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: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending July 11, 2009

|Filer                      | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                             
|-------------------------- | ------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|AUSTIN BANCSHARES, INC.    | * 3A1         | Austin Bancshares, Inc., Austin, Texas, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of La Grange Bancshares, Inc., La Grange, Texas, and indirectly acquire Colorado Valley Bank, SSB, La Grange, Texas. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:07/20/2009
|Newspaper:                 | Not available
|Federal Register:          | 07/20/2009   
|SANDHILLS BANCSHARES, INC. | * 3A1         | Sandhills Bancshares, Inc., Iraan, Texas, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of TransPecos Banks-Iraan, Iraan, Texas.                                                                           | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:08/06/2009
|Newspaper:                 | Not available
|Federal Register:          | 08/06/2009   

## 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

TERRY L. MCDANIEL,

Case No. 15-12507

Plaintiff,

Paul D. Borman

United States District Judge

v.

Anthony P. Patti

United States Magistrate Judge

COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

(ECF NO. 26) AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (ECF NO. 16)

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti’s August 23, 2016 Report and

Recommendation regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute. (Report

and Recommendation, ECF No. 26.) As set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the

Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court deny as moot Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

based on the subsequent filings in this matter which include the appearance of counsel on

Plaintiff’s behalf, a request for an extension of time, and the fact Plaintiff has since filed a

motion for summary judgment. 

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and there being no timely

objections from either party under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich L.R. 72.1(d), the

Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26) and DENIES AS MOOT 

2:15-cv-12507-PDB-APP Doc # 31 Filed 09/12/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 781
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute (ECF No. 16).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 12, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney

or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on September 12, 2016.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

2

2:15-cv-12507-PDB-APP Doc # 31 Filed 09/12/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 782
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

Southern Division 

MARGARET A. ROBISON, 

 Plaintiff, 

-v- Case No. 2:15-cv-11725-AC-APP 

 Hon. Avern Cohn 

WIXOM GRAND RIVER 

ASSOCIATES, L.P., 

 Defendants. 

 / 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL 

 In accordance with a stipulation to that effect; 

THE PARTIES HAVE STIPULATED that the above entitled cause be 

and the same hereby is dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any of 

the parties hereto. 

 This Stipulation of Dismissal resolves all claims and closes this case.

/s/ Daniel Manville w. consent ____ /s/ Matthew J. Consolo 

Daniel Manville (P39731) Matthew J. Consolo 

Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendant 

ORDER 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 S/Avern Cohn 

Dated: June 12, 2017 Avern Cohn 

 United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-11725-AC-APP ECF No. 42 filed 06/12/17 PageID.311 Page 1 of 1
#### § 97.07-1 Notice and reporting of casualty and voyage records.

The requirements for providing notice and reporting of marine casualties and for retaining voyage records are contained in subpart 4.05 of this chapter.

[CGD 84-099, 52 FR 47536, Dec. 14, 1987, as amended by USCG-1998-4442, 63 FR 52191, Sept. 30, 1998]
#### § 505.8 Jeopardy procedure.

The Commission may effect an administrative offset against a payment to be made to the debtor prior to the completion of the procedures required by §§ 505.4 and 505.5 of this part if failure to take the offset would substantially jeopardize the Commission's ability to collect the debt, and the time before the payment is to be made does not reasonably permit the completion of those procedures. Such prior offset shall be promptly followed by the completion of those procedures. Amounts recovered by offset but later found not to be owed to the Commission shall be promptly refunded.
exv10w1



 








Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

SEVERANCE AGREEMENT




     This Amendment No. 1 to Severance Agreement, dated as of the 2nd day of February,
2005 (this “Amendment”), is entered into by and between Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (“Company”) and [Name], [Title] of the Company (“Executive”). Capitalized
terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the
Severance Agreement (defined below).



RECITALS:




     WHEREAS, Company and Executive previously entered into that Severance Agreement on March 1,
2004 (the “Severance Agreement”) providing for certain protections in the event of a Change of
Control of the Company.



