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 26, 2008

----

PersonnelManagement Division  -- appointment of Donald A. Spicer as deputy director; Elaine M. Boutilier and Charles F. O'Malley as deputy associate directors; William L. Mitchell as associate director and chief financial officer; James R. Riesz as associate director; Christopher J. Suma, Jeffrey R. Peirce, and Theresa A. Trimble as assistant directors; and Carol Sanders as special adviser, effective April 27; and Michell C. Clark as deputy director, effective May 5, 2008.					-Announced, April 22, 2008 					

Testimony And StatementsSovereign Wealth Funds  -- statement by Scott G. Alvarez, general counsel, before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on investments by sovereign wealth funds in U.S. banks and bank holding companies.					-Published, April 24, 2008 					

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: May 1, 2008
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21.1
List of subsidiaries (1)

Subsidiary                                     Jurisdiction of Organization
----------                                     ----------------------------
Capital Management of Bermuda                  Bermuda
Captive Resources, Inc                         Delaware
Commonwealth Risk Services LLP                 Delaware
CompFirst LLC                                  Delaware
Hemisphere Financial Services LLC              Delaware
Hemisphere Management Ltd                      Bermuda
International Advisory Services Ltd            Bermuda
IPC Mutual Holdings, Ltd                       Bermuda
Legion Financial Corp                          Missouri
Legion Indemnity Co                            Illinois
Legion Insurance Company                       Pennsylvania
Legion Management Corp                         Oklahoma
MG Financial Ltd                               Delaware
MGL Investments Ltd                            Delaware
MRM Financial Services Ltd                     Bermuda
MRM Hancock Ltd                                UK
Mutual Finance Ltd                             Bermuda
Mutual Group Ltd                               Delaware
Mutual Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd                  Bermuda
Mutual Holdings (US) Ltd                       Delaware
Mutual Indemnity (Bermuda) Ltd                 Bermuda
Mutual Indemnity (Dublin) Ltd                  Ireland
Mutual Indemnity Ltd                           Bermuda
Mutual Risk Management (Holdings) Ltd          Bermuda
Villanova Insurance Company                    Pennsylvania
CFM Insurance Manager                          Bermuda
Genesis Holdings                               Cayman
Hurst Holme Insurance Co                       Bermuda
Kensington Management Group Ltd                Cayman
Mutual Indemnity (Barbados) Ltd                Barbados
Mutual Indemnity (US) Ltd                      Bermuda
Mutual Risk Captive Group Ltd                  Bermuda
Mutual Risk Management (Cayman) Ltd            Cayman
Mutual Risk Management(Barbados) Ltd           Barbados
Premium Securities (Bermuda) Ltd               Bermuda
Premium Securities Ltd                         Bermuda
Worksafe, Inc                                  Delaware
Tremont International Insurance Ltd            Cayman
Hemisphere Trust (Jersey) Ltd                  Jersey
MRM Securities Ltd                             Bermuda
MRM Specialty Brokerage Ltd                    Bermuda
H&H Park International                         Bermuda
Psychiatrists Mutual Insurance Company, Inc.   Barbados
MRM Global Captive Group Ltd.                  Bermuda
Hemisphere Management (Ireland) Ltd            Ireland
Chesapeake Insurance Company                   Bermuda
MRM Life                                       Bermuda
SPDA                                           Bermuda

(1) The above list is all of the subsidiaries of the Company except for various
subsidiaries and investments that would not in the aggregate represent a
material subsidiary. For this purpose a "material subsidiary" means a subsidiary
that would represent more than 10% of the total assets or net income of the
Company.
§ 404.107 Ratemaking step 7: Calculate initial base rates. ( a ) The Director calculates initial base hourly rates by dividing the projected needed revenue from § 404.106 by averages of past hours worked in each district's designated and undesignated waters, using available and reliable data for a multi-year period set in accordance with § 401.220(a) of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
[USCG-2017-0903, 83 FR 26193, June 5, 2018]
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 149

To prohibit the export of satellites intended for launch from launch vehicles

owned by the People’s Republic of China.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. SOLOMON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To prohibit the export of satellites intended for launch from

launch vehicles owned by the People’s Republic of China.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chinese Long March

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EXPORTS.

