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 January 5, 2008

|Filer                       | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                             
|--------------------------- | ------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|SIERRA BANCORP              | CIC           | Notice by Patricia Childress, Visalia, California, and Carol Bates, Porterville, California, to increase their holdings to 11.29 percent of Sierra Bancorp and thereby indirectly control its subsidiary, Bank of the Sierra, both of Poterville, California.                                                                            | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:01/17/2008
|Newspaper:                  | Not available
|Federal Register:           | 01/17/2008   
|WESTERN CAPITAL CORPORATION | * 3A1         | Western Capital Corporation, Boise, Idaho, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Western Capital Bank (In Organization), Boise, Idaho; and GWY, LLC, Bellevue, Washington, to become a bank holding company by indirectly acquiring, at least 64 percent of Western Capital Bank (In Organization), Boise, Idaho. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:02/01/2008
|Newspaper:                  | Not available
|Federal Register:           | 02/01/2008   

## 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)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 January 10, 2009

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location            | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|--------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|HANMI BK, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA | 657365 | 09/02/2008 | 12/22/2008     | O         | Large Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

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

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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
GRAFTON.

#### Woodman *v.*Rowe.

In a suit brought by an infant, not by his guardian or next friend, when the plaintiff has become of age since the commencement of the suit, no amendment, and no appearance of a guardian or next friend, are necessary to obviate the objection that the suit was improperly brought.

*454All the persons interested in a decedent’s estate, fairly settling it without administration, are hound by their settlement.

In Equity. The plaintiff has become of age since the .suit was brought; and it was not brought by her guradian or next friend. The plaintiff is the daughter, and the defendant is the widow, of J. A. H., who owed but one debt. That debt haying been paid by his father, the plaintiff and defendant were the only persons inter: ested in the estate, which was settled without administration by the plaintiff’s guardian and the defendant; and the bill is based, on their settlement. The defendant demurred.

*Burrows 8f*Jewell, for the defendant.

*Burleigh*Adams, for the plaintiff.

Doe, C. J.

The plaintiff’s guardian or next friend could be made a party by an amendment relating back to the commencement of the suit. But the plaintiff being now of age, an amendment is not necessary.

The parties are bound by their settlement of the estate without administration. *Hibbard*v. *Kent,*15 N. H. 516; *Clarke*v. Clay, 31 N. H. 393; *Ceorge*v. Johnson, 45 N. H. 456; *Mercer*v. Pike, 58 N. H. 286.

*Bemurrer overruled.*

Allen, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
#### Manger, Appellant, v. Grodnick, Appellee.

Employes and Employee.

An. employee who is diseharged without cause before the expiration of the term of employment is entitled to damages for the breach of ■ the contract.

*Appeal from the County Court of Arapahoe County.*

Mr. William Young, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Reed, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellee, plaintiff below, brought suit before a justice of the peace; what the judgment was is not shown by the record. An appeal was taken to the county court, where a trial was had by the court, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff for $50.00, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellant and one Gustave Fleckles formed a partnership to open and operate in Denver a place of public amusement, *535a part of the scheme being to furnish musical entertainments^ To obtain the necessary talent, negotiations were entered upon with appellee somewhere in the east, resulting in his agreeing to get together and employing, in the language of one of the firm in giving evidence, “Eight good ladies,” and bringing them to Denver at the expense of the firm. Necessary money for the expenses and .transportation was furnished by the firm, appellee was to be manager in chai-ge, employ them himself, furnish the entire troupe, including his wife and himself, at $160 or $165 per week. After arrival of the troupe a contract was made whereby appellee was to be employed six months at $15.00 per week, his wife was to receive •$25.00 per week, and the other females prices graduated from $20.00 down, but it appears that the employment of the females was to be by the week. About this time the firm was dissolved, Fleekles going out, leaving appellant sole proprietor. At' the end of the first week’s exhibitions the company was paid in full by appellant. On the Monday following, for some unexplained reason, appellant concluded to discontinue that branch of the business, and he discharged the female troupe and notified appellee that his services would no longer be required; no dissatisfaction at his services was expressed nor valid reason for his discharge. The suit was brought for damages for failure to perform the contract.

