alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 502.319 Date of service and computation of time. ( a ) The date of service of documents served by the Commission will be the date shown in the service stamp placed on the first page of the document. The date of service of documents served by parties will be the date when the document served is transmitted by email, deposited in the United States mail, delivered to a courier, or delivered in person. If service is made by more than one method, for example email and also U.S. mail service, the date of service will be the earlier of the two actions. In computing the time from such dates, the provisions of § 502.101 shall apply. [Rule 319.]
( b ) In computing any time period prescribed or allowed under the rules in this Part, the period begins on the day following the act, event, or default that triggers the period and includes the last day of the time period. If the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, the time period continues to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday. If the presiding officer prescribes or allows an act, event, or default by reference to a specific date, that date will govern. If the Commission's offices are inaccessible on the last day for a filing, the time for filing is extended to the first accessible day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday.
[80 FR 57307, Sept. 23, 2015]
§ 4.04-1 Reports of potential vessel casualty. A vessel owner, charterer, managing operator or agent shall immediately notify either of the following Coast Guard officers if there is reason to believe a vessel is lost or imperiled. ( a ) The Coast Guard district rescue coordination center (RCC) cognizant over the area the vessel was last operating in; or
( b ) The Coast Guard search and rescue authority nearest to where the vessel was last operating.
Reasons for belief that a vessel is in distress include, but are not limited to, lack of communication with or nonappearance of the vessel.
EXHIBIT 21       



                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



     The Partnership is a joint venture partner in JMB/Landings
Associates, a general partnership which holds title to The Landings
Shopping Center, located in Sarasota, Florida.

      The Partnership is a joint venture partner in CIP/Ashby
Partners, a general partnership which held title to The Ashby at
McLean Apartments, located in McLean, Virginia.

     The Partnership is a stockholder in the 1225 Investment
Corporation, a corporation which holds title to the 1225
Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Office Building located in Washington,
D.C.

<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4515

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GARY NIEL HOOD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:08-cr-00257-FDW-1)

Submitted: March 21, 2012 Decided: April 4, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angela G. Parrott, Director, Erin K. Taylor, Ross H. Richardson, 

FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States 

Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Niel Hood pled guilty to carjacking, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2119 (2006); using a firearm in commission of a carjacking, 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006); and possessing a firearm after having 

been convicted of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). On 

appeal, he argues that the district court imposed improper 

conditions of supervised release. We affirm.

The contested conditions of supervised release include 

psycho-sexual evaluations, psychological testing, possible sexoffender treatment, and a ban against possessing child 

pornography and simulated child pornography. Because 

“[d]istrict courts have broad latitude to impose conditions on 

supervised release,” we review such conditions only for abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 

2009). The sentencing court may impose any condition that is 

reasonably related to the relevant statutory sentencing factors. 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006); Armel, 585 F.3d at 186.

In light of the broad discretion afforded district 

courts in the imposition of supervised release conditions and in 

light of Hood’s particular criminal history, we find that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 

challenged conditions of supervised release.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### John V. and Fred V. Hughes v. The State.

*No. 6684.*

*Decided May 3.*

Scire Facias.—In answer to citation to show cause why judgment *nisi*should not "be made final, the sureties on a bail bond pleaded the surrender of their principal to the sheriff prior to the forfeiture of the bond. The State filed a general exception to this plea, which was sustained by the court. *Held,*error. The plea presented a valid defense, and if supported by proof would defeat a recovery on the bond by the State.

Appeal from the County Court of Dallas. Tried below before Hon. E. G. Bower, County Judge.

The judgment was on the forfeiture of the appearance bond of Frederick Juniper. The amount of the bond and judgment was $200.

*William Thompson,*for appellants.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment final upon a forfeited bail bond. Appellants, who are the sureties upon said bail bond, in answer to the citations to show cause why the judgment *nisi*rendered against them should not be made final, among other defenses pleaded that prior to the forfeiture of said bail bond they surrendered their principal into the custody of the sheriff of Dallas County, and notified said sheriff that they desired to be released from further liability on said bond, etc.

A general exception to said plea was sustained, and this action of the court is assigned as error.

It is provided that “those who have become bail for the accused, or either of them, may at any time relieve themselves of their undertaking by surrendering the accused into the custody of the sheriff of the county where he is prosecuted.” Code Crim. Proc., art. 297.

Appellants’ plea of the surrender of their principal was a valid defense and should have been entertained. If the allegations therein relating to the surrender are sustained by evidence, appellants, under the statute quoted, must be released from liability upon the bail bond.

As to other assignments of error, they are not maintainable.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*

Judges all present and concurring.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending December 9, 2006

|Filer                | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                 | End of Comment Period                                 
|-------------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|MAINSTREET BANK      | * Branch       | MainStreet Bank, Herndon, Virginia, propose to establish a branch at 4029 Chain Bridge Road, Fairfax, Virginia. | Newspaper:12/16/2006Federal Register:Not applicable   
|Newspaper:           | 12/16/2006    
|Federal Register:    | Not applicable
|ROYAL BANK OF CANADA | FBSEA          | Royal Bank of Canada, Montreal, Canada, to establish a state-licensed agency in Houston, Texas.                 | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:           | Not available 
|Federal Register:    | Not applicable
|SECOND BANK & TRUST  | * 18C* Branch  | Second Bank & Trust, Culpeper, Virginia, to merge with Virginia Heartland Bank, Fredericksburg, Virginia.       | Newspaper:01/10/2007Federal Register:Not applicable   
|Newspaper:           | 01/10/2007    
|Federal Register:    | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK , NC 27711 November 13, 2014 OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PU\NNING AND STANDARDS
MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: FROM: TO: Incorporation ofthe I tegrated Science Assessment for Ozone Docket (EPA-HQORD-2011-0050) I Kelly D. Brown ,-, Health and En$1 r n Rulemaking Docket · r 1e Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone ( A-HQ-OAR-2008-0699) Materials contained in the docket for the Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone (EPA-HQORD-2011-0050) are hereby incorporated by reference into the docket for the Review ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699).

