alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Electronic Signature Agreement

$ I agree to maintain the security of the Us erID and Password assigne d to me by U.S. EPA for use of the CAMD Business System, in order to prevent disclosure of this information
to anyone.

$ I agree that, if I have any reason to believe that the security of the UserID or Password has been compromised, I will immediately inform U.S. EPA by calling (202) 343-9157 or (202) 343-9168.

$ I agree to maintain an email account; if any email sent to me by U.S. EPA is returned as undeliverable, I will explain why this occurred when requested by U.S. EPA.

$ I agree to notify U.S. EPA if I cease to repr esent the regulated entity specified below, by sending an email to irmc@epa.gov.

$ I agree that I will be held as legally bound, obligated, and responsible for any submission I make using the CAMD Busine ss System as I would be by making such submission in hardcopy form with my handwritten signature as certification.

$ I agree that I will be held as legally bound, obligated, and responsible for any submission made using the CAMD Business System by an agent whom I have authorized to act on my behalf.

SIGNATURE:

PRINTED NAME:

TITLE:

COMPANY:

EMAIL ADDRESS:

DATE:

Please send completed forms to:

Street Address (overnight mail and packag e delivery) Regular or certified mail

U.S. EPA U.S. EPA

Clean Air Markets Division Clean Air Markets Division 1310 L Street, NW 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ATTN: Karen VanSickle, Room 209 Mail Code 6204J, Karen VanSickle Washington, DC 20005 Washington, DC 20460 Telephone: (202) 343-9220
#### John A. Lawler, Trustee, appellant, v. American Surety Company et al., appellees.

Filed November 3, 1917.

No. 19631.

Costs: Attorney’s Fees. In a suit on a surety company bond, the petition did not ash for attorney fees. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount prayed, with interest and costs. A motion was then filed praying for the allowance of an attorney fee. This was denied, and the judgment debtor paid into court the full amount of the judgment and costs. The judgment creditor accepted the same and entered a release of the judgment and costs on the records of the court. *Held,*that he cannot, at a subsequent term of the court, have a retaxation of the costs so as to award him an attorney fee.

Appeal from the district court for Adams county: Harry S. Dungan, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*M. A. E artigan*and.J. *W.*James, for appellant,

*Montgomery, Eall & Young*and *Tibbets, Morey, Fuller & Tibbets, contra.*

*742Morrissey, O. J.

Plaintiff, as trustee in bankruptcy, brought suit in the district court for Adams county against defendant, as surety on a supersedeas bond. Trial was had, and judgment entered in the amount prayed, with costs, October 6, 1915. Two days later plaintiff filed an application praying for the allowance of $200 attorney fees. This was, on the same day, overruled, to which ruling the plaintiff excepted. The term of court at which this judgment wTas entered adjourned *sine*die, October 30, 1915. Subsequently defendant paid into court the full amount of the judgment and costs, and November 23, 1915, plaintiff received the same from the clerk and entered a full release on the court docket.

December 8, 1915, after the adjournment *sine die*of the term at which the judgment was entered, and after the receipt of the money and the release of the judgment, plaintiff filed another motion to retax costs. This motion was overruled, and plaintiff has appealed.

The original petition did not contain a prayer for attorney fees. Plaintiff says in Ms brief that the costs are no part of the judgment, and that the court may retax them any time the matter is called to its attention; that when the amount of the judgment is paid into court the judgment creditor may accept the same and appeal from the taxation of costs. It is only necessary to say that plaintiff accepted, not only the main judgment, but the amount taxed as costs as well, and he is now estopped to press his claim for attorney fees, if any he ever had. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Sedgwick, J., not sitting.
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 April 17, 2010

|Filer                 | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                              
|--------------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|SOUTHERN BANCORP BANK | * Branch       | Southern Bancorp Bank, Arkadelphia, Arkansas, to establish a branch facility to be located at 2552 Highway 51 South, Hernando, Mississippi. | Newspaper:05/10/2010Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:            | 05/10/2010    
|Federal Register:     | Not applicable
|TOWN & COUNTRY BANK   | * Branch       | Town & Country Bank, Salem, Missouri, to establish a branch facility to be located at 1645 State Road Z, Pevely, Missouri.                  | Newspaper:04/29/2010Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:            | 04/29/2010    
|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
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0876. LINDA D. KIRKLEY v. COLFIN A1-GA 1, LLC et al.

