alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                             909
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 9,655
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      3,412
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                          4,843
<ALLOWANCE>                                         81
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,112
<DEPOSITS>                                       7,343
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                105
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               13
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,551
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  20,112
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                     94
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   54
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   106
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                   254
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                  39
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  39
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              215
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       57
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    426
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (266)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        (266)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (167)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.13)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.70
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    24
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   81
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                81
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 98
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 98 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49232, Sept. 25, 2009.

§ 98.25-97 Nondestructive testing. ( a ) Before nondestructive testing may be conducted to meet § 98.25-95(a) (3) and (4), the owner shall submit a proposal to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection for approval that includes— ( 1 ) The test methods and procedures to be used, all of which must meet section V of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (1986);
( 2 ) Each location on the tank to be tested; and
( 3 ) The test method and procedure to be conducted at each location on the tank.
( b ) If the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection rejects the proposal, the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection informs the owner of the reasons why the proposal is rejected.
( c ) If the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection accepts the proposal, then the owner shall ensure that— ( 1 ) The proposal is followed; and
( 2 ) Nondestructive testing is performed by personnel meeting ASNT “Recommended Practice No. SNT-TC-1A (1988), Personnel Qualifications and Certification in Nondestructive Testing.”
( d ) Within 30 days after completing the nondestructive test, the owner shall submit a written report of the results to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
[CGD 85-061, 54 FR 50965, Dec. 11, 1989]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, March 22, 1995 (48), Para 48.4 U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council]
[Page 421]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.48.4  u.s. holocaust memorial council

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GILLMOR, announced that pursuant to the 
provisions of Public Law 96-388, as amended by Public Law 97-84 (36 
United States Code 1402(a), the Speaker did appoint to the United States 
Holocaust Memorial Council, Messrs. Gilman, Regula, LaTourette, Lantos, 
and Yates, on the part of the House.
```
#### L. Ledford v. The State.

*No. 206.*

*Decided February 7.*

Intoxicating Liquors—Allegation and Proof.—Where an indictment charged that defendant, who both as a principal and as an agent was interested in the sale of intoxicating liquors, did in his capacity as a physician unlawfully give a prescription for liquor in a local option precinct, and the evidence wholly failed to show that defendant was interested in the business, held, the conviction was unsupported by the evidence.

Appeal from the County Court of Palo Pinto. Tried below before Hon. W. E. McConnell, County Judge.

Appellant was indicted as a practicing physician for unlawfully giving a prescription for liquor in a local option precinct, he being at the time, both as a principal and agent, interested in the sale of intoxicating liquors in the drug business. His trial resulted in a conviction, the punishment assessed being a pecuniary fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for twenty days.

No statement necessary.

No briefs on file in the case.

*JR. L. Henry,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The charge in the indictment is, that defendant, being ‘‘ interested for himself, and as agent and employe of W. H. Pitts and for the Strawn Drug Company, each of whom are interested in the sale of intoxicating liquor, * * * did then and there give a prescription to John Grant to be used in obtaining intoxicating liquors, then and thereby acting in the capacity of a practicing physician.” * * * The prescription was given in a local option precinct.

Grant testified to getting the prescription and liquor from defendant at the store of the Strawn Drug Company, but knew nothing in regard to the fact of defendant’s being interested in the business. The remaining *568testimony is direct and positive that he was not interested in the said business.

As presented in the record, the conviction is unsupported by the evidence. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*

Judges all present and concurring.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1596 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1596

 To require the President to notify the Congress of certain arms sales 
 to Saudi Arabia until certain outstanding commercial disputes between 
    United States nationals and the Government of Saudi Arabia are 
                               resolved.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 1995

  Mr. Saxton (for himself and Mr. Smith of New Jersey) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International 
                               Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the President to notify the Congress of certain arms sales 
 to Saudi Arabia until certain outstanding commercial disputes between 
    United States nationals and the Government of Saudi Arabia are 
                               resolved.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION OF ARMS SALES.

    Until the certification under section 2 is submitted to the 
Congress, section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act shall be 
applied to sales of Saudi Arabia by substituting in the first sentence 
``0'' for $50,000,000, ``0'' for $200,000,000, and ``0'' for 
$14,000,000.

SEC. 2. CERTIFICATION.

    Section 1 shall cease to apply if and when the Secretary of State 
certifies and reports in writing to the Congress that the unpaid claims 
of American firms against the Government of Saudi Arabia that are 
described in the June 30, 1993, report by the Secretary of Defense 
pursuant to section 9140(c) of the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-396; 106 Stat. 1939), including the 
additional claims noticed by the Department of Commerce on page 2 of 
that report, have been resolved satisfactorily.
                                 <all>
```
#### Asa D. Squires, *Respondent, v.*Chauncey L. Ward and others, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with, ten dollars costs and printing disbursements. Mem. by