Internet Address (URL) • http ://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed

**w~h** Vegetable Oil Based Ink s on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25 % Postconsume r)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8597
GEORGE E. TURNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-3343-21BD) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George E. Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent thata certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v. Johnson , No. CA-94-3343-21BD (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 11

                             THE VINCAM GROUP, INC.
                      CALCULATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON
                          AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE

                                      1994         1995             1996
                                   ----------   ----------       ----------

Net income                         $1,799,950   $  809,837       $3,585,976
                                   ==========   ==========       ========== 
Weighted average number of 
 common shares outstanding during 
 the year.........................  6,249,341    5,086,288        6,839,893

Assumed exercise of stock options, 
 net of treasury shares acquired..    460,316      460,316          516,164

Issuance of mandatorily redeemable 
 preferred stock deemed a common 
 stock equivalent.................       --        927,414          454,754
                                   ----------    ---------       ----------

Weighted average number of shares 
 used in earnings per share 
 calculations.....................  6,709,657    6,474,018        7,810,811
                                   ==========   ==========       ==========

Net income per common and common
 equivalent share................. $     0.27   $     0.13       $     0.46
                                   ==========   ==========       ==========
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>   0000827086
<NAME>  CARLYLE INCOME PLUS, L.P. - II


<S>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>        DEC-31-1997

<CASH>                         2,980,988
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                     12,906
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               2,993,894
<PP&E>                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                29,020,192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             49,212
<BONDS>                                0
<COMMON>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                    28,970,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  29,020,192
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 190,289
<CGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 286,801
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (96,512)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            2,315,269
<DISCONTINUED>                   969,419
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                   3,284,688
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      49.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                      49.15


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
WORLDTALK COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION                              EXHIBIT 23.01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Worldtalk Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-3510) on Form S-8 of Worldtalk Corporation of our report dated February 4,
1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Worldtalk Corporation and
subsidiary as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for
each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 1996, and the
related schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1996 annual report
on Form 10-K of Worldtalk Corporation.



KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
San Jose, California
March 27, 1997
#### Maria A. Lewis, *Appellant, v.*Clinton F. Paige, *Respondent.*

Motion for new trial denied. Judgment for defendant on verdict. Mem. by

Bockes, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1478 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1478

 To provide for adequate funding for the Savings Association Insurance 
                     Fund, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 7, 1995

 Mr. LaFalce introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Banking and Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for adequate funding for the Savings Association Insurance 
                     Fund, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Savings Association Insurance Fund 
Recapitalization Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF RTC FUNDS TO RECAPITALIZE SAIF.

    (a) In General.--Section 11(a)(6)(F) of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(6)(F)) is amended in the provisions of 
such subparagraph preceding clause (i)--
            (1) by inserting ``to carry out the purposes of this Act'' 
        after ``as needed by the Fund''; and
            (2) by inserting a period after ``not needed by the 
        Resolution Trust Corporation'' and striking everything that 
        follows through the end of the subparagraph.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 11(a)(6)(K) of the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(6)(K)) is amended by 
striking ``to cover losses incurred by the Fund'' and inserting ``to 
carry out the purposes of this Act''.

SEC. 3. FICO PAYMENTS BY ALL FDIC-INSURED DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS.

    Section 21(f)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 
1441(f)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in the portion of such paragraph preceding subparagraph 
        (A)--
                    (A) by striking ``each Savings Association 
                Insurance Fund member'' and inserting ``each insured 
                depository institution (as defined in section 3(c)(2) 
                of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act)''; and
                    (B) by striking ``such member'' and inserting 
                ``such institution''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Savings Association 
        Insurance Fund members'' and inserting ``insured depository 
        institutions''.

SEC. 4. REPEAL OF MINIMUM SAIF ASSESSMENT RULE.

    Section 7(b)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(b)(2)) is amended by striking subparagraph (E).
                                 <all>
```
# C_2011347EN.01003302.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/33

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case T-346/11 R)

(Interim measures - Waiving of the immunity of a member of the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency)

2011/C 347/57

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: G. Dubois, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, D. Moore and K. Zejdová, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 waiving the applicant’s immunity.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

APTIV SERVICES 5 US, LLC, Appellant

v.

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY , INC.,
Cross

- Appellant

______________________

2019

- 1537, 2019

- 1538, 2019

- 1601, 2019

- 1603

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s . IPR2017

- 00861, IPR2017

- 00864.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

S COTT A NTHONY M C K EOWN

, Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by

D OUGLAS H ALLWARD

- D RIEMEIER ; J AMES L AWRENCE D AVIS

, J R

., H ENRY H UANG , East Palo Alto, CA.

B RIAN C. B ANNER

, Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC, Austin, TX, argued for cross

- appellant. Also represented by

B RUCE W. S LAYDEN

, II

.

______________________ Case: 19-1537 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 03/05/2020T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE

, M OORE

, and C HEN

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 5, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 19-1537 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 03/05/2020