This case originated as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. 

Following an adverse ruling, Linda D. Kirkley appealed the magistrate court’s

decision to the superior court. On September 19, 2014, the superior court entered

judgment against Kirkley, who filed a notice of direct appeal to this Court on October

10, 2014. We lack jurisdiction for two reasons.

First, because the order at issue disposes of a de novo appeal from a magistrate

court decision, Kirkley was required to follow the discretionary appeal procedures. 

See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1); English v. Delbridge, 216 Ga. App. 366, 367 (454 SE2d

175) (1995). Her failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal.

Second, this appeal is untimely. Although a notice of appeal generally may

be filed within 30 days of entry of the order sought to be appealed, the underlying

subject matter of an appeal controls over the relief sought in determining the proper

appellate procedure. See Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 467-468 (448 SE2d 192)

(1994). The underlying subject matter of this case is a dispossessory judgment. And,

pursuant to OCGA § 44-7-56, an appeal from a dispossessory judgment must be filed

within seven days of the date the judgment was entered. See Ray M. Wright, Inc. v.

Jones, 239 Ga. App. 521 (521 SE2d 456) (1999). Here, Kirkley filed her notice of

appeal 21 days after the superior court’s order was entered. For these reasons, we

lack jurisdiction to review this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

January 16, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/16/2015
#### Herman A. Wagner et al., Respondents, *v.*Morris Wortis et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.

*Wagner*v. *Wortis,*133 App. Div. 933, affirmed.

(Argued June 17, 1910;

decided October 25, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 25, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to determine conflicting claims to real property.

*Robert H Wilson*for appellants.

*Philip S. Dean*and *David B. Ogden*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Haight, Yann, Hiscook and Chase, JJ. Dissenting : Cullen, Ch. J., and Willard Bartlett, J. Absent: Gray, J.
§ 54.01-15 Exemptions from shop inspection and plan approval (modifies U-1(c)(2)). ( a ) The following classifications are exempt from shop inspection and plan approval requirements of this part: ( 1 ) Vessels containing water at a pressure not greater than 689 kPa (100 psig), and at a temperature not above 93 °C (200 °F) including those containing air, the compression of which serves only as a cushion. Air-charging lines may be permanently attached if the air pressure does not exceed 103 kPa (15 psig).
( 2 ) ( i ) Hot water supply storage tanks heated by steam or any other indirect means when none of the following limitations is exceeded: ( A ) A heat input of 58 kW (200,000 Btu per hour);
( B ) A water temperature of 93 °C (200 °F);
( C ) A nominal water-containing capacity of 454 liters (120 gallons); or
( D ) A pressure of 689 kPa (100 psig).
( ii ) The exemption of any tank under this paragraph (a)(2) requires that it must be fitted with a safety relief valve of at least 1-inch diameter, set to relieve below the maximum allowable working pressure of the tank.
( 3 ) ( i ) Vessels having an internal operating pressure not exceeding 103 kPa (15 psig) with no limitation on size.
( ii ) Cargo tanks of pressure vessel configuration are not included in the exemption in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
( 4 ) Class I, II, and III pressure vessels that meet the requirements of § 54.01-5(c)(3) and (4).
( 5 ) Condensers and heat exchangers, regardless of size, when the design is such that the liquid phase is not greater than 689 kPa (100 psig) and 200 °F (93 °C) and the vapor phase is not greater than 103 kPa (15 psig) provided that the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection is satisfied that system overpressure conditions are addressed by the owner or operator.
( b ) For fluid conditioner fittings see § 56.15-1 of this subchapter.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18828, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by CGFR 69-127, 35 FR 9977, June 17, 1970; CGFR 70-143, 35 FR 19906, Dec. 30, 1970; CGD 77-147, 47 FR 21810, May 20, 1982; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65166, Oct. 31, 2008; USCG-2010-0759, 75 FR 60002, Sept. 29, 2010]
#### William F. G. Shanks, *Respondent, v.*Joseph Hart, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc.*

— -Judgment and order, denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, March 14, 1995 (44), Para 44.36 Adjournment]
[Page 381]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.44.36  adjournment

