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 November 11, 2006

|Filer                    | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                          
|------------------------ | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|PACIFIC BUSINESS BANCORP | Member* 3A1 | Pacific Business Bancorp to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Pacific Business Bank (in organization), both of Irvine, California. Pacific Business Bank (in organization), Irvine, California, to become a member of the Federal Reserve System. | Newspaper:11/04/2006Federal Register:12/08/2006
|Newspaper:               | 11/04/2006 
|Federal Register:        | 12/08/2006 
|PACIFIC PREMIER BANCORP  | * 3A1       | Pacific Premier Bancorp to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Pacific Premier Bank, both of Costa Mesa, California.                                                                                                                                | Newspaper:11/27/2006Federal Register:12/07/2006
|Newspaper:               | 11/27/2006 
|Federal Register:        | 12/07/2006 

## 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
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 1 of 23 Pg ID 36
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 2 of 23 Pg ID 37
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 3 of 23 Pg ID 38
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 4 of 23 Pg ID 39
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 5 of 23 Pg ID 40
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 6 of 23 Pg ID 41
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 7 of 23 Pg ID 42
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 8 of 23 Pg ID 43
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 9 of 23 Pg ID 44
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 10 of 23 Pg ID 45
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 11 of 23 Pg ID 46
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 12 of 23 Pg ID 47
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 13 of 23 Pg ID 48
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 14 of 23 Pg ID 49
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 15 of 23 Pg ID 50
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 16 of 23 Pg ID 51
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 17 of 23 Pg ID 52
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 18 of 23 Pg ID 53
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 19 of 23 Pg ID 54
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 20 of 23 Pg ID 55
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 21 of 23 Pg ID 56
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 22 of 23 Pg ID 57
2:14-cv-14485-LJM-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 10/20/16 Pg 23 of 23 Pg ID 58
Exhibit 99.4
                             Selected Information
                      Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 1999-A
                           through December 31, 1999
                    ----------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

           Class A-1        Class A-2        Class A-3        Class A-4        Class B          Class C
           5.010%           5.089%           5.31%            5.31%            5.79%            6.52%
           Asset            Asset            Asset            Asset            Asset            Certificates
           Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed
           Notes            Notes            Notes            Notes            Notes
           ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------     -----------



<S>        <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>               <C>

Principal
Paid       $250,000,000.00  $296,000,000.00  $225,303,334.93  $          0.00  $          0.00   $          0.00

Interest
Paid       $  2,265,866.32  $  7,660,424.06  $ 24,274,167.75  $ 16,383,343.96  $  3,911,149.77   $  2,516,704.82

---------------
Total Servicing Fees Paid:  $ 16,560,253.52



</TABLE>
# C_2014315EN.01000301.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — Telefónica SA Telefónica de España SAU v European Commission, France Telecom España, SA, Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc Consumo), European Competitive Telecommunications Association

(Case C-295/12 P) (1)

1

((Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of dominant position - Spanish markets for access to broadband internet - Margin squeeze - Article 263 TFEU - Review of legality - Article 261 TFEU - Unlimited jurisdiction - Article 47 of the Charter - Principle of effective judicial protection - Review exercising powers of unlimited jurisdiction - Amount of the fine - Principle of proportionality - Principle of non-discrimination))

2014/C 315/03

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Telefónica SA, Telefónica de España SAU (represented by: F. González Díaz and B. Holles, abogados)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents), France Telecom España, SA (represented by: H. Brokelmann and M. Ganino, abogados), Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc Consumo), (represented by: L. Pineda Salido and I. Cámara Rubio, abogados), European Competitive Telecommunications Association, (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Telefónica SA and Telefónica de España SAU to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Telefónica SA and Telefónica de España SAU to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders France Telecom España, SA, Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc Consumo) and the European Competitive Telecommunications Association to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders France Telecom España, SA, Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc Consumo) and the European Competitive Telecommunications Association to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
# 07IGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

