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: 10
Federal Reserve Bank of: Kansas City

## Filings received during the week ending March 20, 2010

|Filer                            | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                                  
|-------------------------------- | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|AMFIRST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. | 4c8            | AmFirst Financial Services, Inc., McCook, Nebraska, to engage in insurance activities through the acquisition of 100 percent of the voting shares of AmFirst Insurance Agency, LLC, Benkelman, Nebraska. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                       | Not applicable
|Federal Register:                | Not applicable
|PBS BANCSHARES, INC.             | * 3A1          | PBS Bancshares, Inc., to become a bank holding company through the acquisition of 87.31 percent of the voting shares of People's Bank of Seneca, both in Seneca, Missouri.                               | Newspaper:04/03/2010Federal Register:04/08/2010        
|Newspaper:                       | 04/03/2010    
|Federal Register:                | 04/08/2010    

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                  | RSSDID  | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|--------------------------------------- | ------- | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|FIRST OPTION BK, OSAWATOMIE, KANSAS     | 285852  | 12/14/2009 | 03/08/2010     | S         | Small Bank 
|PLATTE VALLEY BK, SCOTTSBLUFF, NEBRASKA | 2465881 | 11/30/2009 | 03/08/2010     | O         | Int Sm Bank
|THUNDER BK, SYLVAN GROVE, KANSAS        | 2451    | 12/14/2009 | 03/11/2010     | S         | Small 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
#### § 97.37-9 Carbon dioxide and clean agent alarms.

Each carbon dioxide or clean agent fire extinguishing alarm must be conspicuously marked: “WHEN ALARM SOUNDS VACATE AT ONCE. CARBON DIOXIDE OR CLEAN AGENT BEING RELEASED.”.

[USCG-2006-24797, 77 FR 33881, June 7, 2012]
§ 535.302 Exemptions for certain modifications of effective agreements. ( a ) Non-substantive modifications to effective agreements. A non-substantive modification to an effective agreement between ocean common carriers and/or marine terminal operators, acting individually or through approved agreements, is one which: ( 1 ) Reflects changes in the name of any geographic locality stated therein, the name of the agreement or the name of a party to the agreement, the names and/or numbers of any other section 4 agreement (46 U.S.C. 40301(a)-(c)) or designated provisions thereof referred to in an agreement;
( 2 ) Corrects typographical and grammatical errors in the text of the agreement or renumbers or reletters articles or sub-articles of agreements and references thereto in the text; or
( 3 ) Reflects changes in the titles of persons or committees designated therein or transfers the functions of such persons or committees to other designated persons or committees or which merely establishes a committee.
( b ) Other Miscellaneous Modifications to effective agreements. A miscellaneous modification to an effective agreement is one that: ( 1 ) Cancels the agreement or a portion thereof;
( 2 ) Deletes an agreement party;
( 3 ) Changes the parties to a conference agreement or a discussion agreement among passenger vessel operating common carriers that is open to all ocean common carriers operating passenger vessels of a class defined in the agreements and that does not contain ratemaking, pooling, joint service, sailing or space chartering authority; or
( 4 ) Changes the officials of the agreement and delegations of authority.
( c ) A copy of a modification described in (a) or (b) of this section shall be submitted to the Commission but is otherwise exempt from the waiting period requirement of the Act and this part.
( d ) Parties to agreements may seek a determination from the Director of the Bureau of Trade Analysis as to whether a particular modification is a non-substantive or other miscellaneous modification within the meaning of this section.
( e ) The filing fee for non-substantive or other miscellaneous modifications is provided in § 535.401(g).
[69 FR 64414, Nov. 4, 2004, as amended at 74 FR 50727, Oct. 1, 2009]
# C_2013225EN.01002301.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Syndicat OP 84 v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR), itself successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes et de l’horticulture (ONIFLHOR)

(Case C-3/12) (1)

1

(Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - ‘Scrutiny period’ - Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny in the time allowed - Repayment of financial assistance - Penalties)

2013/C 225/37

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Syndicat OP 84

Appellant:

Respondent: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR), itself successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes et de l’horticulture (ONIFLHOR)

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC (OJ 1989 L 388, p. 18) — ‘Scrutiny period’ — Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny owing to the conduct of the recipient of the financial assistance — Repayment of financial assistance — Penalties