7 The export of any satellite of United States origin

8 that is intended for launch from a launch vehicle owned

9 by the People’s Republic of China is prohibited.

Æ
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A2120. JASCINTH SUTTON v. FIREBIRD SFE I, LLC.

This case originated as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. The

magistrate court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and defendant Jascinth

Sutton appealed to superior court. The superior court denied Sutton’s appeal, and

she filed a notice of appeal to this Court. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

When a superior court order involves a de novo appeal from a magistrate court

decision, an appellant is required to follow the discretionary appeal procedure. See

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1); English v. Delbridge, 216 Ga. App. 366, 367 (454 SE2d 175)

(1995). Accordingly, Sutton’s notice of direct appeal does not give rise to a valid

appeal. For these reasons, we lack jurisdiction to review this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 14, 2018

08/14/2018
§ 38.25-10 Safety relief valves—TB/ALL. ( a ) The cargo tank safety relief valves shall be inspected at least once in every 2 years.
( b ) The safety relief valve discs must be lifted from their seats in the presence of a marine inspector by either liquid, gas, or vapor pressure at least once every 5 years to determine the accuracy of adjustment and, if necessary, must be reset.
[CGFR 66-33, 31 FR 15269, Dec. 6, 1966, as amended by CGD 95-027, 61 FR 26000, May 23, 1996]
New Jersey Department of Labor, Workmen’s Compensation Bureau.

#### JENNIE SABIE, PETITIONER, v. GILBY WIRE COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

Eor the petitioner, *Charles Becker.*

Eor the respondent, *Clarence B. Tippett.*

The petitioner gave testimony of an alleged accident sustained on March 31st, 1927, while employed as operator at the plant, alleging that while cutting a piece of wire, she was struck in her left eye by two small pieces of wire. ■ She reported the next day to her employer; was sent to Dr. Dias, an eye specialist, and was examined and treated by him for a period of about one week; later examined by Dr. Hughes on May 12th, 1927; later by Dr. Sherman; and then went to her own eye doctor who examined and treated her for a few days during July.

Dr. Hirschberg, her physician, also testified.

The respondent produced testimony of Dr. Dias and Dr. Hughes. Their testimony was absolutely negative of disability,. temporary or of any permanent nature. Reference to the examination by Dr. Sherman, which was made at the instance of the bureau, was produced, whose examination was also negative of any disability.

Without referring in further detail to the evidence presented on either side, I am induced to the finding that the evidence is clearly convincing to the effect that this claimant has not suffered a compensable injury. The evidence of eye specialists as to conditions immediately following the alleged *211trauma to the left eye, discloses no disabling injuries or results attributable to an injury. The confirmatory finding by Dr. Sherman, an eminent eye specialist who examined her at the instance of the bureau in July, is also convincing. I find no competent basis or proof upon which to predicate an award of compensation for the alleged injury.

sis & *%*❖ ❖ #

Habby J. Ooas,

*Deputy Commissioner.*
EXHIBIT 23.1

 CONSENT OF PKF, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION


     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statements  of Aura  Systems,  Inc. on Form S-3 (File Nos.  333-1315,  33-75160,
333-41509,  333-46773  and  333-57824)  and Form S-8 (File No.  33-66982) of our
report  dated  June  12,  2000,  on  our  audit  of the  consolidated  financial
statements  of Aura  Systems,  Inc.  for the year ended  February 29, 2000 which
report appears in the Form 10-K of Aura Systems,  Inc. for the fiscal year ended
February 28, 2002.