BRYAN ARVIDSON,

Petitioner,

v. OP 22-0407

CAPTAIN BRADLEY BRAGG, Lewis & Clark County Detention Center,

Respondent. AUG 

## 1 6 2022
Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montane

ORDER

Bryan Arvidson has filed a petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus, indicating that his incarceration is illegal. He explains that he was arrested on October 1, 2021, and that he hasbeen refused mental health services and an evaluation. He requests that he receive free mental health services as well as a new trial. According to his attachments, Arvidson has court-appointed counsel, per a March 3, 2022 letter. This Court secured a copy of the register of actions from the Lewis and Clark County District Court. In April 2022, Arvidson was tried on eleven felony charges, including mitigated deliberate homicide. Arvidson is currently awaiting sentencing. Arvidson's remedy is not with this Court, and it is not by means of a petition for habeascorpus. Habeas corpus affordsan applicant an opportunity tochallenge collaterally the legality ofhis present incarceration. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA; Lott v. State, 2006 MT 279,¶ 14, 334 Mont. 270, 150 P.3d. 337. The cause ofArvidson's incarceration is the criminal case for which he is awaiting sentencing and the issuance of the written, final judgment. Arvidson hasappointed counsel torepresenthim inDistrict Court. Arvidson should refrain from filing pleadings on his own behalfwith this Court while he is represented by counsel in the District Court. M. R. App. P. 10(1)(c). 08/16/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0407Arvidson has not demonstrated that he is illegally incarcerated. Section

46-22-101(1), MCA. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Arvidson's Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus is DENIED. TheClerkisdirectedtoprovideacopy ofthisOrderto:theHonorableKathy Seeley, First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County; Angie Sparks, Clerk of District Court, Lewis and Clark County, under Cause No. DC-2021-475; Captain Bragg, Jail Commander; Leo Gallagher, Lewis and Clark County Attorney; Suzanne R. Sebum, Defense Counsel; counsel ofrecord, and Bryan Arvidson personally. DATED this -‘

4-1 ay ofAugust, 2022.

2 ChiefJustice
#### JOSEPH HANIMANN, PLAINTIFF, v. FREDERICK R. SCHELLHORN, DEFENDANT.

Decided May 7, 1929.

*490Argued before Gummere, Chiee Justice, and Justice Parker.

Eor the rule, *Perlcins & Drewen.*

*Contra, I. Paeber Qoldenhorn.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages for malicious prosecution. In May, 1923, the defendant made a criminal complaint against him, charging him with the crime of embezzlement in converting to his own use moneys that he had received as the agent of the defendant, with intent to defraud the latter.

The charge was made the subject of an investigation by the grand jury, and an indictment was found. After a good deal of delay, the prosecutor of the pleas, pursuant to the order of the court, entered a *nolle prosequi,*and thereafter the present suit was brought. At the close of the trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant “for $2,500 punitive damages plus compensatory damages.”

The first ground urged for making the present rule absolute is that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence because of the plaintiff’s failure to show by a preponderance of the proofs that there was any want of probable cause. We consider this contention to be without merit. When proof is submitted that the criminal charge laid against the plaintiff is false, such proof justifies an inference of want of probable cause and of malice. *Vladir*v. *Klopman,*9 *N. J. L.*575, and cases cited. The effect of this legal rule is to place upon the defendant the burden of overcoming the inference thus raised by evidence introduced by him at the trial, and the *491action of the criminal court in entering the *nolle prosequi*justified the conclusion that the affidavit charging the criminal offense was false. By its verdict the jury found that the inference of want of probable cause was not overcome by the testimony submitted by the defendant, and our examination of the case satisfies us that this finding was justified.

The only other contention before us is that the verdict is legally erroneous because it awarded punitive damages only and nothing by way of compensation. This contention, however, is without basis of fact to support it. It is true that the award was for a single sum; hut the jury, in order to avoid any doubt as to its action, expressly declared that this single sum included both compensatory and punitive damages.

The rule to show cause will he discharged.
Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SoundView Technology Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mark F. Loehr, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|Dated: May 15, 2003 |  | SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.
|------------------- |  | --------------------------------
|                    |  | By:                             

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Charles H.R. Bracken,
certify that:  1.I have reviewed this quarterly report
for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 on Form 10-Q of United Pan-Europe
Communications N.V.;  2.Based on my knowledge, this report does
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;  4.The registrants other certifying
officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  a)designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;  b)evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and  c)disclose in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and  5.The registrants other certifying
officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a)all significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b)any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Date:  August 14, 2003
  /s/ CHARLES H.R. BRACKENCharles H.R.
  BrackenChief
  Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WARREN OSTRANDER, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 2:15-cv-11526-AJT-DRG

)

v. )

)

TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, WARREN OSTRANDER, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby

dismisses the above- captioned proceeding against Defendant, TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES,

INC., with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. An answer

has not been filed.