     WHEREAS, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. Law No. 108-357, 118 Stat. 1418) was
signed into law on October 22, 2004 (the “AJCA”); Section 885 of the AJCA creates new Section 409A
of the Internal Revenue Code the (“Code”) which provides rules related to nonqualified deferred
compensation.



     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend certain provisions of the Severance
Agreement to comply with the newly enacted Section 409A of the Code.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and intending to be legally bound hereby,
the Company and Executive hereby agree as follows:



     Section 1. Amendment of Section 3(c). Section 3(c) is replaced in its entirety by the
following:




“(c) Payment of Accrued But Unpaid Amounts. Within two (2)
business days after a Change of Control or such other timeframe as
required under applicable law, rule or regulation, the Company shall
pay the Executive (i) any unpaid portion of compensation previously
earned by the Executive; and (ii) all compensation previously
deferred by the Executive but not yet paid.”



     Section 2. No Effect on Consistent Terms. All terms of the Severance Agreement not
inconsistent with this Amendment shall remain in place and in full force and effect and shall be
unaffected by this Amendment.



     Section 3. Governing Law. THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, CONSTRUED AND
INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, AND ENFORCEABLE UNDER, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS APPLICABLE TO
CONTRACTS MADE IN TEXAS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE CHOICE-OF-LAW PRINCIPLES OF TEXAS.



1









 





     Section 4. Headings. The section headings contained in this Amendment are for
reference purposes only and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this
Amendment.



[The Rest of This Page Left Blank Intentionally.]




2









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this Amendment as of the date first
above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	By:	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 
	

	 	Name:
	 	Jeffrey A. Rich
	

	 	Title:
	 	Chief Executive Officer
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EXECUTIVE
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	

	 	[Name]
97-2046.

#### State v. Palmer.

Trumbull App. No. 95-T-5180. This cause is pending before the court on the certification of conflict by the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion to file an additional authority,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion to file an additional authority be, and hereby is, *1422granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that appellant shall file the citation to the additional authority within five days of the date of this entry.

Douglas and Cook, JJ., dissent.
§ 35.35-55 Transfer of other cargo or stores on tank vessels—TB/ALL. ( a ) No packaged goods, freight, or ship's stores may be loaded or unloaded during the loading or unloading of cargo of Grade A, B, or C except by permission of the person in charge of the transfer of liquid cargo in bulk. No explosives may be loaded, unloaded, or carried as cargo on any tank vessel containing cargo of Grade A, B, or C.
( b ) Where package and general cargo is carried directly over bulk cargo tanks, it shall be properly dunnaged to prevent chafing of metal parts and securely lashed or stowed.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16704, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 79-116, 60 FR 17157, Apr. 4, 1995]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 10, 2023

No. 04-23-00185-CR

IN RE Ulises Silva CASILLAS

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

On March 6, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed a motion 

for stay of the underlying proceeding pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus, 

which this court granted in part on March 8, 2023. After considering the petition, real party in 

interest’s response, relator’s reply, and this record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to 

the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a). The stay imposed on March 8, 2023 is LIFTED. 

It is so ORDERED on May 10, 2023.

_____________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of May, 2023.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13723CR, styled State of Texas v. Ulises Silva Casillas, pending in the 

County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth and the Honorable Susan D. Reed 

presiding
Argued and submitted September 25,

affirmed November 8, 1995,

petition for review allowed January 30,1996 (322 Or 598)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*LESLIE LEE TOEVS, *Appellant.*

(10-94-01400; CA A85708)

904 P2d 658

Eric Johansen, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Robert M. Atkinson, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *State v. Bonham,*120 Or App 371, 852 P2d 905 (1993).
SUPREME COURT.

#### David Heeter agt. Mauritz L. Eckstein.

*Special Term,*

*February,*1874.

*Assignment of lease*— *breach of covenant—re-enter—svhletting.*

Where there is a covenant in a lease not to assign, and an assignment is made of the whole term by the lessee, if the landlord desires to take advantage of the breach of the covenant, he must re-enter.

If the landlord accepts rent from the assignee of the lease, the assignee becomes his tenant, and he takes the leasehold freed from the covenant not to assign, and is only liable for rent for the time that the premises remain his.

