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: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending April 22, 2006

|Filer                         | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                         | End of Comment Period                          
|----------------------------- | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|CITIZENS NATIONAL CORPORATION | * 3A3       | Citizens National Corporation, Paintsville, Kentucky, to acquire 100 percent of  the common shares of Heritage Bank of Ashland, Inc., Ashland, Kentucky | Newspaper:05/08/2006Federal Register:05/12/2006
|Newspaper:                    | 05/08/2006 
|Federal Register:             | 05/12/2006 

## 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
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 29, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29486-29487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2638]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

United States Marine Corps; Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records




AGENCY: United States Marine Corps, DoD.

ACTION:  Notice to delete three systems of records.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Marine Corps is deleting three systems of records 
notices from its inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy 
Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a).

DATES: Effective May 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, FOIA/PA 
Section (CMC-ARSE), 2 Navy Annex, Room 1005, Washington, DC 20380-1775.

[[Page 29487]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tracy D. Ross at (703) 614-4008.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Marine Corps' records system 
notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 
U.S.C. 552a) as amended, have been published in the Federal Register 
and are available from the address above.
    The U.S. Marine Corps proposes to delete three systems of records 
notices from its inventory of record systems subject to the privacy Act 
of 974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The changes to the system of 
records are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act 
of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of 
new or altered systems reports.

    Dated: May 22, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
Deletions:

System identifier:
    MMN00009

System name:
    Military Police Information System (MILPINS) (October 22, 1999, 64 
FR 57071).

Reason:
    Information is now filed under NM05580-1, Security Incident System; 
NM08370-1, Weapons Registration, NM05512-1, Vehicle Parking Permit and 
License Control System and A0040-905 DASG, Defense Privately Owned 
Animal Record Files.

System identifier:
    MMN00014

System name:
    Work Measurement Labor Distribution Cards (November 4, 1999, 64 FR 
60174).

Reason:
    Information is now filed under NM12610-1, Hours of Duty Records 
(November 16, 2004, 69 FR 67138).

System identifier:
    MMN00037

System name:
    Library Patron File (January 4, 2000, 65 FR 291).

Reason:
    Information combined in NM05070-1, Library Patron File (August 15, 
2006, 71 FR 46899).
[FR Doc. 07-2638 Filed 5-25-07 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
# C_2012138EN.01000501.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Finanzamt Köln-Nord v Wolfram Becker

(Case C-104/12)

(2012/C 138/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt Köln-Nord

Respondent to the appeal on a point of law: Wolfram Becker

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the direct and immediate link, which is regarded by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as being determinant for interpreting the term ‘for the purposes of his taxable transactions’ within the meaning of Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC, (1) to be determined:






  — | according to the objective content of the supply acquired by the taxable person (in the present case: the activity of a criminal defence lawyer with a view to preventing the conviction of a natural person); or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is the direct and immediate link, which is regarded by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as being determinant for interpreting the term ‘for the purposes of his taxable transactions’ within the meaning of Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC, (1) to be determined:

—

according to the objective content of the supply acquired by the taxable person (in the present case: the activity of a criminal defence lawyer with a view to preventing the conviction of a natural person); or

| — | according to the fact which gave rise to the supply acquired (in the present case: the economic activity of the taxable person during which a criminal act was purportedly committed by a natural person)? |
| --- | --- |

—

according to the fact which gave rise to the supply acquired (in the present case: the economic activity of the taxable person during which a criminal act was purportedly committed by a natural person)?

| 2. | If the fact which gave rise to the supply is determinant: Is a taxable person who commissions a supply together with an employee entitled to deduct input tax in full or only in part under Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC and, where a supply is acquired by several recipients, what requirements exist as to the issuing of the invoice pursuant to the fifth indent of Article 22(3)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the fact which gave rise to the supply is determinant: Is a taxable person who commissions a supply together with an employee entitled to deduct input tax in full or only in part under Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC and, where a supply is acquired by several recipients, what requirements exist as to the issuing of the invoice pursuant to the fifth indent of Article 22(3)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

