alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Release dates | 
    Full version (25 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 23, 2010

---





## Banks, Nonmember, and Miscellaneous Institutions

|
|

## Forms

|
|

## 

|
|

## Regulations and Policies

|
|

## Enforcement

|
|

## 

|
|

## 

|
|

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

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact us
Argued and submitted August 31,

affirmed September 27, 1995

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*GLEN JAKOBSEN, *Appellant.*

(CR3-2154; CA A86154)

902 P2d 137

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

Jonathan H. Fussner, 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 Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *State v. Prickett,*136 Or App 559, 902 P2d 621 (1995); ORAP 5.45(2).
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 124 (Thursday, June 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 35538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3197]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of 
Directors

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

Time And Date: July 23, 2007, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and July 24, 2007, 8 
a.m. to 12 p.m., Central Daylight Time.

Place: This meeting will take place at the offices of the Property 
Casualty Insurers Association of America, 2600 S. River Road, Room 400, 
Des Plaines, IL 60018.

Status: Open to the public.

Matters To Be Considered: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board 
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and 
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to 
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

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

    Dated: June 25, 2007.
Robert W. Miller,
Acting Associate Administrator, for Enforcement and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 07-3197 Filed 6-26-07; 3:24 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
§ 403.105 Records. ( a ) Each Association shall maintain the general books of account and all books, records, and supporting memoranda in such manner as to provide, at any time, full information relating to any account. Supporting memoranda must provide sufficient information to verify the nature and character of each entry and its proper classification.
( b ) Each Association shall maintain all books, records and memoranda in a manner that will readily permit audit and examination by the Director or the Director's representatives. All books, records and memoranda shall be protected from loss, theft, or damage by fire, flood or otherwise, and shall be retained for 10 years unless otherwise authorized by the Director.
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United St ates District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2157

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Alfredo Contreras-Diaz, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 17, 2006 Filed: March 29, 2006

___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Alfredo Contreras-Diaz unconditionally pl eaded guilty to possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district court 1 sentenced him to 41 months in prison and 3 y ears of supervised release. He appeals. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm his conviction and sentence. First, Contreras-Diaz argues that the district court erred by denying in part his motion to suppress. However, his unconditional guilty plea precludes him from-2- raising this argument on appeal. See United States v. Jennings , 12 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir. 1994). Second, Contreras-Diaz argues th at the district court erred by applying an enhancement for obstruction of justice and by not granting him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Having reviewed the district court’s factual findings and legal conclusions under the applicable sta ndards of review, we see no error. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(e)); U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
98-2436.

#### Kreuzer v. Edwards.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2301]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Government in the Sunshine; Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: 72 FR 24311, May 2, 
2007.

Previously Announced Time and Date of the Meeting: 12 p.m. Monday, May 
7, 2007.

Changes in the Meeting: Change in the time of the closed meeting to 10 
a.m., Monday, May 7, 2007.

For More Information Please Contact: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave 
Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-
2955.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: May 4, 2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 07-2301 Filed 5-4-07; 2:20 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 07a0003n.06

Filed: January 4, 2007

No. 04-5514

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JESSIE CONWAY, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

)

v. )

) ON APPEAL FROM THE 

FAYETTE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, in its ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT

Entirety; FAYETTE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN

Department of Corrections; GLEN BROWN, Jailer ) DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

of the FCDC; OFFICER/SGT. SLAUGHTER, )

presumably of the FCDC; OFFICER BROWN, ) 

presumably of the FCDC; THE INMATE ) MEMORANDUM

CANTEEN AND INMATE HOT CART, ) OPINION

presumably of the FCDC; KELWELL FOOD )

SERVICE; OFFICE OF LEGAL AID; VERTNER)

L. TAYLOR, Commissioner of the Department )

of Corrections and/or his successor; DESI )

BROOKS, Jail Inspector, )

)

Defendants-Appellees. )

BEFORE: MARTIN, NORRIS, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. This appeal from an order of the district court dismissing plaintiff’s

complaint for failure to state a claim is before us in an unusual posture. Proceeding pro se, inmate

Jessie Conway filed suit against several governmental entities and individuals involved in the

criminal justice system of Fayette County, Kentucky. The complaint alleges that defendants violated

a number of plaintiff’s (and other inmates’) constitutional rights. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,

the district court screened the complaint and dismissed it without prejudice before service was made
-2-

upon any of the defendants. Accordingly, only Mr. Conway is a party to this appeal. 

