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: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending July 12, 2008

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                  | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|FIRST BANK        | * Branch       | First Bank, Creve Coeur, Missouri, to establish a branch facility to be located at 6851 Lonetree Boulevard, Rocklin, California. | Newspaper:07/25/2008Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 07/25/2008    
|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
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 101 (Friday, May 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29360-29361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2644]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of 
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

Time and Date: June 11, 2007, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, 
and June 12, 2007, 8 a.m. to 12 noon, Eastern Daylight Time.

Place: This meeting will take place at the Hilton Indianapolis, located 
at 120 West Market Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

Status: Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board 
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and 
implementing

[[Page 29361]]

the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, 
may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified 
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

    Dated: May 22, 2007.
William A. Quade,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 07-2644 Filed 5-23-07; 1:26 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00023-CV

__________________

ROBIN ROUSE, SABRINA ROUSE, AND NEIL CAMPBELL, ET AL, 

Appellants

V.

THOMAS CAMPBELL, FOSTER MANAGEMENT, LLC, FOSTER 

TIMBER, LTD., AND CHRISTY W. KOLVA, Appellees

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 18-12-15871-CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Neil Campbell filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. The motion 

appears to be voluntarily made by Campbell, and it was filed prior to any decision 

of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion to dismiss and 

dismiss the appeal of Neil Campbell. The appeal shall continue as to the remaining 

appellants under the same appellate cause number and shall hereafter be styled 
2

“Robin Rouse and Sabrina Rouse v. Thomas Campbell, Foster Management, LLC, 

Foster Timber, LTD., and Christy W. Kolva.”

APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.

 PER CURIAM

Submitted July 14, 2021

Opinion Delivered July 15, 2021

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
2:15-cv-11916-AC-MKM Doc # 18 Filed 09/26/16 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 589
2:15-cv-11916-AC-MKM Doc # 18 Filed 09/26/16 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 590
2:15-cv-11916-AC-MKM Doc # 18 Filed 09/26/16 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 591
2:15-cv-11916-AC-MKM Doc # 18 Filed 09/26/16 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 592
2:15-cv-11916-AC-MKM Doc # 18 Filed 09/26/16 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 593
2:15-cv-11916-AC-MKM Doc # 18 Filed 09/26/16 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 594
2:15-cv-11916-AC-MKM Doc # 18 Filed 09/26/16 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 595
§ 195.35-20 Spare charges. ( a ) A complete recharge shall be carried for each self-contained breathing apparatus, and a complete set of spare batteries shall be carried for each flashlight. The spares shall be stowed in the same location as the equipment it is to reactivate.
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 August 9, 2008

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------
|FIFTH THIRD BANK  | * Branch       | Fifth Third Bank, Grand Rapids, MI to establish a branch at 8013 West Florissant Avenue, Jennings, MO. | Newspaper:08/05/2008Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 08/05/2008    
|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
§ 50.05-10 Alterations or repairs. ( a ) When alteration or repair of boilers, pressure vessels, machinery, safety valves or piping systems becomes necessary, the work must be done under the cognizance of the Officer in Charge Marine Inspection. It must be done in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time such vessel or installation was contracted for or built (whichever is latest), or in accordance with the regulations in effect for new construction.
( b ) When alterations or repairs are made to a U.S. flag vessel in a port or place not in the United States, a notice containing details of the proposed alterations or repairs must be submitted to the appropriate Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18808, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by CGD 73-251, 43 FR 56799, Dec. 4, 1978]
1

 Prejudgment interest in a patent case is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 284 and the

case law relating thereto, a point unfortunately not fully appreciated by the parties in

their papers. See generally, Herbert F. Schwartz, Patent Law and Practice, §8.VI. (5th

Ed. 2006).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SUNDANCE, INC., and

MERLOT TARPAULIN AND SIDEKIT

MFG. CO., INC.,

Plaintiffs,

-vsDE MONTE FABRICATING, LTD.;

QUICK DRAW TARPAULIN SYSTEMS,

INC. and WALTER DE MONTE,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 02-73543

Hon: AVERN COHN

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST

I.

This is a patent case. On May 21, 2007, a jury awarded plaintiffs damages for

defendants’ infringement as follows:

September 4, 1996 to December 31, 2001: $259,958.10

January 1, 2002 to January 31, 2007: $904,488.60

A partial judgment in plaintiffs favor in the amount of the awards was entered on May

21, 2007. 