---
Consent of Independent Accountants



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the registration  statements of
V-ONE  Corporation  on Form S-3  (Registration  Nos.  333-69047,  333-67625  and
333-43795)  and  on  Form  S-8  (Registration  Nos.  333-61909,   333-52909  and
333-17749) of our report dated March 11, 1999, except as to the third and fourth
sentences of the first  paragraph of Note 3 to which the date is March 31, 1999,
on our audits of the financial  statements of V-ONE  Corporation  as of December
31, 1997 and 1998 and for the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998,
which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                                /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

McLean, VA
March 30, 2000




                                 62
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 October 20, 2007

----

Banks, ForeignICICI Bank Limited, Mumbai, India  -- to establish a branch in New York, New York.  					-Approved, October 18, 2007 					

EnforcementProgress Bancshares, Inc., Sullivan, Missouri, and Progress Bank of Missouri  -- cease and desist order dated June 29, 2006, terminated September 28, 2007.					-Announced, October 15, 2007 					

FormsForms  -- final Board review to extend without revision the Studies of Board Publications (FR 1373a,b) and the disclosure requirements of Regulation CC, which implements the Expedited Funds Availability Act.   					-Approved, October 15, 2007 					

Regulations And PoliciesRegulation V  -- final interagency regulations on affiliate marketing to implement provisions of the FACT Act that restrict the use of consumer information for marketing products and services (Docket No. R-1203).                                                               					-Approved, October 17, 2007 					

Testimony And StatementsCommunity Reinvestment Act and its Enforcement  -- statement by Sandra Braunstein, Director, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, before the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on October 24, 2007.					-Reviewed, October 18, 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: October 25, 2007
#### § 42.05-1 Approved.

This term means approved by the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, unless otherwise stated.

[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10051, July 12, 1968]
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 July 28, 2007

|Filer                                       | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  | End of Comment Period                                  
|------------------------------------------- | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|PACIFIC COMMERCE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | Member         | Pacific Commerce Bank, N.A., Los Angeles, California, to become a member of the Federal Reserve System.                                                                                                                                                                          | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                                  | Not applicable
|Federal Register:                           | Not applicable
|W.T.B. FINANCIAL CORPORATION                | 4c8            | W.T.B. Financial Corporation, Spokane, Washington, to retroactively acquire shares of IT-Lifeline, Inc., Liberty Lake, Washington; NextSentry Corporation, Spokane, Washington; and Lewis Investors, LLC, Seattle, Washington, pursuant to section 225.23(a)(1) of Regulation Y. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                                  | Not applicable
|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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

July 24, 2012

s0716

Order 

July 24, 2012

144976

ARTHUR BOGAN,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 144976

AGC: 0213-11

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/

On the order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, 

and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the 

requested relief.
# C_2012025EN.01004101.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/41

---

Appeal brought on 24 November 2011 by Omnicare, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-290/09: Omnicare, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Astellas Pharma GmbH

(Case C-588/11 P)

(2012/C 25/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Omnicare, Inc. (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Astellas Pharma GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant seeks an Order that the judgment under appeal be annulled. Further, the Appellant seeks an Order for its costs of this appeal and before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant relies upon a single plea in law, namely that the General Court wrongly applied Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) (the ‘New Regulation’). This case involves an opposition brought by Astellas Pharma GmbH (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH) (the ‘Opponent’) based upon the Opponent's German trade mark registration No 394 01348 and an allegation of the existence of confusion pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (2) (‘the Old Regulation’) (but which is identical to the pertinent parts of the New Regulation). As the earlier mark had been registered for more than five years before the Opposition was commenced, it was necessary for the Opponent to prove that the mark has been put to genuine use in order for it to be used as a basis for the Opposition.

It is submitted that the General Court wrongly held that the earlier trade mark upon which the Opponent relied had, as a matter of law, been put to genuine use. It is not disputed that the mark in question had actually been used in the course of trade by or with the consent of the Opponent in relation to the services for which it was registered. However, that use was in relation to the provision of services for which no charge was levied. Accordingly, as a matter of law, such use cannot be invoked to establish that the mark had been put to genuine use. This point has been the subject of some case law, which the Appellant submits (a) was mis-applied by the General Court, and (b) is inconsistent in any event. Accordingly, the matter of the legal consequences that ought to be drawn in such a factual scenario needs to be resolved by this Court.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, p. 1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 11, p. 1

---
#### City Block Directory Company, Appellant, v. App et al., Appellees.

