any point 

5 of the coast line of the State of New Jersey. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### § 28.95 Right of appeal.

Any person directly affected by a decision or action taken under this part, by or on behalf of the Coast Guard, may appeal therefrom in accordance with part 1, subpart 1.03 of this chapter.
# C_2012006EN.01002701.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/27

---

Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-111/11)

2012/C 6/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the applicants’ salary statements for February 2011 and the salary statements for the following months applying the new correction coefficient for the town of Varese in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions establishing the applicants’ salary statements on the basis of the correction coefficient for the town of Varese set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010 applicable with effect from 1 July 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions establishing the applicants’ salary statements on the basis of the correction coefficient for the town of Varese set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010 applicable with effect from 1 July 2010;

| — | Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2011 rejecting the applicants’ complaints concerning the correction coefficient applied to Varese; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2011 rejecting the applicants’ complaints concerning the correction coefficient applied to Varese;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
§ 176.925 Safety Management Certificate. ( a ) All vessels that carry more than 12 passengers on an international voyage must have a valid Safety Management Certificate and a copy of their company's valid Document of Compliance certificate on board.
( b ) All such vessels must meet the applicable requirements of 33 CFR part 96.
( c ) A Safety Management Certificate is issued for a period of not more than 60 months.
[CGD 95-073, 62 FR 67515, Dec. 24, 1997]
#### § 4.07-7 Opening statement.

The investigating officer or the Chairman of a Marine Board of Investigation shall open the investigation by announcing the statutory authority for the proceeding and he shall advise parties in interest concerning their rights to be represented by counsel, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to call witnesses in their own behalf.
# C_2012126EN.01002801.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/28

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 February 2012 — Zur Oven-Krockhaus v Commission

(Case F-47/11) (1)

1

2012/C 126/53

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.11, p. 56.

1

---
§ 31.10-1 Recognized classification society—TB/ALL. ( a ) In the inspection of hulls, boilers, and machinery, the current standards established by the American Bureau of Shipping and designated *Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels* respecting material and construction of hulls, boilers, and machinery, except as otherwise provided for by law and regulations in this chapter, shall be accepted as standard by the Coast Guard.
( b ) The current standards established by the American Bureau of Shipping in effect at the time of construction of the vessel, or otherwise as applicable, shall be used. The book *Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels* is usually published annually and may be purchased from the American Bureau of Shipping, ABS Plaza, 16855 Northchase Drive, Houston, TX 77060. These standards may also be examined at the Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-5PS), Attn: Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509, or at the office of any Coast Guard District Commander or Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
( c ) The approved plans and certificate of the American Bureau of Shipping, or other recognized classification society for classed vessels, may be accepted by the Coast Guard as evidence of the structural efficiency of the hull and reliability of machinery of vessels subject to the regulations in this subchapter, except as otherwise provided for by laws and regulations in this chapter.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16662, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGFR 68-32, 33 FR 5712, Apr. 12, 1968; CGD 88-070, 53 FR 34533, Sept. 7, 1988; 53 FR 37570, Sept. 27, 1988; 53 FR 44011, Nov. 1, 1988; CGD 95-072, 60 FR 50461, Sept. 29, 1995; USCG-2000-7790, 65 FR 58459, Sept. 29, 2000; USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49226, Sept. 25, 2009; USCG-2010-0759, 75 FR 60002, Sept. 29, 2010; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60146, Sept. 30, 2013]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 95 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2432]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEATLH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Human Genome Research Institute 
Initial Review Group; Genome Research Review Committee.
    Date: June 8, 2007.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Ken D. Nakamura, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Human Genome 
Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 402-0838.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

    Dated: May 9, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2432 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### ALPHONSO EMELE AND BERTHA EMELE, PLAINTIFFS, v. ARROW CARRIER CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.

Submitted January term, 1929

Decided July 3, 1929.

Before Justices Teenchaed, Kalisch and Lloyd.

For the rule, *William K. Flanagan.*

*Contra, William C. Cebhardt & Son.*

Pee Cukiam.

This is a rule for change of venue in a transitory action. From a stipulation of facts entered into by the parties it appears that the plaintiffs reside in Easton, Pennsylvania; that the cause of action arose in the city of Easton; that the defendant is a New Jersey corporation with its principal office in Paterson; that the process was served in Passaic county; that the venue was laid in Hunterdon county; that an answer was filed and the case noticed for trial at the December term, 1928, at the Hunterdon Circuit, and that only thereafter was the present rule applied for and allowed.

The cause of action arising in another state and the plaintiffs residing out of this state, the venue could only properly be laid in Passaic county, where the defendant’s principal office was located, and where the process was served. This, however, does not control the case. In *Peister*v. *Public Service,*100 *N. J. L.*53, it was said by this court that “an *626application for a change of venue should be made as soon as the moving party acquires knowledge of the facts upon which the motion is based and failure so to do will constitute a waiver.”