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3094/94 of 12 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities may, if necessary, carry out the scrutiny operations — notified during the scrutiny period falling between 1 July of one year and 30 June of the following year — beyond the end of that period, without causing the procedure to be marred by an irregularity which the operator under scrutiny may rely on against the decision giving due effects to the results of the scrutiny.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

1

---
## Projected Uneconomic to Maintain -- Incremental from Base (2015)

**Plant Name Unit ID** **State Name Capacity (MW)** **Plant Type** Valley 3 Wisconsin 70 Coal Steam R Gallagher 1 Indiana 140 Coal Steam R Gallagher 3 Indiana 140 Coal Steam Dubuque 1 Iowa 35 Coal Steam Dubuque 5 Iowa 30 Coal Steam Rumford Cogeneration 6 Maine 43 Coal Steam Rumford Cogeneration 7 Maine 43 Coal Steam Colstrip Energy LP BLR1Montana 35 Coal Steam Riverton 39 Kansas 38 Coal Steam Riverton 40 Kansas 54 Coal Steam Hutchinson Energy Center GT1Kansas 51 Combustion Turbine Hutchinson Energy Center GT2Kansas 55 Combustion Turbine Hutchinson Energy Center GT3Kansas 56 Combustion Turbine Hutchinson Energy Center GT4Kansas 77 Combustion Turbine Lawrence Energy Center 3 Kansas 48 Coal Steam Lawrence Energy Center 4 Kansas 110 Coal Steam Tecumseh Energy Center 9 Kansas 74 Coal Steam Quindaro GT2Kansas 56 Combustion Turbine Quindaro GT3Kansas 46 Combustion Turbine Green River 4 Kentucky 68 Coal Steam Green River 5 Kentucky 95 Coal Steam Salem Harbor 4 Massachusetts 431 O/G Steam Riverbend 7 North Carolina 94 Coal Steam Riverbend 8 North Carolina 94 Coal Steam New Castle 4 Pennsylvania 96 Coal Steam Canadys Steam CAN1South Carolina 105 Coal Steam Lone Star 1 Texas 50 O/G Steam Potomac River 2 Virginia 88 Coal Steam Transalta Centralia GenerationBW21Washington 703 Coal Steam Transalta Centralia GenerationBW22Washington 703 Coal Steam Willow Island 1 West Virginia 54 Coal Steam Blount Street 8 Wisconsin 49 Coal Steam Blount Street 9 Wisconsin 48 Coal Steam Navajo 1 Arizona 750 Coal Steam Navajo 2 Arizona 750 Coal Steam WPS Power Niagara 1 New York 53 Coal Steam Note that IPM projections are based on model plants that provide a highly detailedapproximation of the fleet but do not fully replicate each unit. IPM model results are postprocessed to disaggregate the projections in order to present unit-level information. This procedure necessarily means that IPM modeling projections will not perfectly match a simple summation of post-processed unit-level results. EPA bases its regulatory impact analyses on IPM modeling projections at the system level and offers post-processed unit-level results to provide additional information for context.P H Glatfelter 5PB036Pennsylvania 36 Coal Steam