  /s/
PKF, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Los Angeles, California
May 24, 2002
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

§ 2.75-25 Portable fire extinguishers. ( a ) The portable fire extinguishers listed and labeled as *marine type* by a recognized laboratory, as provided in subpart 162.028 of part 162 of subchapter Q (Specifications) of this chapter, will be accepted as approved for use on merchant vessels, motorboats, etc., whenever required by the regulations in this chapter, and for use on artificial islands and fixed structures on the Outer Continental Shelf whenever required by the regulations in 33 CFR parts 140 to 146, inclusive.
( b ) The procedures for manufacturers to follow and the requirements governing portable fire extinguishers to qualify being listed and labeled as *marine type* by a recognized laboratory are set forth in subpart 162.028 of part 162 of subchapter Q (Specifications) of this chapter.
( c ) The procedures for a laboratory to qualify as a *recognized laboratory* and to be listed in § 162.028-5 of subchapter Q (Specifications) of this chapter are as follows: ( 1 ) The laboratory shall submit an informal application in writing on its usual letterhead paper to the Commandant (CG-5PS), Attn: Director of Commercial Regulations, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509, requesting recognition and listing, as a recognized laboratory.
( 2 ) Accompanying the informal application, as identified enclosures, shall be: ( i ) A certification that it is a laboratory which has been and is regularly engaged in the examination, testing, and evaluation of portable fire extinguishers.
( ii ) A certification that it has an established factory inspection, listing, and labeling program, together with a complete description of it and how it works.
( iii ) A description of its facilities used in the examination, testing, and evaluation of portable fire extinguishers, together with its name (if different from that of submitter), and location (city, street, and state).
( iv ) A list of the names and home and office addresses of its principal officers and its managing directors (if any).
( v ) A description of its special standards for listing and labeling portable fire extinguishers as *marine type,* as contemplated by the specification in subpart 162.028 of part 162 of subchapter Q (Specifications) of this chapter.
( 3 ) If the Commandant finds that a laboratory qualifies as a *recognized laboratory,* and it is subject to Coast Guard jurisdiction, the approval and listing will be published on the Coast Guard's Maritime Information eXchange Web site at *http://cgmix.uscg.mil/equipment* and will be in effect until suspended, canceled or terminated by proper authority. The failure of a recognized laboratory to maintain its established factory inspection, listing and labeling program as approved by the Commandant shall be cause for terminating a listing as a *recognized laboratory.*
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16604, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4781, Feb. 3, 1983; USCG-2015-0867, 80 FR 62469, Oct. 16, 2015]
#### Ferren *v.*Moore.

A husband’s duty of supporting his wife is not terminated by her adultery, committed with his consent given upon condition that she shall hot look to him for support.

Assumpsit, for necessaries furnished the wife of the defendant while living separate from him. Facts found by a referee.

*107
      *Sulloway Topliff,*for the plaintiff.

. *Straw*and *O. R. Morrison,*for the defendant.

Doe, C. J.

As we understand the referee’s report, the question is, whether the defendant’s duty to support his wife ceased when she committed adultery in pursuance of his express written license, given, with deliberation and without solicitation, upon condition that she should not look to him for support. What he consented to he cannot complain of in this suit. The execution of their agreement that she should violate their marriage contract was not a justification of his violating that contract by turning her out of doors, and refusing to support her. He can no more enforce tbe condition of his license than he could maintain an action upon her promise, or the promise of any other person, to pay him for the license a sum equal in value to a release of his obligation of support. That obligation, whatever it is, cannot be avoided by such illegal bargains. Marital rights and duties are established by law. The marriage contract may be broken by either party, with or without the consent of the other; but it cannot be rescinded or modified by them. *Cross*v. *Cross,*58 N. H. 373. The plaintiff is in no way connected with the lawless transaction. The case does not raise the question whether the husband’s duty of supporting his wife, when she is able to support herself, is, under any circumstances, in any degree, affected by modern legislation, or the question whether the obligation of support is mutual. *Harris*v. *Webster,*58 N. H. 481; 1 Parsons Contracts 350; *Walker*v. *Laighton,*31 N. H. 111; *Tebbets*v. *Hapgood,*34 N. H.*420; Morris*v. Palmer, 39 N. H. 123, 126; *Morrison*v. *Holt,*42 N. H. 478.