  On motion of Mr. EHRLICH, pursuant to the special order heretofore 
agreed to, at 11 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m., the House adjourned until 
10 o'clock a.m. on Wednesday, March 15, 1995.
```
Exhibit 32

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Relating to a Periodic Report
Containing Financial Statements

I, William J. Reuter, Chief Executive Officer, and Drew K. Hostetter, Chief Financial Officer, of
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that, based on our knowledge:

(1) The Companys periodic report
on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Form 10-Q/A) containing financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: As of March 21, 2006



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |  |  |  | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
|                        |  | 
|/s/ William J. Reuter   |  |  |  | /s/ Drew K. Hostetter  
|William J. Reuter       |  |  |  | Drew K. Hostetter
§ 1011.5 Employee boards. This section covers matters assigned to the Accounting Board, a board of employees of the Board. ( a ) The Accounting Board has authority: ( 1 ) To permit departure from general rules prescribing uniform systems of accounts for carriers and other persons under the Interstate Commerce Act, and from the regulations governing accounting and reporting forms;
( 2 ) To prescribe rates of depreciation to be used by railroad and water carriers;
( 3 ) To issue special authorizations permitted by the regulations governing the destruction of records of carriers subject to the Interstate Commerce Act; and
( 4 ) To grant extensions of time for filing annual, periodic, and special reports in matters that do not involve taking testimony at a public hearing or the submission of evidence by opposing parties in the form of affidavits.
( b ) The board may certify any matter assigned to it to the Board.
#### Bank of Benson, appellant, v. W. A. Gordon et al., appellees.

Filed April 14, 1917.

No. 19738.

. 1. Appeal: Case Stated. A “case stated,” as contemplated by the rule for the advancement of cases, must include an agreed statement of the facts upon which the questions of law arise. Rule 14.

2. -: -. A "case stated” must be allowed and certified by the trial judge, must be filed with the clerk o£ the district court, and must be printed and bound with appellant’s brief. Rule 14.

Appeal from the district court for Douglas county: Lee S. Estelle, Judge.

*Motion to advance overruled.*

*Daniel L.*Johnson, for appellant.

*Byron G. Burlante*and *William Baird & Sons, contra.*

Rose, J.

This is a motion to advance the case under rule 14 (Supreme Court Rules, 94 Neb. XIII), which provides:

> “The parties may by agreement state the case to be presented to this court on appeal. The case stated shall in *163plain language briefly recite the facts upon which the questions of law arise, and also any substantial conflict in the evidence as to any fact involved, and separately state and number the rulings of the court complained of, with so much of the record as will fully show the law question involved in such ruling and the exceptions and contentions of the parties thereon. The case stated will in such .case constitute the bill of exceptions, and must be allowed and certified by the judge who tried the case, and filed with the clerk pursuant to section 7880 and 8194, Revised Statutes 1913. The case stated must be printed and bound with appellant’s brief. A case so submitted will be advanced for hearing, if both parties desire.”

The parties have agreed upon an abstract of the record which seems to be intended as a “case stated.” It does not “in plain language briefly recite the facts upon which the questions of law arise.” The rule contemplates a statement of the facts. An agreed abstract of the evidence from which the reviewing court is required to find the facts does not meet the requirment. A case stated is intended as a substitute for a bill of exceptions, and it must make findings of fact in the appellate court unnecessary. The document submitted with the motion to advance is wanting in the following particulars: It has not been “allowed and certified by the judge who tried„the case.” It has not been “filed with the clerk.” It is not “printed and bound with appellant’s brief.”

The motion to advance is therefore

Overruled.
§ 95.16-90 Installations contracted for prior to July 9, 2012. Installations contracted for prior to July 9, 2012, must meet the requirements of this subpart unless previously approved existing arrangements, materials, and facilities are: ( a ) Maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection; and
( b ) Subjected to no more than minor repairs or alterations implemented to the same standards as the original installation.
Exhibit 10.9
 US AIRWAYS GROUP, INC.
2008 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHT AWARD AGREEMENT
 Grant Notice Award Agreement Company Plan Stock Appreciation Rights Award
  1.  NUMBER OF STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHTS.
 2.  CALCULATION OF APPRECIATION.