Now before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion for Prejudgment Interest Under 35

U.S.C. §284.1 For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted. 
2

II.

The Court has considered the award of prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C. §

284 and has exercised its discretion to require only simple interest. See Bott v. Four

Star Corp., 229 U.S.P.Q. 241, 250 (E.D. Mich.1985), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 807

F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (awarding prejudgment interest at the prime rate plus onehalf (1/2%) percent for each of the years in which infringing sales were made at simple

interest. The Court has adhered to this formula over the years; see also Order on

Prejudgment Interest entered August 14, 2000 in Vulcan Engineering Co., Inc. v. Fata

Aluminum, Inc., Case No. 98-74495 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (Exhibit A attached). Likewise,

plaintiffs here are entitled to prejudgment interest from the date suit was filed to the date

of the partial judgment referenced above at the prime rate plus one-half (1/2%) percent

simple interest computed annually. The parties should be able to reach agreement on

the actual amount. If they are unable to agree, plaintiffs shall present an appropriate

order and notice. 

It would be unreasonable, however, to award plaintiffs prejudgment interest on

the damages awarded for infringing sales prior to the date they filed suit in this Court. 

The Court is mindful of the impact of the award of prejudgment interest on defendants’

financial condition. This condition, however, is not a basis for denying plaintiffs any

prejudgment interest. Further, there is no justification for withholding an award of

prejudgment interest.
3

III.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for prejudgment interest is GRANTED, as limited

above.

SO ORDERED.

 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 12, 2007

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of

record on this date, September 12, 2007, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160
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 August 2, 2008

|Filer                  | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | End of Comment Period                                
|---------------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------
|Campello Bancorp, Inc. | 4c8* 3A1      | Campello Bancorp, Inc., Brockton, Massachusetts to acquire, pursuant to section 3(a)(1) of the BHC Act, 100% of the voting shares of The Community Bank, A Massachusetts Co-operative Bank, Brockton, Massachusetts in connection with the conversion of Campello Bancorp, Brockton, Massachusetts from mutual to stock form.                                | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:             | Not available
|Federal Register:      | Not available
|WEBFIVE MHC            | * 3A1* 3A3    | Application by WebFive, MHC and WebFive Financial Services, Inc., both of Webster, Massachusetts - to become a mutual bank holding company and stock bank holding company, respectively, by acquiring Webster Five Cents Savings Bank, Webster, Massachusetts, pursuant to sections 3(a)(1) and 3(a)(3) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:08/15/2008   
|Newspaper:             | Not available
|Federal Register:      | 08/15/2008   

## 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       

* 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
§ 42.20-11 Extent of damage. When doing the calculations required by §§ 42.20-6(a), 42.20-7(a) and 42.20-8(a), the following must be assumed: ( a ) The vertical extent of damage in all cases must be assumed to be from the baseline upward without limit.
( b ) The transverse extent of damage is assumed to be equal to B/5 or 11.5 meters (37.7 feet), whichever is less. The transverse extent is measured inboard from the side of the ship perpendicularly to the center line at the level of the summer load waterline.
( c ) If damage of a lesser extent than that specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section results in a more severe condition, the lesser extent must be assumed.
( d ) The following assumptions apply to the transverse damage specified in paragraph (b) of this section for a stepped or recessed bulkhead: ( 1 ) A transverse watertight bulkhead that has a step or recess located within the transverse extent of assumed damage may be considered intact if the step or recess is not more than 3.05 meters (10 feet) in length.
( 2 ) If a transverse watertight bulkhead has a step or recess of more than 3.05 meters (10 feet) in length, within the transverse extent of assumed damage, the two compartments adjacent to this bulkhead must be considered as flooded.
( 3 ) If within the transverse extent of damage, a transverse bulkhead has a step or recess more than 3.05 meters (10 feet) in length that coincides with the double bottom tank top or the inner boundary of a wing tank, respectively, all adjacent compartments within the transverse extent of assumed damage must be considered to be flooded simultaneously.
( e ) If a wing tank has openings into adjacent compartments, the wing tank and adjacent compartments must be considered as one compartment. This provision applies even where these openings are fitted with closing appliances except: ( 1 ) Valves fitted in bulkheads between tanks which are controlled from above the bulkhead deck.
( 2 ) Secured manhole covers fitted with closely spaced bolts.
( f ) Only transverse watertight bulkheads that are spaced apart at least 1 ⁄ 3(L) 2 ⁄ 3 or 14.5 meters (0.495(L) 2 ⁄ 3 or 47.6 feet), whichever is less, may be considered effective. If transverse bulkheads are closer together, then one or more of these bulkheads must be assumed to be non-existent in order to achieve the minimum spacing between bulkheads.
[CGD 79-153, 48 FR 38649, Aug. 25, 1983]
§ 42.25-10 Construction of vessel. ( a ) *Superstructure.* ( 1 ) Vessels, shall have a forecastle of at least standard height and a length of at least 0.07*L.* In addition, if the vessel is less than 328 feet in length, a poop of at least standard height, or a raised quarter deck with either a deckhouse or a strong steel hood of at least the same total height shall be fitted aft.
( b ) *Double bottom tanks.* ( 1 ) Double bottom tanks where fitted within the midship half length of the vessel shall have adequate watertight longitudinal subdivision.
( c ) *Bulwarks.* ( 1 ) The vessel shall be fitted either with permanent bulwarks at least 391 ⁄ 2 inches in height, specially stiffened on the upper edge and supported by strong bulwark stays attached to the deck and provided with necessary freeing ports, or with efficient rails of the same height and of specially strong construction.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10067, July 12, 1968, as amended by CGFR 68-126, 34 FR 9016, June 5, 1969]
* Pursuant t o 5t h Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60729 cons/w

