alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 12
Federal Reserve Bank of: San Francisco

## Filings received during the week ending June 10, 2006

|Filer                    | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                             
|------------------------ | ------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|ORANGE COMMUNITY BANCORP | * 3A1         | Orange Community Bancorp to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Orange Community Bank, both of Orange, California. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:06/30/2006
|Newspaper:               | Not available
|Federal Register:        | 06/30/2006   
|SAN JOAQUIN BANCORP      | * 3A1         | San Joaquin Bancorp to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of San Joaquin Bank, both of Bakersfield, California.      | Newspaper:06/10/2006Federal Register:06/09/2006   
|Newspaper:               | 06/10/2006   
|Federal Register:        | 06/09/2006   

## 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
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

Melvin Bownes #172328, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v 

HEIDI WASHINGTON, Director, 

Michigan Department of Corrections 

& JONG CHOI, DDS, Dental 

Director, 

 Defendants. 

NO. 2:14-cv-11691 

HON. LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

MAG. MONA K. MAJZOUB 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

STIPULATED ORDER TO STAY REMAINING CASE 

MANAGEMENT ORDER DATES PENDING COMPLETION OF 

DEPOSITIONS 

 The parties, through counsel, had a discussion on Monday June 

29, 2020, regarding how to proceed with depositions. The parties agree 

that, ideally, the depositions would be completed in-person. However, 

the parties agree that, due to COVID-19, that is not practicable at this 

time. As such, the parties propose the following plan to go forward with 

depositions: 

 The parties agree that, due to delays in the case management 

order caused by COVID-19 restrictions, the dates of the current 

CMO are no longer valid and will have to be corrected once 

depositions have been completed;

 The parties agree to schedule video depositions of the class 

representatives for the end of July 2020; 

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 295, PageID.7495 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

 The parties have agreed that Plaintiffs will identify deponents 

that will likely not have many exhibits to depose via video the end 

of July 2020; 

 The parties will reassess the possibility of completing in-person 

depositions in August for those deponents identified by Plaintiffs 

as involving numerous exhibits; and 

 The parties intend to have all depositions completed by the end of 

August 2020 but understand that this agreement may need to be 

altered due to the unprecedented conditions COVID-19 presents.

In light of the parties’ agreements, above, the parties ask this Court to 

stay the remaining case management order dates pending the 

completion of depositions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 8, 2020 

 s/Laurie J. Michelson 

 LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Approved by counsel: 

/s/Daniel E. Manville /s/ Sara E. Trudgeon 

Daniel E. Manville (P39731) Sara E. Trudgeon (P82155) 

Director, Civil Rights Clinic Michigan Dep’t of Attorney General 

Counsel for Plaintiffs Assistant Attorney General 

Dated: July 1, 2020 Counsel for Defendants 

 Dated: July 1, 2020 

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 295, PageID.7496 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 2
# C_2012118EN.01001201.xml

| 21.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 3 February 2012 — Fédération des maisons de repos privées de Belgique (Femarbel) ASBL v Commission communautaire commune

(Case C-57/12)

2012/C 118/19

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fédération des maisons de repos privées de Belgique (Femarbel) ASBL

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission communautaire commune

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must the healthcare services referred to in Article 2(2)(f) and the social services referred to in Article 2(2)(j) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (1) be interpreted in such a way as to exclude from the scope of the Directive day-care centres within the meaning of the ordinance of the Commission communautaire commune of 24 April 2008 on establishments receiving or accommodating old people, in so far as they provide assistance and care appropriate to the loss of independence of old people, and likewise night-care centres within the meaning of the same ordinance, in so far as they provided health assistance and care that cannot be given to old people by their close relatives on a continuous basis?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                                  FEMRX, INC.
 