Defendant has not shown in the present case, nor does the- stipulation establish) that the application was made as soon as the facts were known. On the contrary we think it fairly inferable that the defendant deliberately permitted the case to reach the point of trial before it moved in the matter.

The rule is discharged.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00169-CV

IN RE JOHN PAUL JENKINS

Original Proceeding

From the 170th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-1730-4

DISSENTING MEMORANDUM OPINION

Because I would summarily deny the petition for writ of mandamus, I respectfully 

dissent.

MATT JOHNSON

Justice

Dissenting opinion delivered and filed September 8, 2021
2:14-cr-20631-MFL-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 09/17/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1
2:14-cr-20631-MFL-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 09/17/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 2
2:14-cr-20631-MFL-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 09/17/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 3
800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

September 6, 2011 

Mr. Marvin Earl Arnold 

P.O. Box 50715 

Amarillo, TX 79159 

Dear Mr. Arnold: 

This letter is in response to your December 15, 2008, petition for rulemaking to establish 

a new category of sport pilot certificate entitled “Special Sport Pilot Rating or Category 

‘A’ Sport Pilot” in part 61 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 

In 2004, the Federal Aviation Administration issued the final rule entitled “Certification 

of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light Sport Aircraft” (the “Sport Pilot Rule” 

[69 FR 44792]). Since then, we have responded to several requests to revisit the lightsport aircraft standards. For example, the Cessna 120/140 Association petitioned to allow 

aircraft weighing more than the maximum takeoff weight (1,320 lbs.) to be operated by 

individuals with sport pilot airman certificate privileges. In our denial of that petition 

(Exemption No. 8749), we cited the preamble of the Sport Pilot final rule. 

“In prohibiting modifications to aircraft to meet the light-sport aircraft definition, 

the FAA seeks to ensure that the light-sport aircraft operating characteristics are 

consistent with the skills and training for the sport pilot.” (69 FR 44792) 

We had extensive debate with general aviation industry groups and other organizations 

before arriving at the 1,320-lb. limit. We realized that some aircraft would necessarily be 

excluded because they weigh more than 1,320 lbs., even though they were similar to 

aircraft meeting the criteria for light-sport. We consider the weight determination of the 

light-sport rulemaking committee to be a highly refined product, and we planned to apply 

future rulemaking around that determination. 

In order to maintain the integrity of that rulemaking, we conclude that aircraft certificated 

before the light-sport rule weighing more than 1,320 lbs. shall maintain their original 

airworthiness certification and may only be operated by pilots holding a pilot certificate 

with ratings appropriate to that aircraft. 
2

In consideration of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 

§§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, your petition for rulemaking 

is hereby denied. 

Accordingly, we will close Docket No. FAA-2008-1332. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

David Gilliom 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
Case 5:15-cv-11847-JCO-RSW ECF No. 11, PageID.36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 1 of 6
Case 5:15-cv-11847-JCO-RSW ECF No. 11, PageID.37 Filed 01/11/18 Page 2 of 6
Case 5:15-cv-11847-JCO-RSW ECF No. 11, PageID.38 Filed 01/11/18 Page 3 of 6
Case 5:15-cv-11847-JCO-RSW ECF No. 11, PageID.39 Filed 01/11/18 Page 4 of 6
Case 5:15-cv-11847-JCO-RSW ECF No. 11, PageID.40 Filed 01/11/18 Page 5 of 6
Case 5:15-cv-11847-JCO-RSW ECF No. 11, PageID.41 Filed 01/11/18 Page 6 of 6
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10172

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDWARD EUGENE CADE

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-139-ALL

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Eugene Cade pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute

6 kilograms or more of cocaine, 500 grams or more of cocaine base, and 1200

grams or more of marijuana (Count 1) and to possession of a firearm during a

drug trafficking offense (Count 2). The district court found Cade to be a career

offender but sentenced him below the advisory guideline range to 216 months of

imprisonment on Count 1. The court sentenced Cade to the statutory minimum

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10172

2

60-month sentence on Count 2, to be served consecutively to the sentence

imposed for Count 1. 

Cade argues that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence as a

career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on a finding that his Texas

conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver was a

“controlled substance offense.” Cade correctly concedes that this argument is

foreclosed by United States v. Ford, 509 F.3d 714, 717 (5th Cir. 2007), cert.

denied, 2008 WL 1803624 (Oct. 6, 2008) (No. 07-10458), and he raises it solely

to preserve it for further possible review.

The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance, which is

GRANTED. The Government’s motion for dismissal of the appeal and

alternative motion for an extension of time for filing an appellate brief are

DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.