During oral argument, appointed counsel informed the court that Mr. Conway is no longer

in custody and that, despite the best efforts of his firm and the clerk of this court, efforts to locate

him have been futile. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Because the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, should plaintiff reappear, there

appears to be nothing to prevent him from re-filing his complaint so long as he complies with the

requisite statute of limitations.

The judgment is affirmed.
§ 535.201 Subject agreements. ( a ) *Ocean common carrier agreements.* This part applies to agreements by or among ocean common carriers to: ( 1 ) Discuss, fix, or regulate transportation rates, including through rates, cargo space accommodations, and other conditions of service;
( 2 ) Pool or apportion traffic, revenues, earnings, or losses;
( 3 ) Allot ports or restrict or otherwise regulate the number and character of sailings between ports;
( 4 ) Limit or regulate the volume or character of cargo or passenger traffic to be carried;
( 5 ) Engage in exclusive, preferential, or cooperative working arrangements among themselves or with one or more marine terminal operators;
( 6 ) Control, regulate, or prevent competition in international ocean transportation; or
( 7 ) Discuss and agree on any matter related to service contracts.
( b ) *Marine terminal operator agreements.* This part applies to agreements among marine terminal operators and among one or more marine terminal operators and one or more ocean carriers to: ( 1 ) Discuss, fix, or regulate rates or other conditions of service; or
( 2 ) Engage in exclusive, preferential, or cooperative working arrangements, to the extent that such agreements involve ocean transportation in the foreign commerce of the United States.
§ 502.208 Objection to public disclosure of information. ( a ) If any party wishes to present confidential information or upon objection to public disclosure of any information sought to be elicited, the requirements and procedures in § 502.5 will apply.
( b ) In an oral hearing, the presiding officer may in his or her discretion order that a witness will disclose such information only in the presence of the parties and those designated and authorized by the presiding officer. Any transcript of such testimony will be held confidential to the extent the presiding officer determines. Copies of transcripts will be served only to authorized parties or their representatives or other parties as the presiding officer may designate.
( c ) Any information given pursuant to this section may be used by the presiding officer or the Commission if deemed necessary to a correct decision in the proceeding. [Rule 208.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIE JONES, 

 Plaintiff 

v. 

DAVID McCORMICK, et 

al., 

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. 2:15-11694 

District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

___________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION (DE 25) 

 The scheduling order in this action currently has a discovery cut-off of April 

18, 2016 and a dispositive motion deadline of June 20, 2016. (DE 17.) Defendants 

have requested an extension of these deadlines because a motion to dismiss is 

pending before the court. (DE 25.) They assert that an extension is necessary to 

avoid incurring potentially unnecessary expenses conducting discovery that may be 

rendered moot by the court’s decision on the pending motion to dismiss. 

Specifically, Defendants seek an additional sixty days following the decision on 

the motion to dismiss. For good cause shown, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. 

However, in the interest of providing certain deadlines, the court declines to adopt 

Defendants’ suggestion of moving the deadlines to sixty days after the disposition 

of the motion to dismiss. Instead, the following deadlines will apply: 

2:15-cv-11694-MAG-APP Doc # 26 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 162
2

 Discovery may proceed and must be completed on or before JULY 18, 

2016. 

 Defendants must file any motion raising the defense of qualified immunity 

on or before JUNE 20, 2016. 