                         (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)
 
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                               TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                                   DECEMBER 31,
                                                                                               --------------------
                                                                                                 1996       1995
                                                                                               ---------  ---------
<S>                                                                                            <C>        <C>
Net loss.....................................................................................  $  (8,780) $  (3,174)
                                                                                               ---------  ---------
                                                                                               ---------  ---------
Shares used in computing net loss per share:
  Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding........................................      7,141      1,372
  SEC staff accounting bulletin topic 4D.....................................................         --      4,771
                                                                                               ---------  ---------
Total shares used in computing net loss per share............................................      7,141      6,143
 
Net loss per share...........................................................................  $   (1.23) $   (0.52)
                                                                                               ---------  ---------
                                                                                               ---------  ---------
</TABLE>
 
                                       43
##### 



exhibit 10.51
 Patriot Capital Funding, Inc.  274 Riverside Avenue  Westport, CT 06880
  
 Re:
    
    Waiver and Consent to the Amended and Restated Senior Subordinated Note and Warrant
Purchase Agreement (Waiver and Consent)
  Original Note and Warrant Purchase
Agreement Parent Operating Company #1 Operating Company #2 Operating Company #3 Borrower Purchaser Servicer Amendment
No. 1 Amendment No. 2 Amendment No. 3 Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement




---



##### 



Waiver of Event of Default
      Waiver Fee; Expenses Waiver Fee
 Reaffirmation
 -2-




---



##### 



Representations
       Preconditions.
  Attachment I
    -3-




---



##### 



Waiver, Release and Indemnity
 Miscellaneous Borrower ratifies
and confirms the indemnification, confession of judgment and waiver of jury trial provisions
contained in the Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement.
 Signature page follows
 -4-




---



##### 



Very truly yours, 
SERVICERPATRIOT CAPITAL FUNDING, INC.By:
    /s/ Clifford WellsName:
    Clifford WellsTitle:
    Chief Investment Officer By:
    /s/ Matthew ColucciName:
    Matthew ColucciTitle:
    Managing Director




---



##### 



ACKNOWLEDGED and AGREED
this 15th day of May, 2007PURCHASER
    
    PARENT:PATRIOT CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC I
    
    DOVER SADDLERY, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Clifford Wells
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Stephen L. DayName: Clifford Wells
    
    
    
    Stephen L. DayTitle: Chief Investment Officer
    
    
    
    PresidentBy:
    
    /s/ Matthew ColucciName: Matthew ColucciTitle: Managing DirectorOPERATING COMPANY #1:
    
    OPERATING COMPANY #2:DOVER SADDLERY, INC. d/b/a Nashoba
Valley Service Co.
    
    SMITH BROTHERS, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Stephen L. Day
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Stephen L. DayStephen L. Day
    
    
    
    Stephen L. DayDirector
    
    
    
    DirectorOPERATING COMPANY #3:DOVER SADDLERY RETAIL, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Stephen L. DayStephen L. DayDirector




---



##### 



ATTACHMENT I
TO WAIVER AND CONSENT
 CONSENT OF GUARANTOR
 Guarantor Waiver and Consent
 Guaranty
   The Guarantor ratifies and confirms the
indemnification, confession of judgment and waiver of jury trial provisions contained in its
Guaranty.
 WITNESS
 OLD DOMINION ENTERPRISES, INC.By:
    /s/ Stephen L. DayName:
    Stephen L. DayTitle:
    Director
#### § 35.40-6 Emergency lights—TB/ALL.

Emergency lights must be marked in accordance with requirements in subchapter J (Electrical Engineering Regulations) of this chapter.

[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15231, Apr. 8, 1982]
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Souder, Appellee.

[Cite as *State v. Souder*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 23.]

(No. 97-2322

Submitted October 13, 1998

Decided November 25, 1998.)

*R. Larry Schneider,*Union County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Rick Rodger,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of *State v. Cook*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570.

*24The cause is remanded to the trial court to conduct a sexual predator classification hearing pursuant to R.C. 2950.09(C)(2).