Yellowstone Energy LP BLR1Montana 28 Coal Steam Yellowstone Energy LP BLR2Montana 28 Coal Steam Sunnyside Cogen Associates 1 Utah 51 Coal Steam KUCC 1 Utah 30 Coal Steam KUCC 2 Utah 30 Coal Steam KUCC 3 Utah 30 Coal Steam Scholz 1 Florida 49 Coal Steam Scholz 2 Florida 49 Coal Steam Yates Y1BRGeorgia 99 Coal Steam Kraft 1 Georgia 48 Coal Steam Clifton T1 Kansas 73 Combustion Turbine Tanners Creek U1Indiana 145 Coal Steam Tanners Creek U2Indiana 145 Coal Steam Tanners Creek U3 Indiana 200 Coal Steam Eagle Valley 3 Indiana 43 Coal Steam Eagle Valley 4 Indiana 56 Coal Steam AES Deepwater AAB001Texas 139 Coal Steam
§ 95.16-5 Controls. ( a ) At least one releasing station must be installed near the main entrance/exit to the protected space.
( b ) System controls must be of an approved type and be suitably protected from damage and located outside the protected space.
( c ) Systems must have releasing stations consisting of one control to operate the stop valve to the protected space and a second control to release at least the required amount of agent. These two controls must be located in a box or other enclosure clearly identified for the particular space.
( d ) Systems protecting a single space not exceeding 6,000 cubic feet in gross volume may be installed without a stop valve if a suitable horizontal means of escape from the space exists.
( e ) Controls may not be located in any space that could be cut off from the operator in the event of fire in the protected space.
( f ) Where the extinguishing agent can be released by remote control, the system must have a manual local control at the cylinders.
( g ) Systems with remotely operated releasing controls must have mechanical override features.
( h ) Automatic discharge arrangements may be used for spaces having a gross volume less than 6,000 cubic feet. However, automatic discharge is required for spaces having a gross volume less than 6,000 cubic feet where the agent is stored in the protected space, as allowed by 46 CFR 95.16-20.
( i ) A system designed to use gas pressure from one or more agent storage cylinders and provide pilot pressure to actuate the release of extinguishing agent from other storage cylinders that contain three or more total storage cylinders must be equipped with at least two designated pilot cylinders, each of which is capable of manual control at the pilot cylinder.
§ 76.30-5 Zoning. ( a ) The fire detection system must be divided into separate zones to restrict the area covered by any particular alarm signal.
( b ) All spaces in a fire detection zone must be accessible from one to another without leaving the deck involved. All doors in watertight subdivision bulkheads and main vertical zone bulkheads must be assumed closed for the purpose of this requirement.
( c ) The fire detection zone must not include spaces on more than one deck, except: ( 1 ) Adjacent and communicating spaces on different decks in the ends of the vessel, having a combined deck area of not more than 3,000 feet.
( 2 ) Isolated rooms or lockers in such spaces as mast houses, wheelhouse top, etc., which are easily communicable with the area of the fire-detection circuit to which they are connected.
( d ) The fire detection zone must not include more than 50 protected rooms or spaces.
( e ) Individual tubing circuits must not contain more than 1,000 feet of pneumatic tubing or its equivalent. However, more than one tubing circuit may be included in the same fire detection zone.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16940, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48258, July 22, 2016]
| Inuvo, Inc. |                                   | Nevada Corporation                 |
|-------------|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|        |                                   |                               |
|        | Morex Marketing Group, LLC / BabytoBee | New York Limited Liability Company |
|        |                                   |                               |
|        | Kidzadu, Inc.                          | Florida Corporation                |
|        |                                   |                               |
|        | ValidClick                             | Missouri Corporation               |
|        |                                   |                               |
|        | CUM Holding, Inc.                      | North Carolina Corporation         |
|        |                                   |                               |
|        | Advertising Holding, Inc.              | North Carolina Corporation         |
|        |                                   |                               |
|        | Rightstuff, Inc.                       | North Carolina Corporation         |
|        |                                   |                               |
|        | Exact Supplements, LLC                 | Florida Limited Liability Company  |
|        |                                   |                               |
|        | Home Biz Ventures, LLC                 | Florida Limited Liability Company  |
|        |                                   |                               |
|        | Vintacom Florida, Inc.                 | Florida Corporation                |
|        |                                   |                               |
|        | RE School Holdings, Inc.               | Florida Corporation                |
|        |                                   |                               |
|        | iLead Media, LLC                       | Delaware Limited Liability Company |
|        |                                   |                               |
|        | Kowabunga Marketing, Inc.              | Michigan Corporation               |
|        |                                   |                               |
|        | PrimaryAds, Inc.                       | New Jersey Corporation             |
§ 78.17-3 Watertight doors. ( a ) It shall be the duty of the master to see that all watertight doors in subdivision bulkheads that may be opened at sea, and all mechanisms, remote controls, and indicators connected therewith, shall be periodically inspected at least once in each week that the vessel is navigated to be assured that they are in proper operating condition. On vessels in which the voyage exceeds one week in duration, these doors shall be operated before the vessel leaves port. All such doors shall be operated daily.
( b ) The date of the test and the condition of the equipment shall be noted in the official logbook.
§ 95.15-30 Alarms. ( a ) A protected space must be fitted with an approved audible alarm if: ( 1 ) The space is normally accessible to persons onboard while the vessel is being navigated; and
( 2 ) Is not a paint locker or similar small space.
( b ) The alarm must: ( 1 ) Sound automatically and audibly for at least 20 seconds before carbon dioxide is discharged into the space;
( 2 ) Be conspicuously and centrally located and be marked as required by 46 CFR 97.37-9; and
( 3 ) Use stored gas power provided by the extinguishing agent, gas from pilot cylinders, or gas from cylinders specifically provided to power the alarms.
( c ) For systems installed on or after July 1, 1957, alarms are mandatory only for systems required to be fitted with a delayed discharge.
[USCG-2006-24797, 77 FR 33878, June 7, 2012]
#### § 502.74 Consolidation of proceedings.