 3.  VESTING. provided, however
 (a)
 (b)
 4.  EXERCISE.
 (a)
 (b)




---



##### 



5.  TERM.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 (e)
 (f)
 (g)
 (h) th
 (i)




---



##### 



6.  PAYMENT. Designated Broker
 7.  SECURITIES LAW COMPLIANCE.
 8.  TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS.
 9.  AWARD NOT A SERVICE CONTRACT.
 10.  WITHHOLDING OBLIGATIONS.
 (a)
 (b)




---



##### 



(c)
 (d)
 11.  NOTICES.
 12. MISCELLANEOUS.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 (e)




---



##### 



13.  HEADINGS.
 14.  SEVERABILITY.
 15.  GOVERNING PLAN DOCUMENT.
§ 69.11 Determining the measurement system or systems for a particular vessel. ( a ) *Convention Measurement System ( subpart B of this part ).* ( 1 ) Except as otherwise provided in this section, this Formal Measurement System applies to any vessel for which the application of an international agreement or other law of the United States to the vessel depends on the vessel's tonnage.
( 2 ) This system does not apply to the following vessels: ( i ) A vessel of war, unless the government of the country to which the vessel belongs elects to measure the vessel under this part.
( ii ) A vessel of less than 79 feet in overall length.
( iii ) A U.S. flag vessel, or one of Canadian registry or nationality, or operated under the authority of Canada, and that is operating only on the Great Lakes, unless the vessel owner requests.
( iv ) A U.S. flag vessel (except a vessel that engages on a foreign voyage), the keel of which was laid or was at a similar stage of construction before January 1, 1986, unless the vessel owner requests or unless the vessel subsequently undergoes a change that the Commandant finds substantially affects the gross tonnage.
( v ) A non-self-propelled U.S. flag vessel (except a non-self-propelled vessel that engages on a foreign voyage), unless the vessel owner requests the application.
( b ) *Standard Regulatory Measurement System ( subpart C of this part ).* This Formal Measurement System applies to a vessel not measured under the Convention Measurement System for which the application of an international agreement or other law of the United States to the vessel depends on the vessel's tonnage. Upon request of the vessel owner, this system also applies to a U.S. flag vessel that is also measured under the Convention Measurement System.
( c ) *Dual Regulatory Measurement System ( subpart D of this part ).* This Formal Measurement System may be applied, at the vessel owner's option, instead of the Standard Regulatory Measurement System.
( d ) *Simplified Regulatory Measurement System ( subpart E of this part ).* This system may be applied, at the vessel owner's option, instead of the Standard Regulatory Measurement System to the following vessels: ( 1 ) A vessel that is under 79 feet in overall length.
( 2 ) A vessel of any length that is non-self-propelled.
( 3 ) A vessel of any length that is operated only for pleasure.
[USCG-2011-0522, 81 FR 18719, Mar. 31, 2016]
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 January 1, 2011

----

Enforcement            BankEast, Knoxville, Tennessee -- issuance of a prompt corrective action directive with the consent of the bank.            -Announced, December 28, 2010                        Baylake Corp., Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, and Baylake Bank -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and the State of Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions.            -Announced, December 30, 2010                        Santa Lucia Bancorp, Atascadero, California, and Santa Lucia Bank -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.            -Announced, December 30, 2010            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
98-2253.

#### Martin v. Ohio Third Appellate Dist.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, May 2, 1995 (60), Para 60.11 Appointment of Conferees--H.R. 1158]
[Pages 624-625]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.60.11  appointment of conferees--h.r. 1158

  Thereupon, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. COMBEST, by unanimous consent, 
announced the appointment of Messrs. Livingston, Myers, Regula, Lewis of 
California, Porter, Rogers, Skeen, Wolf, DeLay, Mrs. Vucanovich, 
Lightfoot, Callahan, Obey, Yates, Stokes, Bevill, Fazio, Hoyer, Durbin, 
Coleman, and Mollohan as

[[Page 625]]

managers on the part of the House at said conference.
  Ordered, That the Clerk notify the Senate of the foregoing 
appointments.
```
Exhibit
23.2














Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm







Dynex
Capital, Inc.


Glen
Allen, Virginia




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 Nos. 333-22859, 333-10783, 333-10587, 333-35769 and 333-149475 and
Form S-8 No. 333-32663 of Dynex Capital, Inc. of our report dated March 30,
2009, relating to the financial statement of Copperhead Ventures, LLC, appearing
in this Form 10-K/A of Dynex Capital, Inc.

















BDO
Seidman, LLP





Richmond,
Virginia


March 30,
2009