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

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending April 7, 2007

----

Board OperationsOffice of Board Members  -- appointment of Laricke Blanchard as Assistant to the Board with responsibility for the Congressional Liaison Office, and Winthrop Hambley as Senior Advisor to the Board.					-Approved, April 2, 2007 					

EnforcementFirst Interstate Bank, Bozeman, Montana  -- issuance of an order of prohibition against Tracy Schroeder, a former branch manager and institution-affiliated party.					-Announced, April 3, 2007 					

FormsForms  -- final Board review to extend with revision the Money Market Mutual Funds Assets Reports (FR 2051a and FR 2051b), and to extend without revision the Uniform Application for Municipal Securities Principal or Municipal Securities Representative Associated with a Bank Municipal Securities Dealer (FR MSD-4), Uniform Termination Notice for Municipal Securities Principal or Municipal Securities Representative Associated with a Bank Municipal Securities Dealer (FR MSD-5), Notice by Financial Institutions of Government Securities Broker or Government Securities Dealer Activities (FR G-FIN), and Notice by Financial Institutions of Termination of Activities as a Government Securities Broker or Government Securities Dealer (FR G-FINW).					-Approved, April 4, 2007 					

Regulations And Policies"Bankers' Bank" Exemption  -- revised interpretation of Regulation D regarding criteria for the "bankers' bank" exemption from reserve requirements (Docket No. R-1262).					-Approved, April 2, 2007 					Regulations H (Membership of State Banking Institutions in the Federal Reserve System) and K (International Banking Operations)  -- publication for comment of interagency interim rules to allow an expanded examination cycle for qualifying state member banks and U.S. offices of foreign banks (Docket No. R-1279).					-Approved, March 16, 2007 					(AC)

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: April 12, 2007
Editorial Note on Part 199
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 199 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59789, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 199.170 Line-throwing appliance. ( a ) *General.* Each vessel must have a line-throwing appliance approved under approval series 160.040.
( b ) *Stowage.* The line-throwing appliance and its equipment must be readily accessible for use.
( c ) *Additional equipment.* Each vessel must carry the following equipment for the line-throwing appliance— ( 1 ) The equipment on the list provided by the manufacturer with the approved appliance; and
( 2 ) An auxiliary line that— ( i ) Is at least 450 meters (1,500 feet) long;
( ii ) Has a breaking strength of at least 40 kiloNewtons (9,000 pounds-force); and
( iii ) Is, if synthetic, of a dark color or certified by the manufacturer to be resistant to deterioration from ultraviolet light.
# C_2012013EN.01001602.xml

| 14.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/16

---

Action brought on 13 October 2011 — Deutsche Bank v OHIM (Leistung aus Leidenschaft)

(Case T-539/11)

2012/C 13/34

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Bank AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by R. Lange, T. Götting and G. Hild, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2011 in Case R 188/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2011 in Case R 188/2011-4;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Leistung aus Leidenschaft’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 38

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the Community trade mark concerned has distinctive character

Pleas in law:

---
2005 GlobalSantaFe Annual Incentive Plan


 EXHIBIT 10.2 
  
 2005 GLOBALSANTAFE ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 The Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of GlobalSantaFe Corporation (the “Company”)
approved the 2005 GlobalSantaFe Annual Incentive Plan (the “2005 AIP”) on January 24, 2005. The payment of bonuses, if any, under the 2005 AIP will be based on performance for the period January 1 through December 31, 2005, at the
discretion of the Committee. The Committee will determine bonus amounts, if any, during the first calendar quarter of 2006. 
  
 The purpose of the 2005 AIP is to promote the interests of the Company and its shareholders by providing eligible management employees with financial rewards based upon
the achievement of targeted performance. The 2005 AIP is also intended to help the Company attract and retain management employees. 
  
 Executive officers as well as other officers and managers are eligible to participate in the 2005 AIP. The target bonus as a percent of each individual participant’s
annual base salary ranges from 5% to 100%. The 2005 AIP bonus is capped at 200% of an individual’s annual base salary. 
  
 The 2005 AIP performance measures for participants in the parent company and the Company’s contract drilling services subsidiaries consist of both financial and
operational targets. The weighting is 50% for the financial measures, which are net income relative to peer companies and cost. The weighting is also 50% for the operational performance measures, which are safety, downtime, well performance, and
specified corporate objectives. 
  
 The 2005 AIP performance measures for
participants in the Company’s drilling management services consist of both financial and operational targets. The weighting is 80% for the financial measures which are based on domestic and international operating incomes and 20% for the
operational measure which is safety. 
  
