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 February 3, 2007

|Filer                   | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------------- | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|BUSINESS BANK OF NEVADA | * Branch       | Business Bank of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, to establish a branch facility at 10801 W. Charleston Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada.                                                                                                           | Newspaper:01/31/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:              | 01/31/2007    
|Federal Register:       | Not applicable
|SKAGIT STATE BANCORP    | CIC            | Notice by Bishop Limited Partnership, Burlington, Washington, to increase its ownership to 10.08 percent of Skagit State Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly control its subsidiary, Skagit State Bank, both of Burlington, Washington. | Newspaper:02/14/2007Federal Register:02/20/2007    
|Newspaper:              | 02/14/2007    
|Federal Register:       | 02/20/2007    

## 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
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 August 4, 2007

----

EnforcementMid America Bank and Trust Company, Dixon, Missouri  -- issuance of a consent order of prohibition against Richard N. DeLong, a former institution-affiliated party.					-Announced, August 2, 2007 					Texas State Bank, McAllen, Texas  -- written agreement dated April 25, 2006, terminated July 2, 2007.					-Announced, July 31, 2007 					

Regulations And PoliciesCredit Scoring  -- report to the Congress on credit scoring and its effects on the availability and affordability of credit.					-Approved, August 2, 2007 					Subprime Lending  -- publication for comment of interagency proposed illustrations of consumer information for subprime mortgage products (Docket No. OP-1292).					-Approved, July 31, 2007 					

Reserve Bank OperationsFederal Reserve Bank of Chicago  -- appointment of Charles L. Evans as President, effective September 1, 2007.					-Approved, July 30, 2007 					

Testimony And StatementsRenomination of Governor Kroszner  -- statement by Governor Kroszner before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on his nomination to a full term as a member of the Board.					-Published, August 2, 2007 					

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: August 9, 2007
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: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending August 19, 2006

|Filer                     | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                             
|------------------------- | ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|INDUSTRY BANCSHARES, INC. | * 3A3         | Industry Bancshares, Inc., Industry, Texas, and Industry Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, to acquire 100 percent of Community Bancorporation, Inc., Bellville, Texas, and indirectly acquire Bellville Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, and First National Bank of Bellville, Bellville, Texas. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:09/15/2006
|Newspaper:                | Not available
|Federal Register:         | 09/15/2006   

## 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
----

**Equal HousingOpportunities in New York:An Evaluation of Section 8 Housing Programsin Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse  **

**New York StateAdvisory Committee to theU.S. Commission on Civil Rights **

**October****1999****  **

This factfindingreport of the New York Advisory Committee to the United States Commission onCivil Rights was prepared for the information and consideration of theCommission. Statements and viewpoints in the report should not be attributed tothe Commission, but only to the participants at the factfinding meetings, otherindividuals or documents cited, or the Advisory Committee.    **  **

----

**Contents**

Commission Information

Transmittal Letter

New York Advisory Committee Members

Introduction

Chapter 1: Background

Chapter 2: Barriers to Fair Housing

Chapter 3: Oversight of Local Housing Authorities

Chapter 4: Recent Changes to Section 8 Program

Chapter 5: Section 8 Housing in the Buffalo Area

Chapter 6: Section 8 Housing in the Rochester Area

Chapter 7: Section 8 Housing in the Syracuse Area

Chapter 8: Findings and Recommendations
See harvested materials for lps2110 for all materials from http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/PopulationStatus.html
#### FREDERICK ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ELECTRIC LAUNDRY COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted January 26, 1929

Decided June 28, 1929.

Before Justices Teen chard, Kalisch and Lloyd.

For the appellant, *Pilgrim & Riiger (Frederick J. Bilger,*of counsel).

For the appellee, *Edward M.*and *Runyan Colie (Frederick R.*Colie, of counsel).

Pee Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of the city of Orange. There was a judgment for the plaintiff entered upon the verdict of a jury, and the defendant appeals.

The plaintiff sued to recover for damage done to his Buick car by the defendant’s automobile in the course of reckless and careless driving by the driver of the defendant’s car.

The first reason assigned for reversal is that “the District Court erred in giving judgment to the plaintiff instead of the defendant.” There is no merit in this. The case was tried before a jury and the judgment followed as a matter of course upon the verdict, and we perceive nothing wrong with such judgment.

The second reason is that the judge erred in refusing to nonsuit on the ground that (1) “there was no legal evidence of the kind of damages,” and *(2)*“there was no legal evidence of the amount of damages.”

*568We think this point is without merit. There was certainly some evidence of the kind of damages. It tended to show that defendant’s car crashed into plaintiff’s car necessitating repairs for which plaintiff paid $325. We think that was some evidence of the amount of damages which certainly precluded a nonsuit.

The third reason is that the judge “admitted testimony of the plaintiff as to the value of his automobile before the accident, over objection of the defendant that such testimony was incompetent without proper evidence of the condition of the car at the time of the accident and that plaintiff was not qualified to give his opinion.”

We think there is no merit in this point. The plaintiff testified that his car was new in 1927 and was in good condition at the time of the accident. He testified that in his opinion $1,800 was the value of the car before the accident. That testimony was competent. *Teets*v. *Hahn,*6 *N. J. Adv. R.*491.