No. 96-60730

(Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LOU CAROLYN MCPHAIL,

Defendants-Appellant s.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(3:96-CV-014-D)

June 30, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Lou Carolyn McPhail, federal prisoner #09655-042, and Sarah Trilby McPhail, federal

prisoner #09657-042, appeal from the district court’s denial of their motions to modify their sentences

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). Essentially, the McPhails argue the district court abused its

discretion in denying their motions. They contend that a 1995 amendment to the sentencing

guidelines, Ame ndment 516, applies retroactively to their sentences for possession with intent to2

dis t ribute marijuana. Although the guidelines gave retroactive effect to Amendment 516, its

application to the McPhail’s convictions does not result in reductions in sentence. As the McPhails

were convicted of possessing in excess of 14,000 marijuana plants which, even under Amendment

516, equates to in excess of 1000 kilograms of marijuana, the statutorily mandated minimum sentence

of ten years’ imprisonment that they received init ially for the narcotics convictions remains unaffected

by the amendment. See U.S.S.G. §X 5G1.1 (c)(2). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the McPhails’ motions to modify their sentences. Accordingly, the district

court’s judgment denying the McPhails’ § 3582 (c)(2) motions is AFFIRMED.
**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

**Form 10-K/A**

**Amendment No. 1**

 

(Mark One)

**[**( **] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

For the fiscal year ended.................................................February 29, 2008

OR

 

**[   ]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

For the transition period from..........................to.............................

 

        Commission file number ........**0-17249**

**AURA SYSTEMS, INC.**

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

| **Delaware**                                                   | **95-4106894**                       |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |

**2330 Utah Avenue**

**El Segundo, California 90245**

(Address of principal executive offices)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: **(310) 643-5300**

Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report: 

 

Name of each exchange on which registered: **None**

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: **None**

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: **Common Stock**

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.   Yeso    Nox

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.  Yeso    Nox

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. 

Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated file, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).

 

|   | Large Accelerated Filer o  Accelerated Filer o  Non-accelerated filer x   | Smaller Reporting Company o |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

|   | Yeso  No x |
|--------|------------|

 

----
#### HILLSIDE BUS OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS ET AL.

Submitted October term, 1928

Decided January 3, 1929.

Before Justices Mintuen, Black and Campbell.

Por the rule, *Nicholas 8. Schloeder.*

Contra, *William H. Speer*and *John W. Queen.*

Pee Cueiam.

We find that the writ applied for should not he allowed. The rule to show cause is therefore discharged.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 2, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 134493(45)(47)(49) Maura D. Corrigan 

134500 Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

SBC MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 SC: 134493 

v COA: 264862 

MPSC: 00-013079 

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

Defendant-Appellee. 

SBC MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 134500 

v COA: 264862 

MPSC: 00-013079 

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

Defendant-Appellant. 

On order of the Chief Justice, motions by the State Bar of Michigan 

Administrative Law Section, the Telecommunications Association of Michigan 

and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy for leave to file briefs amicus curiae 

are considered and they are GRANTED. 

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. 

April 2, 2008 

 Clerk