Dated: April 18, 2016 By: /s/ Morris B. Lefkowitz

Attorney for Plaintiff

Morris B. Lefkowitz

Michigan Attorney No. P31335

Allen Chern Law PLLC

24100 Southfield Road

Suite 203

Southfield, MI 48075

Phone: (248) 569-0180

Fax: (248) 559-0175

morrie@lefkowitzlawgroup.com

Case 2:15-cv-11526-AJT-DRG ECF No. 9, PageID.28 Filed 04/18/16 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on April 18, 2016, a copy of the foregoing Notice of Dismissal

with Prejudice was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the

Court’s electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt.

/s/ Morris B. Lefkowitz

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-11526-AJT-DRG ECF No. 9, PageID.29 Filed 04/18/16 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 95 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2467]

[[Page 27860]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Sunshine Federal Register Notice

Date: Week of May 28, 2007.

Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.

Status: Public and Closed.

Additional items to be considered: 

Week of May 28, 2007--Tentative

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

    9:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative):
    a. USEC Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant), LBP-07-06 (Initial 
Decision Authorizing License), Geoffrey Sea Letter ``in preparation of 
late-filed contentions'' (Tentative).
    b. Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. (Licensing Amendment Request for 
Decommissioning of the Newfield, New Jersey Facility), Docket No. 40-
7102-MLA, Appeal of Loretta Williams from LBP-07-05 (Tentative).
    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov.
* * * * *
     The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change 
on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--
(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, 
(301) 415-1662.
* * * * *
    The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet 
at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html.
* * * * *
    The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation 
to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or 
the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another 
format (e.g. Braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability 
Program Coordinator, Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, 
or by e-mail at [email protected]. Determinations on requests for reasonable 
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * *
    This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; 
if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the 
distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, 
DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting 
notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in 
receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send 
an electronic message to [email protected].

    Dated: May 14, 2007.
R. Michelle Schroll,
Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-2467 Filed 5-15-07; 12:27 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2260]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Notice of Availability of a Novel Diagnostic Fuze Technology for 
Exclusive, Partially Exclusive or Non-Exclusive Licenses

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army announces the general availability 
of exclusive, partially exclusive or non-exclusive licenses relative to 
a novel aeroballistic diagnostic system as described in U.S. Patent 
6,349,652; entitled ``Aeroballistic Diagnostic System''; Hepner; et al. 
Any license shall apply comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael D. Rausa, U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory, Office of Research and Technology Applications, ATTN: 
AMSRL-DP-AT/Bldg. 434, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425, 
Telephone: (410) 278-5028.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-2260 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
EXHIBIT 11.1


ICY SPLASH FOOD AND BEVERAGE, INC.

STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,         SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,

                                                    2000             1999             2000              1999
                                                -----------       -----------      -----------       -----------
<S>                                             <C>               <C>              <C>               <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Net (loss) income                               $    (4,520)      $    25,751      $   (32,544)      $    22,536
                                                -----------       -----------      -----------       -----------

Weighted average shares outstanding               6,600,000         6,600,000        6,600,000         6,600,000
                                                -----------       -----------      -----------       -----------

Basic earnings per share                        $      --         $      --        $      --         $      --
                                                ===========       ===========      ===========       ===========
Diluted earnings per share:

Net (loss) income                               $    (4,520)      $    25,751      $   (32,544)      $    22,536
                                                -----------       -----------      -----------       -----------

Weighted average and dilutive shares:
    Weighted average shares outstanding           6,600,000         6,600,000        6,600,000         6,600,000
    Dilutive shares (Antidilutive in 2000)             --             950,000             --             950,000
                                                -----------       -----------      -----------       -----------
                                                  6,600,000         7,550,000        6,600,000         7,550,000
                                                -----------       -----------      -----------       -----------

Diluted earnings per share                      $      --         $      --        $      --         $      --
                                                ===========       ===========      ===========       ===========
</TABLE>


                                       8