The fourth and last reason is that the court “admitted plaintiff’s testimony as to the value of his automobile after the accident over the objection of the defendant that such testimony was incompetent and inadmissible because there was no evidence of the actual damages and that plaintiff was not qualified to give his opinion of such value without evidence of the kind of damages.”

We think there is no merit in this. We have pointed out that there was evidence of actual damages, and it was competent for the plaintiff to testify as to the value of the car after the accident. *Teets*v. *Hahn, supra.*Under that case it was not necessary that the plaintiff be qualified as an expert.

The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.
Order entered July 31 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 0101 4 - CV IN RE REGINALD NOBLE , Relator On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F00 - 50025 - K 

### O RDER Ba sed on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 1 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 2 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 3 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 4 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 5 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 6 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 7 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 8 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 9 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 10 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 11 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 12 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 13 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 14 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 15 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 16 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 17 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 18 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 19 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 20 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 21 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 22 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 23 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 24 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 25 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 26 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 27 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 28 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 29 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 30 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 31 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 32 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 33 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 34 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 35 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 36 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 37 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 38 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 39 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 40 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 41 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 42 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 43 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR Document 17 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 44 of 44
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2437 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2437

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the employer wage 
   credit for employees who are active duty members of the uniformed 
                               services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2009

  Ms. Kosmas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the employer wage 
   credit for employees who are active duty members of the uniformed 
                               services.

    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 ``Employing America's Heroes Tax 
Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EMPLOYER WAGE CREDIT FOR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ACTIVE 
              DUTY MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.

    Subsection (f) of section 45P of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 
31, 2010''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 31.05-5 Posting the certificate of inspection—TB/ALL.

The certificate of inspection shall be framed under glass and posted in a conspicuous part of the vessel, except that where it is not practicable to so expose the certificate of inspection it shall be carried in the vessel in such manner as authorized by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Excite,
Inc.,s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,971
<SECURITIES>                                    18,359
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,765
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (425)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,740
<PP&E>                                          10,586
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,392)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,616
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,816
<COMMON>                                        59,999
<OTHER-SE>                                    (50,718)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,698
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,757
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,149
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                54,726
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 409
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (43,117)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (43,117)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (43,117)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.65)


</TABLE>
#### JAMES HANCE AND SUSAN HANCE, HIS WIFE, PROSECUTORS, v. CITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Submitted May term, 1929

Decided July 3, 1929.

Before Justices Tkenchakd, Lloyd and Case.

Por the prosecutors, *Walter H. Bacon, Jr.*

Por the defendants, *Thomas H. Hagerty (Russell E. Watson,*of counsel).

*611Pee Ctjeiam.

Prosecutors apply for a writ of *certiorari*to set aside a tax sale of their property in New Brunswick. They are purchasers of the property from one Weller, who in turn was the purchaser from the United States Housing Corporation (an agency of the United States government), under an agreement of sale. The Weller agreement was made on February 11th, 1920, and Weller’s interest was purchased by the prosecutors March 27th, 1923. Since the transfer to the prosecutors they have been in possession and enjoying the property, together with the incidental protection afforded by a city government. This contract called for payment of the purchase price in installments, and these installments were paid as they fell due. From 1921 to 1927 the property was assessed for taxes, and the same remaining unpaid, the sale above mentioned resulted.

There is no attack on the regularity of the proceedings incident to the sale, but it is contended that the interest of the prosecutors is not subject to taxation by the city inasmuch as the title to the property still remains in the federal agency, and will continue to so remain until the last installment of the purchase price under the agreement is paid and a deed delivered to the prosecutors.

We find no legal support for this contention. The status of the property for purposes of municipal taxation has been clearly defined by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of *New Brunswick*v. *United States,*276 *U. S.*547, and it is to the effect that the city may, in so far as federal rights are concerned, “assess the taxes against the purchasers upon the entire value of the lots and enforce collection thereof by sale of their interest in the property.” It was further held that such sale could not affect the interest of the Housing Corporation consisting of the unpaid portion of the purchase price, as to which the corporation stood in the relation of a mortgagee.

The situation is therefore that the tax sale effects a transfer of the property to the purchaser, subject to the interest *612yet remaining in the Housing Corporation, which interest is not subject to taxation. This results from the immunity of federal property from state taxation, under the federal constitution, and hence a fee is conveyed to the purchasers as required by state laws, subject to the paramount claim held by the Housing Corporation, which in the opinion cited is likened to that of a mortgage.

On meritorious grounds, therefore, the writ of *certiorari*should be denied. It appears, however, by the stipulation of facts submitted in the present .ease, that this is the fourth attempt to raise this question, either by a like application to this court, or to its indivdual members, all of which applications have been refused. Eor this additional reason we think the writ should mot issue, and it is therefore denied.
#### Walter M. Brown, Respondent, *v.*The Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Mem. by

Learned, P. J.'
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: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending October 21, 2006

|Filer             | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                     | End of Comment Period                             
|----------------- | ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|HIGHER ONE, INC   | 4c8* 3A1      | Higher One, Inc., New Haven, Connecticut - to become a bank holding company pursuant to section 3(a)(1) of the BHC Act in connection with the formation of Higher One Bank, New Haven, Connecticut. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:11/13/2006
|Newspaper:        | Not available
|Federal Register: | 11/13/2006   

## 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