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: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

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

|Filer                         | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                      | End of Comment Period                                 
|----------------------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------
|BB&T CORPORATION              | * 4c8          | BB&T Corporation, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to acquire 100% of the voting securities of BB&T Financial, FSB, Columbus, Georgia. | Newspaper:12/31/2007Federal Register:Not available    
|Newspaper:                    | 12/31/2007    
|Federal Register:             | Not available 
|FIRST VIRGINIA COMMUNITY BANK | * Branch       | First Virginia Community Bank, Fairfax, Virginia, to establish a branch at 7900 Sudley Road, Manassas, Virginia.                     | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                    | Not available 
|Federal Register:             | Not applicable
|GATEWAY BANK & TRUST CO.      | * Branch       | Gateway Bank & Trust Co., Elizabeth City, North Carolina, proposes to establish a branch at 100 Dominion Drive, Emporia, Virginia.   | Newspaper:01/17/2008Federal Register:Not applicable   
|Newspaper:                    | 01/17/2008    
|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
§ 31.40-45 American Bureau of Shipping—T/ALL. ( a ) The American Bureau of Shipping, with its home office at ABS Plaza, 16855 Northchase Drive, Houston, TX 77060, is hereby designated as an organization duly authorized to issue the *Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate* to certain tankships on behalf of the United States of America as provided in Regulation 12, chapter I, of the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, and executive order 12234 and the certificate shall be subject to the requirements in this subpart. The American Bureau of Shipping is authorized to place the official seal of the United States of America on the certificate. This designation and delegation to the American Bureau of Shipping shall be in effect from May 26, 1965, until terminated by proper authority and notice of cancellation is published in the Federal Register.
( b ) At the option of the owner or agent of a tankship on an international voyage and on direct application to the American Bureau of Shipping, the Bureau may issue to such tankship a Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate, having a period of validity of not more than 60 months after ascertaining that the tankship: ( 1 ) Has met the applicable requirements of the Convention; and,
( 2 ) Is currently classed by the Bureau and classification requirements have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the Bureau.
( c ) When the Bureau determines that a tankship to which it has issued a Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate no longer complies with the Bureau's applicable requirements for classification, the Bureau shall immediately furnish to the Coast Guard all relevant information, which will be used by the Coast Guard to determine whether or not to withdraw, revoke or suspend the Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16662, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 90-008, 55 FR 30660, July 26, 1990; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50726, Sept. 27, 1996; USCG-2000-7790, 65 FR 58459, Sept. 29, 2000]
§ 541.7 Issuance of demurrage and detention invoices. ( a ) A billing party must issue a demurrage or detention invoice within thirty (30) calendar days from the date on which the charge was last incurred. If the billing party does not issue a demurrage or detention invoice within thirty (30) calendar days from the date on which the charge was last incurred, then the billed party is not required to pay the charge.
( b ) If the billing party is a non-vessel-operating common carrier, then it must issue a demurrage or detention invoice within thirty (30) calendar days from the issuance date of the demurrage or detention invoice it received. If such a billing party does not issue a demurrage or detention invoice within thirty (30) calendar days from the issuance date of the demurrage or detention invoice it received, then the billed party is not required to pay the charge.
( c ) A non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVOCC) can be both a billing and billed party in relation to the same charge. When an NVOCC is acting in both roles, it can inform its billing party that the charge has been disputed by the NVOCC's billed party. The NVOCC's billing party must then provide an additional thirty (30) calendar days for the NVOCC to dispute the charge upon this notice.
( d ) If the billing party invoices an incorrect person, the billing party may issue an invoice to the correct billed party provided that such issuance is within thirty (30) calendar days from the date on which the charge was last incurred. If the billing party does not issue this corrected demurrage or detention invoice within thirty (30) calendar days from the date on which the charge was last incurred, then the billed party is not required to pay the charge.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL S. MATTHEWS, in his own right, and as representative on behalf of a class of plaintiffs similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND, a charter entity; CHARLES ECKER, in both his individual and official capacities; BARBARA KRANKOWSKI, in both her individual and official No. 99-2654 capacities; RAQUEL SANUDO, in both her individual and official capacities; JAMES N. ROBEY, in both his individual and official capacities; WAYNE LIVESAY, in both his individual and official capacities; JIMMIE LYNN SAYLOR, in both her individual and official capacities; GWEN K. WEST, in both her individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-2032-JFM) Submitted: May 31, 2000 Decided: June 20, 2000Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Theodore M. Cooperstein, THEODORE M. COOPERSTEIN, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Barbara M. Cook, Howard County Solicitor, Louis P. Ruzzi, Senior Assistant County Solicitor, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Michael S. Matthews appeals the order of the district court granting the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment of defendant Howard County, Maryland (County). We affirm. Matthews first challenges the district court's judgment against him on his Title VII claim. Having reviewed the record, we agree with the district court's holding that Matthews failed to assert a viable claim of employment discrimination that would entitle him to relief. See Alexander v. Estepp , 95 F.3d 312, 317 (4th Cir. 1996). As to his civil rights claims, the district court correctly held that therelevant, three-year statute of limitations had expired before Matthews filed his claim. See Causey v. Balog , 162 F.3d 795, 804 (4th Cir. 1998). Section 1986, 42 U.S.C. (1994), contains its own one-year
2limitation, which was also expired. Nor are we persuaded by any ofMatthews's arguments concerning tolling, equitable estoppel, or continuing violation.Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to certify a class. See United States v. Jones , 136 F.3d 342, 349 (4th Cir. 1998). We affirm the ruling of the district court.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1670 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