1. Pbactice — Excusable Neglect.

It is provided by tlie code that the court may, on such terms as may be just, and upon payment of costs, relieve a party from a judgment, order or other proceeding taken against him through mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.

2. Same.

Neglect which arises from reliance placed by a party upon assurances *351given Mm by opposing counsel is excusable within tbe meaning of tbe law.

*Appeal from the District Court of Arapahoe County.*

Messrs. Buford & Griffith, for appellant.

Mr. E. E. Schlosser and Mr. H. W. Spangler, for appellees.

Thomson, J.,

delivered, the opinion of the court.

App & Stott brought suit against one Robert Stride, who made default, and judgment went against him. A writ of garnishment was issued upon the judgment, and served upon the City Block Directory Company, against which judgment was entered for want of an answer. The company moved the court to vacate the judgment, and the motion was denied. The company appealed. The ground of the motion was that the company was misled into the default by the plaintiffs’ counsel. Affidavits were filed in support of the motion, and counter affidavits against it. It appears that on the day of the service of the garnishment, Elisha Proctor, the secretary of the company, prepared and verified an answer, denying any indebtedness to Stride. In his affidavit he states that soon after its preparation he showed the answer to E. E. Sehlosser, the attorney of plaintiffs, who represented to him that it was unnecessary to file it, as it showed that the company owed Stride nothing; and that, accordingly,relyingupon Schlosser’s representation of the want of necessity for filing the answer, he did not do so. E. J. Miller, W. J. Winters and H. W. Hilton each made affidavit to a conversation between Miller and Schlosser, in which Miller asked Schlosser how he happened to get a judgment against the company, to which he replied that he had fixed up a trap, and the company fell into it. The original answer, verified as stated by Proctor, was also introduced. Schlosser, in opposition to the motion, made affidavit giving a somewhat different version of the con ver*352sations with Proctor and Miller, but upon the question whether the company was misled by him to its prejudice, the affidavit is not very satisfactory. It is provided by section 75 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the court may on such terms as maj>- be just, and upon payment of costs, relieve a party or his legal representatives from a judgment, order, or other proceeding taken against him through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Neglect which arises from reliance placed by a party upon assurances given him by the opposing counsel, is excusable within the meaning of the law; and we think the showing made in this instance required the court, in furtherance of justice, to set aside the judgment, permit the answer to be filed, and proceed to a hearing of the ease upon its merits. The judgment is accordingly reversed

*Reversed.*
32.1
            CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350.




I,
Timothy G. Byrd, Sr., the Chief Executive Officer of Adino Energy Corporation,
hereby certify that to my knowledge, Adino Energy Corporation’s quarterly report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the periodic report on Form 10-Q and the
financial statements contained therein fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of Adino Energy
Corporation.




Date: May
14, 2010





/s/
      Timothy G. Byrd, Sr.Timothy
      G. Byrd, Sr.
§ 26.15-1 May board at any time. ( a ) To facilitate the boarding of vessels by the commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard in the exercise of their authority, every uninspected vessel, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(43), if underway and upon being hailed by a Coast Guard vessel, must stop immediately and lay to, or must maneuver in such a way to permit the Coast Guard boarding officer to come aboard. Failure to permit a Coast Guard boarding officer to board a vessel or refusal to comply will subject the operator or owner of the vessel to the penalties provided in law.
( b ) Coast Guard boarding vessels will be identified by the display of the Coast Guard ensign as a symbol of authority and the Coast Guard personnel will be dressed in Coast Guard uniform. The Coast Guard boarding officer upon boarding a vessel will identify himself to the master, owner, or operator and explain his mission.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16656, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 72-132R, 38 FR 5750, Mar. 2, 1973; CGD 95-027, 61 FR 25997, May 23, 1996]
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 June 14, 2008

----

EnforcementANB Bancshares, Inc., Rogers, Arkansas  -- written agreement dated January 29, 2008, terminated June 5, 2008.					-Announced, June 9, 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: June 19, 2008