 Bonuses payable under the 2005 AIP are
determined by the Committee, subject to ratification by the independent members of the Board of Directors, with respect to the Chief Executive Officer’s bonus.
Case 2:14-mj-30201-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.1 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:14-mj-30201-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.2 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:14-mj-30201-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.3 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:14-mj-30201-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.4 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:14-mj-30201-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.5 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:14-mj-30201-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.6 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:14-mj-30201-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.7 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:14-mj-30201-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.8 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:14-mj-30201-DUTY ECF No. 1 filed 04/28/14 PageID.9 Page 9 of 9
§ 176.808 Lifesaving. ( a ) At each initial and subsequent inspection for certification of a vessel, the owner or managing operator shall be prepared to conduct tests and have the vessel ready for inspection of lifesaving equipment and systems, including the following: ( 1 ) Tests of each rescue boat and each rescue boat launching appliance and survival craft launching appliance in accordance with § 185.520 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Inspection of each lifejacket, work vest, and marine buoyant device;
( 3 ) If used, inspection of the passenger safety orientation cards or pamphlets allowed by § 185.506(b)(2) of this chapter;
( 4 ) Inspection of each inflatable liferaft, inflatable buoyant apparatus, and inflatable lifejacket to determine that it has been serviced as required by § 185.730 of this chapter; and
( 5 ) Inspection of each hydrostatic release unit to determine that it is in compliance with the servicing and usage requirements of § 185.740 of this chapter.
( b ) Each item of lifesaving equipment determined by the marine inspector to not be in serviceable condition must be repaired or replaced.
( c ) Each item of lifesaving equipment with an expiration date on it must be replaced if the expiration date has passed.
( d ) The owner or managing operator shall destroy, in the presence of the marine inspector, each lifejacket, other personal floatation device, and other lifesaving device found to be defective and incapable of repair.
( e ) At each initial and subsequent inspection for certification of a vessel, the vessel must be equipped with an adult size lifejacket for each person authorized. The vessel must also be equipped with child size lifejackets equal to at least: ( 1 ) 10 percent of the maximum number of passengers permitted to be carried unless children are prohibited from being carried aboard the vessel; or
( 2 ) 5 percent of the maximum number of passengers permitted to be carried if all extended size lifejackets are provided.
( f ) Lifejackets, work vests, and marine buoyant devices may be marked with the date and marine inspection zone to indicate that they have been inspected and found to be in serviceable condition by a marine inspector.
( g ) At each initial and subsequent inspection for certification, the marine inspector may require that an abandon ship or man overboard drill be held under simulated emergency conditions specified by the inspector.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 953, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51356, Sept. 30, 1997]
§ 122.360 Use of auto pilot. Whenever an automatic pilot is used the master shall ensure that: ( a ) It is possible to immediately establish manual control of the vessel's steering;
( b ) A competent person is ready at all times to take over steering control; and
( c ) The changeover from automatic to manual steering and vice versa is made by, or under the supervision of, the master or the mate on watch.
# C_2012174EN.01001902.xml

| 16.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/19

---

Appeal brought on 11 April 2012 by Carrols Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2012 in Case T-291/09 Carrols Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Mr Giulio Gambettola

(Case C-171/12 P)

2012/C 174/30

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Carrols Corp. (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Mr Giulio Gambettola

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2012 in Case T-291/09; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2012 in Case T-291/09;

| — | uphold in their entirety the claims put forward by Carrols Corp. at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold in their entirety the claims put forward by Carrols Corp. at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Infringement of European Union law by the General Court, as a result of breach of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) and the case-law interpreting it.

1

In the judgment under appeal, the General Court concluded that ‘the fact that the signs at issue are identical does not establish bad faith on the part of the intervener, where there are no other relevant factors’.

Case C-529/07 Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli [2009] ECR I-4893 makes clear that ‘[w]hether the applicant is acting in bad faith ... must be the subject of an overall assessment, taking into account all the factors relevant to the particular case’ (paragraph 37 of the judgment). However, Carrols Corp. submits that the General Court erred by assessing each of the facts individually and in isolation, precluding an overall view being taken and unreasonably increasing the burden of proof on Carrols Corp., thereby prejudicing its right to an effective remedy.

Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
**Exhibit
32.2**
 **Certification
Pursuant to**
 **Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
 Pursuant
to the requirement set forth in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), H. Ravi Brar, Chief Financial Officer and Vice
President of Human Resources of Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. (the "Company"),
certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
 
 1.
    The
      Company's Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,
      2005, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the
      "Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.
 
 
 **In
Witness Whereof** , the
undersigned has set his hands hereto as of the 16th day of May
2005.
 
 
 /s/
      H. Ravi Brar
      H.
      Ravi Brar
      Chief
      Financial Officer and
      Vice
      President of Human Resources
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,573,000
<SECURITIES>                                   958,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  283,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,000
<INVENTORY>                                     74,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,915,000
<PP&E>                                       3,041,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,495,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,516,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          600,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,000
<COMMON>                                       168,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,591,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,516,000
<SALES>                                        479,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               479,000
<CGS>                                           54,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  722,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (229,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (229,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (229,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
[Exhibit 10.1]

                            Corporate Sales Agreement

Assignor: MB Tech Inc.
CEO & President : Bae Han Wook (ID: 590228-1690810)
Address: 5408 BI Center Dongsoul College, 423 Bokjeong-dong, Soojeong-gu,
Kyunggi-do

Assignee: Shin Tae Hyun (ID: 681224-1392918)
Address: 2-302 Hanye Heights Villa, Deoksung-li, Eumsung-gun, Choongcheongbukdo

This agreement shall be made and entered into by and between two parties to
assign MB Tech Korea, a subsidiary of MB Tech Inc, having its principal office
at 1021-3 Deokjeong-li, Samsung-myun, Eeumsung-gun, Choongcheongbukdo
("Company"). Any and all rights and obligations to Company's businesses shall be
assigned to Assignee under the following terms and conditions.