 The parties shall file motions for summary judgment, if any, on or before 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2016 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on February 17, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-cv-11694-MAG-APP Doc # 26 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 163
# C_2013114EN.01003302.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — FairWild Foundation v OHIM — Wild (FAIRWILD)

(Case T-247/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark FAIRWILD - Earlier Community word mark WILD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 114/53

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: FairWild Foundation (Weinfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Neuwald and S. Müller, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG (Eppelheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2011 (Case R 1014/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG and FairWild Foundation

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FairWild Foundation to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FairWild Foundation to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                18 U.S.C.(S)1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of MGI PHARMA, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William C. Brown,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.(S)1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations
          of the Company.

                                                  /s/ William C. Brown
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  William C. Brown
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  August 2, 2002
A

1
B

2
Editorial Note on Part 107
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 107 appear at 67 FR 61011, Sept. 27, 2002, 70 FR 56089, Sept. 23, 2005, and 70 FR 73159, Dec. 9, 2005.

§ 107.309 Warning letters. ( a ) The Associate Administrator may issue a warning letter to any person whom the Associate Administrator believes to have committed a probable violation of the Federal hazardous material transportation law, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or any provision of this subchapter, subchapter B of this chapter, subchapter C of this chapter, or any special permit issued thereunder.
( b ) A warning letter issued under this section includes: ( 1 ) A statement of the facts upon which the Associate Administrator bases its determination that the person has committed a probable violation;
( 2 ) A statement that the recurrence of the probable violations cited may subject the person to enforcement action; and
( 3 ) An opportunity to respond to the warning letter by submitting pertinent information or explanations concerning the probable violations cited therein.
[Amdt. 107-11, 48 FR 2651, Jan. 20, 1983, as amended by Amdt. 107-15, 51 FR 34986, Oct. 1, 1986; Amdt. 107-24, 56 FR 8621, Feb. 28, 1991; Amdt. 107-32, 59 FR 49131, Sept. 26, 1994; Amdt. 107-36, 61 FR 7183, Feb. 26, 1996; 66 FR 45377, Aug. 28, 2001; 84 FR 6947, Feb. 28, 2019]
§ 1113.6 Appearances; withdrawal or absence from hearing. ( a ) *Who may appear.* Any individual may appear for himself. Any member of a partnership which is a party to any proceeding may appear for such partnerships upon adequate identification. A bona fide officer or a full-time employee of a corporation, association, or of an individual may appear for such corporation, association, or individual by permission of the officer presiding at the hearing. A party also may be represented by a practitioner.
( b ) *Withdrawal or absence from hearing.* A practitioner who has entered his appearance at the hearing shall not be permitted to withdraw from the hearing, or willfully be absent therefrom, except for good cause and, wherever practicable, only with the permission of the presiding officer. If a person who has entered an appearance withdraws from the hearing in a manner other than that specified, the Board or the Officer may take such action as, in the interest of justice and the protection of the lawful rights of all parties to the proceeding, the circumstances of the case may warrant, including the striking out of all or any part of any pleading of the offending party, and including the possible dismissal of the action or proceeding, or any part thereof, the entry of an order of default against that party, or if the withdrawal is without the permission of the presiding officer, disciplining of the practitioner concerned.
[47 FR 49559, Nov. 1, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 52712, Oct. 8, 1996]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, May 10, 1995 (63), Para 63.21 Leave of Absence]
[Page 676]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.63.21  leave of absence

  By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted--
  To Mr. BUNNING, for today;
  To Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, for today; and
  To Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, for today and the balance of the week.
  And then,
```
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION  I, William R. Estill, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) of Collegiate PacificInc. for the annual period ended June 30, 2006; 2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this Report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisReport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is beingprepared;(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation;and(c) disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by this Report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: September 22, 2006                                             /s/ William R. Estill   William R. Estill, Chief Financial Officer
§ 92.10-1 Application. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart, with the exception of § 92.10-90, shall apply to all vessels contracted for on or after November 19, 1952. Vessels contracted for prior to November 19, 1952, shall meet the requirements of § 92.10-90.