### Document

Number: 

# 6 ) ll-D-13 7 Docket Number: 

# A-98-1 3

Printed 9/24/2008 11:55:14

AM Sheet 6 of 56P. 2
OL D MAC T SURVE Y RESPONS E TENNESSE E EASTMA NDIVISIO N EASTMA NCHEMICA L COMPANY
Release dates |     Full version (28 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 October 2, 2010

----

Testimony and Statements            Regulatory Reform Implementation -- statement by Chairman Bernanke before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on the Federal Reserve's implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.            -Published, September 30, 2010            Advisory Councils            Community Depository Institutions Advisory Council -- to form the CDIAC by expanding and renaming the Thrift Institutions Advisory Council.            -Announced, October 1, 2010            Monetary and Financial Policy            American International Group, Inc., New York, New York -- authorization for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to take certain actions to facilitate the Department of the Treasury's proposal to restructure the government's support for AIG.            -Approved, September 29, 2010                        Term Deposit Facility -- TDF small-value auction of $5 billion in 28-day term deposits on October 4, 2010.            -Announced, September 30, 2010            Regulations and Policies            Payment System Risk Policy -- implementation date of March 24, 2011, for the 2008 revisions to the Board's policy on Payment System Risk.            -Announced, September 30, 2010                        Regulation BB (Community Reinvestment) -- final interagency rules to implement statutory provisions that require the financial regulatory agencies to consider low-cost education loans to low-income borrowers, and that allow the agencies to consider certain activities undertaken in cooperation with minority- or women-owned institutions or low-income credit unions, when assessing a financial institution's record of meeting community credit needs.            -Announced, September 29, 2010            Enforcement            First Heritage Corporation, Carthage, Mississippi -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.            -Announced, September 29, 2010                        Monarch Community Bancorp, Inc., Coldwater, Michigan -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.            -Announced, September 27, 2010            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8194

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CARLTON CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:03-cr-00194-DKC-4)

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 27, 2009

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlton Christopher Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, Chan Park, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Carlton Christopher Sullivan appeals the district
court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.

Sullivan , No. 8:03-cr-00194-DKC-4 (D. Md. Sept. 23, 2008; Aug.
6, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### Same *v.*Philip Casey, *Appellant*.

Order convicting Oasey of contempt affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-30]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Mandatory Provision of Full Replacement Value Coverage by 
Department of Defense Personal Property Transportation Service 
Providers (TSPs)/Contractors

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The original Federal Register notice for the subject action 
published in the Federal Register on Friday, December 15, 2006 (71 FR 
75509). Notice remains in effect and is hereby supplemented to formally 
request all interested parties to submit comments on the proposal to 
Mr. Charles Helfrich, or Ms. Cathy Schoepfle SDPP-PA, at either 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c3a2e2a3f1311111912080f3c0f18181f521d0e110552111510"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fcbaaeaabf9391919992888fbc8f98989fd29d8e9185d2919590">[email protected]</span></a> or by courier to: Military Surface Deployment 
and Distribution Command, ATTN: SDPP-PA, Room 10N67, Hoffman Building 
II, 200 Stovall St., Alexandria, VA 22332-5000. Such comments must be 
received not later than 60 business days from the date this notice is 
published in the Federal Register.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action is not considered rule making within the meaning of 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3051 et seq., does not apply 
because no information collection or record keeping requirements are 
imposed on contractors, offerors or members of the public.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-30 Filed 1-08-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Summary of Meeting between the URS Corporation, the Federal Stormwater Association, Small 

Business Advocacy, and Others

June 9, 2014

List of Attendees

Deborah Nagle, EPA

Kevin Weiss, EPA

Erika Farris, EPA

Kevin Bromberg, Small Business Administration (SBA)

Bob Fronczak, Association of American Railroads (AAR)

Jeff Longsworth, Barnes & Thornburg for Federal Stormwater Association

Betsy Beckwith, Automotive Recyclers Association

Jack Waggener, URS Corporation

David L. Wagger, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI)

Jeff Hannapel (The Policy Group)

On phone:

Pete Ciarleglio (URS)

John Morton (Alcoa)

Jeff Miller (Treated Wood CouncilO

Summary of Meeting

During the meeting, Jeff Longsworth from the Federal Stormwater Association discussed several 

industry concerns with the benchmark monitoring requirements in the MSGP.