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Agreement is to assign any and all rights and obligations to
Company's businesses to Assignee under the Korean Commercial Law and Tax Law.

Article 2 (Assignment of Business)

As of the date of entering into this Agreement, Assignee shall be assigned to
all the material and human resources belonging to and any and all rights and
obligations to Company.

Article 3 (Assigned Assets and Debts & Effective Date)

Assignee shall be assigned to Assignor's total assets and debts as entered on
the Company's books as of September 30, 2004.

Article 4 (Price of Assignment)

The price shall be the amount, total assets - total debts, which is set forth in
Article 3.

Article 5 (Object and Scope of Assignment)

The assigned objects shall be prescribed in the attached Balance Sheet of
"Appendix1".

Article 6 (Incidental Debts)

Assignee shall be responsible for all the taxes and charges as not listed in
Appendix and any and all the debts of MB Tech Korea that may be generated after
the date of entering into this Agreement.

Article 7 (Cooperation)

Assignor shall closely cooperate with Assignee in carrying out the processes
required to assign the businesses.

Article 8 (Other Provision)

Any issue that shall not be prescribed in this Agreement shall be solved in
consultation with both Parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have caused this Agreement to be
executed in duplicate and keep one copy each.

                                        December 20, 2004

Assignor:                               MB Tech. Inc.


                                        /s/ Hanwook Bae
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Bae Han Wook (ID: 590228-1690810)
                                        CEO & President

Address: 5408 BI Center Dongseoul College, 423 Bokjeong-dong, Soojeong-gu,
Kyunggi-do


Assignee:                               /s/  Taehyun Shin
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Shin Tae Hyun (ID: 681224-1392918)

Address: 2-302 Hanye Heights Villa Deokjeong-li, Eumsung-gun, Choongcheongbukdo
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BARUCH WINSTON,

Petitioner,

v.

THOMAS WINN,

Respondent.

/

Case Nos. 12-cv-14475 and 14-cv-14655

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

Baruch Winston, a Michigan Department of Corrections prisoner, filed a second

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his Wayne

County Circuit Court conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct.

Winston’s first habeas petition was assigned to the Court under Case Number 12-

14475. That case was dismissed without prejudice because Winston had not exhausted

his state court remedies. The order closing the case specifically directed Winston to file a

motion to re-open that case after he completed state court review. No. 12-14475, ECF No.

5. Winston did not file a motion to re-open the case as directed, but he did file an amended

petition under that case number on March 14, 2014. Winston then filed the instant case,

Case Number 14-14655, challenging the same conviction.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides as follows: 

(a) Consolidation. If actions before the court involve a common question of

law or fact, the court may:

(1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;

(2) consolidate the actions; or

(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). 

2:14-cv-14655-SJM-DRG Doc # 12 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 666
It is within the discretion of the district court to determine whether cases involving the

same factual and legal questions should be consolidated. Stemler v. Burke, 344 F.2d 393,

396 (6th Cir. 1965). In the instant case, Winston is challenging the same conviction in both

cases. Because the two cases involve common questions of fact and law, the Court will

consolidate the two cases pursuant to Civil Rule 42(a).

ORDER

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Case Numbers 12-14475 and 14-14655

are hereby CONSOLIDATED. The Clerk of the Court shall docket a copy of this order in

both cases.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket all of the documents filed in

Case Number 14-14655 in Case Number 12-14475. All future documents shall be filed

under Case Number 12-14475.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case Number 12-14475 is RE-OPENED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case Number 14-14655 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: July 20, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on July 20, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol Cohron

Case Manager

2

2:14-cv-14655-SJM-DRG Doc # 12 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 667
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.15


               AERIAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE ENTERPRISE)

        DESCRIPTION OF TERMS OF SIGNING LETTER WITH DONALD W. WARKENTIN
                              DATED JUNE 7, 1995


Base salary at an annual rate of $200,000 per year, with an increase 
effective 1/1/96 to $220,000.

$150,000 signing bonus payable on first anniversary date with TDS.

1995 guaranteed bonus of $40,000 and maximum bonus of $60,000.

Target bonus opportunity of 35% of base salary, starting in 1996.

Participation in the TDS Long Term Incentive Plan until such time as American 
Portable Telecommunications, Inc. ("APT") is taken public. In the event APT 
is taken public, participation in the APT stock option program, with the 
unvested portion of the TDS Stock Option Grant offset by the APT Stock Option 
Grant.
#### § 32.75-10 Cargo tanks—TB/ALL.

Cargo tanks shall be independent of the wood hull, shall be made of steel or iron, and shall pass the tests required in § 32.65-40 (a), (b). Where cargo tanks in wood hulls are not arranged to provide working space around them they shall be so constructed as to allow inspection of the hull, tanks, and bilges, and they shall be so installed that they can be moved to allow repairs to the hull structure and to themselves.