The testimony of the parties was somewhat contradictory, but there was no serious discrepancy in regard to the main facts. Several supposed errors are assigned which we have examined; none sufficiently serious to warrant interference by this court occurred.

It is clear from all the evidence that appellee was emplojmd for six months at $15.00 per week, and his wife was to have been employed from week to week for some indefinite period at $25.00 per week. At the end of the first week the business was discontinued without fault of appellee, and he found both himself and wife among strangers and out of employment. The amount found as damages ($50.00) for the breach of the contract of employment for six months does not seem *536excessive, and of his right to recover damages for the breach, where no legal or valid reason for his discharge was given, there can be no question.

The judgment will be affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
#### James B. Lewis, *Respondent, v.*James Cavanagh, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendant to answer within twenty days after notice of affirmance, on payment of costs of demurrer at Special Term and costs of appeal. Opinion by

Boardman, J.;

Landon, ¿L, taking no part.
January 7, 2014

Mr. Timothy Poole, Jr.

10300 Glen Way

Ft. Washington, MD 20744

Dear Mr. Poole:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§ 141.27(b)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your September 24, 2013, exemption request on behalf of GT Aviation, LLC into 

the public docket (No. FAA-2013-0844), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send 

your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda D. Courtney

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
#### Colby *v.*Dearborn *& a.*

Parol evidence is admissible on the question of identity of a note described in the condition of a mortgage

Writ of Entry.

Barnard, for the plaintiff.

*Hibbard,*for the defendants.

Clark, J.

Both parties claim title to the demanded premises under Kimball C. Prescott. The plaintiff’s title is derived from a *327levy founded on an attachment made June 24,1873. The defendant's are in possession, claiming title under a mortgage executed by Prescott, February 14,1873, and recorded February 20,1873, more than four months prior to the date of the plaintiff’s attachment; and therefore if the mortgage is valid, the defendants are in possession under a title prior to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff contends that the mortgage is void for uncertainty in the description of the note secured by it, the amount of the note not being stated in the condition of the mortgage. The consideration of the mortgage is $400, and the condition is the payment of a note of even date with the mortgage, payable in four months from date with interest. The court received parol evidence showing that the note intended to be secured by the mortgage was a note for $400, bearing the same date as the mortgage, and payable in four months from date with interest. This evidence was rightfully received. *Benton*v. Sumner, 57 N. H. 117; *Cushman*v. Luther, 53 N. H. 563; *Bank*v. Roberts, 38 N. H. 23; *Melvin*v. Fellows, 33 N. H. 401; *Boody*v. Davis, 20 N. H. 140. The mortgage being valid, there must be

*Judgment for the defendants.*

Bingham, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
# C_2012209EN.01000501.xml

| 14.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 7 May 2012 — Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira and Others v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.

(Case C-213/12)

2012/C 209/07

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira, Maria do Carmo Ferreira dos Santos, Rosa Fernanda Santos Ferreira

Appellants:

Respondent: Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 1(1) and Article 3 of the Second Directive, (1) read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Third Directive, (2) be interpreted as preventing national legislation from excluding any entitlement to compensation for non-financial damage for members of the driver’s family arising from the driver’s death when the accident is attributed exclusively to the driver’s fault?

1

2

---

(1)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

1

(2)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).

2

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








Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the
undersigned officer of Atrion Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to
such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.














Dated: August
      3, 2009
            /s/
      Emile A. BattatEmile A.
      BattatChief Executive
      Officer







The foregoing certification is made
solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and not for any other
purpose.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 244 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 244

     To provide for the security of critical energy infrastructure.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2009

   Mr. Gene Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for the security of critical energy infrastructure.

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

SECTION 1. EVACUATION PLAN REVIEW.

    Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Energy shall transmit to the Congress a report of the 
Secretary's review of the fuel supply plan components of State 
evacuation plans and the National Capitol region. Such report shall 
determine the sufficiency of such plans, and shall include 
recommendations for improvements thereto. Annually after the 
transmittal of a report under this section, the Secretary shall 
transmit a report to the Congress assessing plans found insufficient 
under previous reports.

SEC. 2. DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

    (a) Authority.--During any federally declared emergency or 
disaster, the Secretary of Energy may provide direct assistance to 
private sector entities that operate critical energy infrastructure, 
including refineries.
    (b) Assistance.--Assistance under this section may include 
emergency preparation and recovery assistance, including power 
generation equipment, other protective or emergency recovery equipment, 
assistance to restore access to water, power, or other raw materials, 
and transportation and housing for critical employees. The Secretary 
may request assistance from other Federal agencies in carrying out this 
section.

SEC. 3. CRITICAL ENERGY ASSURANCE ACCOUNT.

    There is established in the Treasury an account known as the 
Critical Energy Assurance Account. The Secretary of Energy shall 
deposit into this account amounts appropriated to the Secretary for the 
purpose of carrying out this Act and payments paid to the Secretary by 
any non-Federal source for the purpose of carrying out this Act. The 
Secretary may receive and accept payments from any non-Federal source, 
and amounts deposited into the account, whether appropriated or 
received from a non-Federal source, shall be available to the 
Secretary, without further appropriation, for carrying out this Act.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    The Secretary of Energy may issue regulations necessary or 
appropriate to carry out this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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 May 16, 2009

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                     | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|FIFTH THIRD BANK  | * Branch       | Application by Fifth Third Bank, Cincinnati, OH proposing to establish a temporary branch at Highland Meadows Golf Club, 7455 Erie Street, Sylvania, OH which will operate between June 29, 2009, and July 5, 2009. | Newspaper:05/21/2009Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 05/21/2009    
|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       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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 DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT’S APPEARANCE 

On August 22, 2018, the Court scheduled an in-person status conference in 

this action for September 4, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. (See Notice, ECF #436.) Defendant 

Curtis Scott is ordered to personally appear at that conference. (See id.) Through 

this order, the United States Marshals Service is authorized to use the minimum 

amount of force necessary to ensure Scott’s appearance in Court for the scheduled 

status conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: August 22, 2018 
 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on August 22, 2018, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
§ 58.05-5 Astern power. ( a ) All vessels must have sufficient power for going astern to secure proper control of the ship in all normal circumstances.
( b ) [Reserved]
[USCG-2020-0634, 89 FR 50172, June 12, 2024]
#### McIntire *v.*Evans.

When a chattel is purchased by one of two persons, the buyer holds the title against those claiming under the other, although the vendor supposed he was selling to the latter.

Replevin, for four oxen. The plaintiff claimed that he purchased the oxen of one Rogers, and let one Callahan take them. The defendant claimed that he bought them of Callahan. Subject to the plaintiff’s exception, the court instructed the jury that if Rogers understood he was selling to Callahan, the plaintiff could not recover.

*Ray, Drew Jordan,*for the plaintiff.

*Twitchell Rvans*and *Ladd $ Fletcher,*for the defendant.

Bingham, J.

If the plaintiff acquired a title from Rogers, he can recover, even though Rogers did not know he was the purchaser. If Callahan purchased the oxen as agent, the title vested in the plaintiff, although Callahan did not disclose his agency, and Rogers supposed he bought them for himself.

*Verdict set aside.*

Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
§ 32.15-5 Whistles—T/ALL. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) On tankships contracted for on and after November 19, 1955 means shall be provided to operate the whistle from a position adjacent to the main steering station and from the steering station on top of the pilothouse where such steering station is fitted. Details of the whistle operating devices shall meet the requirements of subchapter J (Electrical Engineering) of this chapter.
Note:
Appendix A in 33 CFR subchapter D contains the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16671, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15230, Apr. 8, 1982; CGD 82-036, 48 FR 654, Jan. 6, 1983]