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Case 1:11-cv-00259-RMC Document 37 Filed 06/04/12 Page 1 of 1
Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.1    Page 1 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.2    Page 2 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.3    Page 3 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.4    Page 4 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.5    Page 5 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.6    Page 6 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.7    Page 7 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.8    Page 8 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.9    Page 9 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.10    Page 10 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.11    Page 11 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.12    Page 12 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.13    Page 13 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.14    Page 14 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.15    Page 15 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.16    Page 16 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.17    Page 17 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.18    Page 18 of 19

Case 5:15-cv-10786-JCO-MKM   ECF No. 1   filed 03/04/15    PageID.19    Page 19 of 19
§ 163.003-15 Performance. ( a ) Each pilot ladder must be capable of being rolled up for storage.
( b ) Each ladder when rolled up must be able to unroll freely and hang vertically.
( c ) Each suspension member must be arranged so that, when the ladder is in use on a vessel, the suspension member cannot come in contact with the vessel's side.
( d ) Each step must be arranged so that it can bear on the side of the vessel when the ladder is in use.
Exhibit 10.24

 




KEN SWAISLAND

The Coach House

2949 Palmerston Ave

West Vancouver, BC V7V 2X2




December 2, 2003




Hunter Gold Mining Corporation

c/o 4145 Almondel Road

West Vancouver, BC V7V 3L6




Attention: George Otten


Re: Purchase of Hunter Gold Mining Corporation (the “Target”) from George Otten and Jim Blair (the “Principal Vendors”) and the other shareholders of the company (the “Other Vendors”) by Ken Swaisland (the “Purchaser”)


Dear Sir:




I confirm that I will pay the sum of $3,000,000 in the United States Currency to the Vendors to purchase all the share of Hunter Gold Mining Corporation on or before March 31, 2004 subject to the following conditions:




	 	1.	The Purchaser shall have until March 15, 2004, to complete its due diligence review and can terminate this letter agreement at any time prior to March 15, 2004 by notice pursuant to clause 6.


	 	2.	The Purchaser shall present any formal documentation that it requires for signature to the Vendor by March 15, 2004.


	 	3.	The Principal Vendors agree to provide any and all documentation that it has in its possession and is required by the Purchaser, and assist in any way it is able during the due diligence period.


	 	4.	The Principal Vendors agree to ensure that all assets of Hunter Gold Mining Inc. and Hunter Gold Mining Corporation including the Bates Hunter Mine and Golden Gilpin Mill, dewatering plant, mining properties, claims, permits, and all ancillary equipment (see Tedesco’s report dated March, 1997), are free and clear of any and all financial liens or encumbrances with the exception of a one percent net smelter return royalty payable to Goldrush Casino and Mining Corporation to a maximum of US$1,500,000 and that all accounts payable of each Corporation have been satisfied.


	 	5.	The Purchaser agrees to provide sufficient moneys from the purchase price on or before closing to allow the Principal Vendor to satisfy paragraph 4 of this letter agreement prior to distribution of the remaining moneys to the individual Vendors in proportion to their shareholdings in the Target.


	 	6.	Any notice given under this agreement will be in writing and may be sent by facsimile transmission or prepaid registered mail to the following addresses or numbers:





Ken Swaisland

The Couch House

2949 Palmerston Ave

West Vancouver, BC V7V 2X2

Attention: Ken Swaisland

Facsimile No.: 604-925-3592







Hunter Gold Mining Corporation

c/o Blair Forrest

Kelowna, BC V1Y 2B3

Fax: 250-762-6665

Attention: George Otten






	 
	 	 	 
	





	 


Yours truly,




	 	Accepted and agreed to by:
Hunter Gold Mining Corporation per:
	 	 
	/s/ Ken Swaisland
Ken Swaisland	/s/ George Otten
George Otten, President
	 	 
	Accepted and agreed to by:	Accepted and agreed to by:
	 	 