Jack Waggener from the URS Corporation presented the results of an analysis conducted by URS that 

compared MSGP benchmark monitoring data to data from the National Stormwater Quality Database. It 

was requested that EPA put this analysis on the docket for the permit.

It was recommended that EPA consider changes to the benchmark monitoring requirements.
§ 96.35-20 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.
#### H. ROMAYNE PECK, RESPONDENT, v. ANDREW P. FOOTE, APPELLANT.

Decided July 29, 1929.

Before Justices Parker, Black and Bobine.

For the respondent, *William F. Gorman.*

For the appellant, *Grijfinger*cG *Grijfinger.*

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the Montclair District Court, where a judgment was entered upon the verdict of a jury in a suit for the recovery of real estate commissions. The memorandum on which the action was predicated was in writing and complies with the statute of frauds.

The first point raised by the appellant is that the court should not have received in evidence a conversation had between the broker’s agent and the purchaser of the property. An examination of the record shows that this conversation related merely to the circumstances incident to showing the prospective purchaser the property which he afterwards purchased. It tended to prove performance, and, hence, there was no error in its receipt.

*673The second point relates to the receipt in evidence of the memorandum in writing by which the seller was charged with the commissions. The proofs show that this memorandum was properly proved and the circumstance that it contained other data is perfectly immaterial.

The third point relates to the exclusion of evidence concerning the monetary returns of Blocksom, the real estate broker’s employe, in the transaction in which he effected the sale. We cannot, in this case, see the materiality of such evidence.

The other points argued in the brief deserve no other consideration.

The judgment below must be affirmed, with costs.
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 March 20, 2010

|Filer             | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                             
|----------------- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|Jane Kincaid LLC  | * 4c8* 3A1    | Application by Jane Kincaid LLC, Lexington, KY to become a bank holding company by the acquisition of 27.9% of the voting shares of Central Bancshares, Inc., Lexington, KY pursuant to Sections 3(a)(1) and 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:04/01/2010
|Newspaper:        | Not available
|Federal Register: | 04/01/2010   
|Joan Kincaid LLC  | * 4c8* 3A1    | Application by Joan Kincaid LLC, Lexington, KY to become a bank holding company by the acquisition of 29.3% of the voting shares of Central Bancshares, Inc., Lexington, KY pursuant to Sections 3(a)(1) and 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:04/01/2010
|Newspaper:        | Not available
|Federal Register: | 04/01/2010   

## 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
#### Naomi D. Ring, Respondent, *v.*Patrick J. Ring, Appellant.

*Ring*v. *Ring,*127 App. Div. 411, affirmed.

(Argued October 4, 1910;

decided October 25, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 11, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to set aside a deed of real property.

*William P Snyder*for appellant.

*Arthur M. Johnson*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs'; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Vann, Werner. Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
Company Ownership Verification for Dept of Water and Power the City of Los Angeles

The Dept of Water and Power the City of Los Angeles (City of LA), requested information for the 

following two plants:

 Haynes Generating Station

 Intermountain Power Plant

ERG completed the CBI deducibility determination for the survey using the following majority owners for 

these two plants:

 Haynes Generating Station (majority owner: Dept of Water and Power the City of Los Angeles)

 Intermountain Power Plant (majority owner: Intermountain Power Agency)

Because the City of LA was the majority owner for the Haynes Generating Station for the CBI deducibility 

determination, there are no changes in ownership and the information for this plant can be provided to 

the City of LA.

For the Intermountain Power Plant, ERG found that the Intermountain Power Agency is a cooperative 

made up of a number of power consumers in Utah and California. The plant is essentially owned by the 

power consumers who buy it's power. The City of LA owns the largest share of the plant and therefore, 

we suppose could be considered the majority owner. While this may not technically be a change in 

ownership, the difference in the company name could have resulted in a change in the outcome of the 

CBI deducibility determination. Therefore, there are risks associated with providing information for the 

Intermountain Power Plant to the City of LA. However, the Intermountain Power Plant is a zero 

discharge plant that does not have a NPDES permit. For this reason, the response that would be 

provided to the City of LA for this plant would only consist of a letter stating that there are no costs for 

the plant. Because no data will be provided directly in response to the request, ERG does not believe 

that there are any CBI issues related to providing the information to the City of LA.