The Commission or the Chief Administrative Law Judge (or designee) may order two or more proceedings which involve substantially the same issues consolidated and heard together.

[78 FR 45071, July 26, 2013. Redesignated at 81 FR 93836, Dec. 22, 2016]
EXHIBIT 32
                                   ----------

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of NanoPierce
Technologies,  Inc.  for  the  year  ended  June 30, 2003, I, Paul H. Metzinger,
President  and  Chief Executive Officer of NanoPierce Technologies, Inc., hereby
certify  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  to  my  knowledge,  that:

     (1)  such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of NanoPierce Technologies, Inc. for
          the  year ended June 30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of
          section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in  such  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
          NanoPierce Technologies, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2003, fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial  condition and
          results  of  operations  of  NanoPierce  Technologies,  Inc.

                                   /s/Paul  H.  Metzinger
                                   ----------------------------------
                                   Paul H. Metzinger, Chief Executive
                                   Officer & President
Date:  February  25,  2004

     A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to  NanoPierce  Technologies,  Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by
NanoPierce  Technologies,  Inc.  and  furnished  to  the Securities and Exchange
Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.


<PAGE>
Argued July 12,

modified July 30,

rehearing denied September 10, 1918.

#### McLENNAN *v.*McLENNAN.

(174 Pac. 161.)

Divorce — Custody and Maintenance — Modification of Decree.

1. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction, on appeal from denial of a motion to modify the decree as to custody and maintenance of children, to modify the decree.

From Multnomah: George N. Davis, Judge.

Department 2.

On February 9, 1914, plaintiff obtained a decree of divorce from the defendant, wherein she was awarded the custody of two infant sons, and certain money and property as alimony, but the decree is silent as to any award for the nurture and education of the children. The custody of the third child, a daughter, now about twelve years of age, was awarded to the defendant. Thereafter plaintiff filed a motion in the trial court for a modification of the decree, whereby she should have the custody of the daughter, and an allowance for the support of the children. A hearing was had and the motion having been denied, plaintiff appeals.

Modified.

For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by *Mr. Henry 8. Westbrook.*

*426For respondent there was a brief submitted by *Messrs. Huntington é Wilson.*

BENSON, J. —

1. The record in this case is neither pleasant nor wholesome literature. An extended discussion of its details here would be to perpetuate in print a history which would discredit both parties and cloud the unfortunate issue of an unhappy union. It is enough to say that we have examined the evidence with painstaking care, and are thoroughly convinced that the mother is a fit and proper person to have the custody of her daughter, and that she will thereby receive better care and culture than she would otherwise obtain., We are also of the opinion that the trial court should have made provision for the support and maintenance of the . children. Taking into consideration the abundant financial ability of the father, we consider a cash payment of $6,000 a modest requirement for that purpose.

The defendant urges that this court is without jurisdiction to so modify the decree, but that question has 'been definitely determined by this court against defendant’s contention, in *McFarlane*v. *McFarlane,*43 Or. 477 (73 Pac. 203, 75 Pac. 139), and *Gibbons*v. *Gibbons,*75 Or. 500 (147 Pac. 530).

A decree will be entered modifying the original decree as indicated herein, and directing the Circuit Court to appoint a suitable trustee for the proper expenditure of the money herein allowed for the nurture and education of the children.

■Modified. Rehearing 'Denied.

McBride, C. J., Bean and Johns, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-06123, 333-32329,333-31410, 333-61560, 333-73880, 333-116368 and 333-138737 on Form S-8 of our report dated March30, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Sipex Corporation (which expressesan unqualified opinion on the consolidated financial statements and includes an explanatoryparagraph relating to the adoption of the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(revised 2004), “*Share-Based Payment*”, effective January 1, 2006), appearing in this Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Sipex Corporation for the year ended December 30, 2006./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPSan Jose, California