	/s/ Jim Blair
Jim Blair	/s/ George Otten
George Otten
# C_2012174EN.01001802.xml

| 16.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/18

---

Action brought on 30 March 2012 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-158/12)

2012/C 174/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova, K. Mifsud-Bonnici, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not issuing permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 or Directive 2008/1/EC (1) or, as appropriate, by not reconsidering and, where necessary, by not updating permit conditions, in respect of 13 existing pig rearing installations and poultry rearing installations in Ireland, and thereby by failing to ensure that those existing installations operate in accordance with Articles, 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of the IPPC Directive by not later than 30 October 2007, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligation pursuant to Article 5(1) of the IPCC Directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not issuing permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 or Directive 2008/1/EC (1) or, as appropriate, by not reconsidering and, where necessary, by not updating permit conditions, in respect of 13 existing pig rearing installations and poultry rearing installations in Ireland, and thereby by failing to ensure that those existing installations operate in accordance with Articles, 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of the IPPC Directive by not later than 30 October 2007, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligation pursuant to Article 5(1) of the IPCC Directive.

1

| — | order Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive, Member States were obliged to ensure that their competent authorities either issue permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 or, as appropriate, reconsider and, where necessary, update the existing permit conditions by not later than 30 October 2007.

From the information available the Commission concludes that existing pig rearing installations and poultry rearing installation in Ireland are still operation without any IPPC permit and the Commission therefore concludes that Ireland is in breach of its obligations under Article 5(1) of the Directive.

---

(1)  Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control

1

OJ L 24, p. 8.

---
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.012-14 Procedure for listing and labeling. ( a ) Manufacturers having a surfacing material which they consider has characteristics suitable for general use on merchant vessels may make application for listing and labeling as an interior finish by addressing a request directly to a recognized laboratory. The laboratory will inform the submitter as to the requirements for inspection, examinations, and testing necessary for such listing and labeling. The request shall include a permission for the laboratory to furnish a complete test report together with a description of the quality control procedures to the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard.
( b ) The U.S. Coast Guard will review the test report and quality control procedures to determine if the approval requirements have been met. If this is the case, the Commandant will notify the laboratory that the material is approved and that when the material is listed and labeled it may be marked as being U.S. Coast Guard approved. Notice of U.S. Coast Guard approval will be published in CG-190.
( c ) If disagreements concerning procedural, technical or inspection questions arise over U.S. Coast Guard approval requirements the opinion of the Commandant shall be requested by the laboratory.
( d ) The manufacturer may at any time request clarification or advice from the Commandant on any question which may arise regarding manufacturing and approval of approved devices.
[CGFR 70-143, 35 FR 19967, Dec. 30, 1970]
#### Elias Smith, *as Superintendent, etc., Respondent, v.*Hiram W. Brundage and others, *Appellants.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
§ 176.105 How to obtain or renew. ( a ) A Certificate of Inspection is obtained or renewed by making application on Form CG 3752, “Application for Inspection of U.S. Vessel,” to the Coast Guard OCMI of the marine inspection zone in which the inspection is to be made. Form CG-3752 may be obtained at any U.S. Coast Guard Sector Office or Marine Inspection Office.
( b ) The application for initial inspection of a vessel being newly constructed or converted must be submitted prior to the start of the construction or conversion.
( c ) The construction, arrangement, and equipment of each vessel must be acceptable to the cognizant OCMI as a prerequisite of the issuance of the initial Certificate of Inspection. Acceptance is based on the information, specifications, drawings and calculations available to the OCMI, and on the successful completion of an initial inspection for certification.
( d ) A Certificate of Inspection is renewed by the issuance of a new Certification of Inspection.
( e ) The condition of the vessel and its equipment must be acceptable to the cognizant OCMI as a prerequisite to the Certificate of Inspection renewal. Acceptance is based on the condition of the vessel as found at the periodic inspection for certification.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 953, Jan. 10, 1996; 61 FR 20557, May 7, 1996, as amended by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36331, July 2, 2007]