There is a great difference between a breach of a covenant not to underlet and not to assign. In the one case the lessee still remains the owner of the leasehold premises, and in the other he parts with his whole interest or estate.

Van Brunt, J.

I think that the principle is perfectly well settled that where there is a covenant in a lease not to assign, and an assignment is made of the *whole*term by the lessee, if the landlord desires to take advantage of the breach of the covenant he must re-enter. If he accepts rent from the assignee of the lease, the assignee becomes his tenant, and he takes the leasehold freed from the covenant not to assign, and is only liable for rent for the time that the premises remain his, although the counsel for the plaintiff insists that there is no distinction between a breach of a covenant not to underlet and not to assign. I think that there is a vast difference. In the one case the lessee still remains the owner of the leasehold premises, and in the other he parts with his whole interest or estate.

*446In the one case the landlord could not, if he wished, maintain an action for rent against an under tenant, whereas against an assignee of a lease such an action by the landlord will lie.

In the case of an assignment of a lease, no part bf the estate ever reverts back to the original lessee, whereas in the case of an underletting at the expiration of the term, the whole estate reverts to the original lessee, and he takes it again subject to the covenant.

All the cases which the counsel for the plaintiff has cited to show that the acceptance of rent after breach of a covenant is not tantamount to a license, but for any subsequent *underletting*the landlord may re-enter, are cases of under-letting only, and not cases of assignment. The defendants Eckstein and Yogel, having already assigned an injunction, cannot restrain them from doing what they have already done, and if there has been a breach of the covenant not to assign, the landlord has what the law deems to be an adequate remedy. The defendants must have judgment.
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: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending November 29, 2008

|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
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|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
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: 7
Federal Reserve Bank of: Chicago

## Filings received during the week ending December 19, 2009

|Filer                          | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  | End of Comment Period                                
|------------------------------ | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------
|FIRST BUSEY CORPORATION        | CIC           | Notice by Elizabeth Meyer Kimmel, LaJolla, California, individually and as a trustee of the Elizabeth Meyer Kimmel 2009 Grantor Retained Annuity Trust 4, and the EMK Grat 4, to acquire additional shares of First Busey Corporation, Champaign, Illinois, and thereby indirectly acquire additional shares of Busey Bank, Champaign, Illinois. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                     | Not available
|Federal Register:              | Not available
|UNITED COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC. | * 3A3         | United Community Bancorp, Inc., Chatham, Illinois, to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Marine Bank & Trust, Carthage, Illinois and Brown County State Bank, Mount Sterling, Illinois.                                                                                                                                                 | Newspaper:01/02/2010Federal Register:01/02/2010      
|Newspaper:                     | 01/02/2010   
|Federal Register:              | 01/02/2010   

## 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
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1638

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that petitioners

for immigration classification on the basis of immediate relative status

to a citizen shall be required to pay only one fee when such petitioners

are filed at the same time.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 15, 1995

Mr. DORNAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide

that petitioners for immigration classification on the

basis of immediate relative status to a citizen shall be

required to pay only one fee when such petitioners are

filed at the same time.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FEES FOR IMMEDIATE REL4 ATIVE PETITIONS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 204(a)(1)(A) of the Im6 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A))

7 is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
2

•HR 1638 IH

1 ‘‘(v) If an individual files one or more petitions under

2 this subparagraph on behalf of more than one alien at the

3 same time, the fee for filing all such petitions or aliens

4 shall be the same as the fee for filing such one petition

5 on behalf of one alien.’’.

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

7 subsection (a) shall apply to petitions filed on or after the

8 first day of the first month beginning after the date of

9 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of GSI
Commerce, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 1, 2005 (the Report) that:



(1) The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|               |  |  |  |                                         
|-------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|               |  |  |  | By:                                     
|               |  | 
|March 17, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael G. Rubin                    
|               |  |  |  | Michael G. Rubin                        
|               |  |  |  | Co-President and Chief Executive Officer



|               |  |  |  |                        
|-------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|               |  |  |  | By:                    
|               |  | 
|March 17, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Jordan M. Copland  
|               |  |  |  | Jordan M. Copland      
|               |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.