*Judgment for the plaintiff.*

Bingham, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
* 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. 97-40448 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARVIN RAY EASTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:96-CR-33-1

- - - - - - - - - -

December 24, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel for Marvin Ray Easter has filed a brief as required

by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there

are no meritorious issues for appeal. Easter filed a pro se

brief raising additional issues. Our independent review of the

briefs and record discloses no issue of arguable merit. 

Therefore, the motion of counsel to withdraw is GRANTED, and the

appeal is DISMISSED.
# C_2012025EN.01006101.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/61

---

Action brought on 14 November 2011 — S & S Szlegiel Szlegiel i Wiśniewski v OHIM — Scotch & Soda (SODA)

(Case T-590/11)

(2012/C 25/117)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: S & S Piotr Szlegiel Jacek Szlegiel i Robert Wiśniewski sp. j. (Gorzów Wielkopolski, Republic of Poland) (represented by: R. Sikorski, adwokat)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scotch & Soda BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 August 2011 in case R 1570/2010-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 August 2011 in case R 1570/2010-2;

| — | Reject in its entirety the opposition No B1438250; |
| --- | --- |

—

Reject in its entirety the opposition No B1438250;

| — | Order the defendant to register the trade mark applied for; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to register the trade mark applied for; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SODA’, for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No 6970875

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3593498 of the word mark ‘SCOTCH & SODA’, for goods in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed: (i) to appreciate that there were sufficient visual, aural and conceptual differences between the marks, particularly with respect to its analysis of the conceptual meanings of the marks; (ii) to properly circumscribe and analyse the dominant element of the contested signs; and (iii) to properly take into consideration the level of attention of the average consumer of the category of goods concerned.

---
#### Philander Rewey, *Respondent, v.*Matthew Riley, *Appellant.*

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion bv

Smith, P. j.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

SUSAN L. KLEIN 

v. Record No. 0739-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

JAMES L. KLEIN NOVEMBER 14, 1995 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

William R. Shelton, Judge 

 (Dana L. Gay; Duty, Duty & Gay, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 No brief for appellee. 

 Susan L. Klein (wife) appeals the decision of the circuit 

court awarding her a divorce from James L. Klein (husband) on 

no-fault grounds. Wife contends that the trial court erred in 

not granting the divorce on the grounds of husband's adultery 

and/or desertion. Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, 

we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we 

summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. 

 The trial court received evidence through depositions. A 

divorce decree based upon depositions is "'presumed correct and 

will not be overturned if supported by substantial, competent and 

credible evidence.'" Collier v. Collier, 2 Va. App. 125, 127, 

341 S.E.2d 827, 828 (1986) (citation omitted). Based upon that 

evidence, the court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

grant a divorce on the grounds of adultery. Husband and wife 

both admitted that the parties had marital problems and had 

discussed getting a divorce prior to the final separation. 

Husband testified that he and wife had agreed to separate in June 

1993. While wife alleged that husband had an adulterous 

relationship prior to the final separation, husband denied any 

pre-separation adultery. 

 Moreover, even where dual grounds for divorce exist, the 

trial judge "can use his sound discretion to select the 

appropriate grounds upon which he will grant the divorce." 

Zinkhan v. Zinkhan, 2 Va. App. 200, 210, 342 S.E.2d 658, 663 

(1986). The trial judge is not "compelled 'to give precedence to 

one proven ground of divorce over another.'" Williams v. 

Williams, 14 Va. App. 217, 220, 415 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1992) 

(citation omitted). The evidence established that the parties 

lived separate and apart for more than one year. Therefore, the 

trial court's decision was supported by substantial, credible and 

competent evidence. We cannot say the trial court abused its 

discretion in granting a divorce on no-fault grounds rather than 

on the basis of husband's alleged adultery or desertion. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                 537
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     2,677
<PP&E>                                                 184
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (19)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       3,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                2,725
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 1
<OTHER-SE>                                             318
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         3,044
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        9,431
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      19
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (9,299)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (9,299)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (9,299)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.72)



</TABLE>