Bocees, J.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50306

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAVIER VENCES, SR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:08-CR-196-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury convicted Javier Vences, Sr., of aiding and abetting in the

possession with intent to distribute at least 100 kilograms of marijuana,

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 100 kilograms of

marijuana, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii), & 846, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(g)(1),

& 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced Vences to concurrent terms of 87

months of imprisonment on each of the three counts of conviction. On appeal,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 12, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-50306 Document: 00511108099 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2010
No. 09-50306

2

Vences argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion

to disclose the identity of the confidential informant.

The district court held an in camera hearing regarding whether the

informant’s identity should be revealed, a procedure that this court has

previously approved. See United States v. Freund, 525 F.2d 873, 877-78 (5th Cir.

1976). This court uses a three-part test to determine whether the identity of an

informant should be revealed: (1) the level of the informant’s activity; (2) the

helpfulness of the disclosure to the asserted defense; and (3) the Government’s

interest in nondisclosure. United States v. Ibarra, 493 F.3d 526, 531 (5th Cir.

2007). After reviewing the transcript of the in camera hearing, record evidence

relevant to the disposition of this appeal, and the arguments of the parties, this

court finds that the interests balance toward nondisclosure. Although the

informant’s participation supports disclosure, Vences did not show that the

informant’s testimony would significantly aid in establishing an asserted

defense, which cuts against disclosure. Moreover, the Government’s interest

clearly supports nondisclosure. Where, as here, the relative interests balance

toward nondisclosure, and where the district court held an in camera hearing at

which evidence was presented that enabled the district court to reach its

decision, the district court did not abuse its discretion in withholding the

identity of the informant. See United States v. De Los Santos, 810 F.2d 1326,

1333 (5th Cir. 1987).

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-50306 Document: 00511108099 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2010
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 May 23, 2009

|Filer                        | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                            | End of Comment Period                          
|---------------------------- | ----------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|PEOPLES-MARION BANCORP, INC. | CIC         | Notice by Terry L. Bunnell, individually as the largest shareholder, and in concert with Deborah L. Bunnell, both of Glasgow, Kentucky, to gain control of Peoples-Marion Bancorp, Inc., Marion, Kentucky. | Newspaper:06/17/2009Federal Register:05/12/2009
|Newspaper:                   | 06/17/2009 
|Federal Register:            | 05/12/2009 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for Third Quarter of 2009 (July 1, 2009 - September 30, 2009)

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------

* 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
§ 68.17 Restrictions. ( a ) Vessels employed subject to the Act are entitled to operation only in the coastwise trade and only to the extent described in paragraphs (b) and/or (c) of this section.
( b ) A vessel owned by an 883-1 corporation may engage in coastwise transportation for hire as a service to a parent or subsidiary corporation as defined in § 68.3. Such transportation for hire must be between points of the United States, including territories, districts, and possessions thereof embraced in the coastwise laws.
( c ) A vessel owned by an 883-1 corporation may be operated under demise or bareboat charter to a common or a contract carrier subject to 49 U.S.C. chapter 101 if the corporation is a U.S. citizen as defined in 46 U.S.C. App. 802. ( 1 ) Such common or contract carrier may not be connected either directly or indirectly by ownership or control with the 883-1 corporation.
( 2 ) The demise or bareboat charter must be at prevailing rates.
( 3 ) The vessels under a demise or bareboat charter may not be used in non-contiguous trade.
[CGD 80-107, 47 FR 27511, June 24, 1982, as amended by CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51203, Sept. 30, 1997. Redesignated and amended by USCG-2005-20258, 71 FR 61418, Oct. 18, 2006]
§ 70.15-1 Conditions under which equivalents may be used. ( a ) Where in this subchapter it is provided that a particular fitting, material, appliance, apparatus, or equipment, or type thereof, shall be fitted or carried in a vessel, or that any particular provision shall be made or arrangement shall be adopted, the Commandant may accept in substitution therefor any other fitting, material, apparatus, or equipment, or type thereof, or any other provision or arrangement: *Provided,* That he shall have been satisfied by suitable trials that the fitting, material, appliance, apparatus, or equipment, or type thereof, or the provision or arrangement shall be at least as effective as that specified in this subchapter.
( b ) In any case where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commandant that the use of any particular equipment, apparatus, or arrangement not specifically required by law is unreasonable or impracticable, the Commandant may permit the use of alternate equipment, apparatus, or arrangement to such an extent and upon such conditions as will insure, to his satisfaction, a degree of safety consistent with the minimum standards set forth in this subchapter.
y



### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 1 5

- 0 0 7 63

- CR

DONOVAN DWIGHT SIMMS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 230 th District Court of Harris County (Tr. Ct. No. 1056045 )

TO THE 230 TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court , on the 13 th day of October

, 201 5 , the cause upon appeal to revise

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the opinion of this Court that it has no jurisdiction over the appeal. It is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed.

The Court orders that this decision be certified be low for observance.

Judgment rendered October 13 , 201 5

. Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justice Keyes, Massengale, and Lloyd

.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.December 22 , 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
An official website of the United States government
#### Philip Carpenter, Respondent, *v.*Elmer E. Hawes, Appellant.

Reported below, 139 App. Div. 902.

(Argued September 26, 1910;

decided October 4, 1910.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the-Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 17, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an *554order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for services alleged to have been rendered.

The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal had been taken from the order and not from the judgment of affirmance.

*Harry Eokhard*for motion.

*John G. Pheil*opposed.

Motion granted, with costs of appeal and ten dollars costs of motion, unless the defendant within sixty days procures an amendment of the order of the Appellate Division granting-leave to appeal to this court, so that it shall appear that leave was granted to appeal from the judgment instead of the order of affirmance; if such amendment shall be obtained, the defendant is given leave to amend his notice of appeal accordingly on payment of ten dollars 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: 10
Federal Reserve Bank of: Kansas City

## Filings received during the week ending October 2, 2010

|Filer                     | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                     | End of Comment Period                              
|------------------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|RATON CAPITAL CORPORATION | 4c8            | Raton Capital Corporation, Raton, New Mexico, proposes to continue to engage in lending activities. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:10/18/2010
|Newspaper:                | Not applicable
|Federal Register:         | 10/18/2010    

## 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
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 3167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-324]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY


Sunshine Act Meetings

Type: Quarterly Meeting.

Date and Time: January 29-31, 2007, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

Location: Town and Country Resort and Convention Center, 500 Hotel 
Circle North, San Diego, California.

Status: January 29, 2007, 9 a.m.-3:45 p.m.--Open.
    January 29, 2007, 3:45 p.m-4:30 p.m.--Closed.
    January 30-31, 2007, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.--Open.

Agenda: Public Comments; Department of Defense, Computer/Electronic 
Accommodations Program Presentation; Veterans' Panel Presentation and 
Discussion; Livable Communities Panel Presentation; Foster Care Panel 
Presentation; Reports from the Chairperson and the Acting Co-Executive 
Directors; Team Reports; Unfinished Business; New Business; 
Announcements; Adjournment

Sunshine Act Meeting Contact: Mark S. Quigley, Director of 
Communications, NCD, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 
20004; 202-272-2004 (voice), 202-272-2074 (TTY), 202-272-2022 (fax).

Agency Mission: NCD is an independent Federal agency making 
recommendations to the President and Congress to enhance the quality of 
life for all Americans with disabilities and their families. NCD is 
composed of 15 members appointed by the President and confirmed by the 
U.S. Senate.

Accommodations: Those needing reasonable accommodations should notify 
NCD immediately.

Language Translation: In accordance with E.O. 13166, Improving Access 
to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, those people 
with disabilities who are limited English proficient and seek 
translation services for these meetings should notify NCD immediately.

    Dated: January 18, 2007.
Mark S. Quigley,
Acting Co-Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 07-324 Filed 1-22-07; 2:21 pm]
BILLING CODE 6820-MA-P
ACCEPTED 12-15-00226-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 11/4/2015 1:19:22 PM

Pam Estes CLERK