alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
98-2110.

#### Leisure v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co.

Stark App. Nos. 1997CA00417 and 1998CA00001. On appeal of Annette E. Leisure et al. Discretionary appeal allowed.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

On cross-appeal of Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc. Discretionary cross-appeal allowed.

F.E. Sweeney and Cook, JJ., dissent.
§ 97.20-1 Unnecessary whistling prohibited. ( a ) The unnecessary sounding of the vessel's whistle is prohibited within any harbor limits of the United States.
### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part S2 [EPA-R06-0AR-2006-0S69; FRL- -' Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; AlbuquerquelBernalillo County AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Governor ofNew Mexico on May 24, 2006. The revisions address Title 20 ofthe New Mexico Administrative Code, Chapter 11, Part 102 (denoted 20.11.102 NMAC), which apply to oxygenated fuels in the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County area. The revisions include editorial and substantive changes that clarify the requirements under 20.11.102 NMAC. We are proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with the requirements of section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before !Insert date 30 days from date of publication in 

### the Federal Register!. ADDRESSES: Comments may bemailedtoMr.GuyDonaldson.Chief. Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courierby following the detailed instructions in the Addresses section ofthe direct final rule located in the rules section ofthis Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-6521; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address paige.carrie@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section ofthis Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. Ifno relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. IfEPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that ifEPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section ofthis rule and ifthat provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions ofthe rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

2For additional information, see the direct final rule, which is located in the rules section ofthis Federal Register.

Dated:

3 

# (J Ii .**~~ Al~ariz,** **e~;::='~­** Regional Administrator, Region 6.
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 January 23, 2010

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|SUSQUEHANNA BANK  | * Branch       | Susquehanna Bank, Lititz, PA proposes to establish a branch office located at 1845 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, pursuant to Section 9 of the FRA. | Newspaper:01/26/2010Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 01/26/2010    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location              | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|----------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|WILMINGTON TC, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE | 272218 | 07/20/2009 | 01/13/2010     | O         | Large Bank 

## 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: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending July 23, 2011

|Filer             | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | End of Comment Period                          
|----------------- | ----------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|PROVIDENT BANCORP | * 3A1* 3A3  | Application by Provident Bancorp, Amesbury, Massachusetts, a mutual bank holding company, to form a wholly-owned, mid-tier, stock bank holding company, Provident Bancorp, Inc., Amesbury, Massachusetts, through its acquisition of 100% of the shares of The Provident Bank, Amesbury, Massachusetts, pursuant to section 3(a)(1) and 3(a)(3) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. | Newspaper:08/01/2011Federal Register:08/04/2011
|Newspaper:        | 08/01/2011 
|Federal Register: | 08/04/2011 

## 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 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

REGION 8
 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

DENVER, CO 80202-1129 

Phone 800-227-8917 

http://www.epa.gov/region08 

JAN 2 5 2012 

Ref: 8P-AR 

CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Larry Zink 

Montana Sulphur and Chemical Company 

P.O.Box31118 

Billings, Montana 59107 

RE: Request for Extension for Additional Reasonable 

Progress Information for Montana Sulphur and Chemical 

Company, Pursuant to Section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act 

(42 U.S.c. Section 7414(a)) 

Dear Mr. Zink: 

Your letter dated January 13,2012 requests an extension to the amount of time allowed for responding 

to the Request for Additional Reasonable Progress Information for Montana Sulphur and Chemical 

Company, Pursuant to Section I 14(a) ofthe Clean Air Act (42 U.S.c. Section 7414(a)) dated December 

30,2011. You requested to extend the deadline from January 20, 2012 to February 24, 2012. 

Because we arc under a court-ordered deadline to have the Montana Regional I-laze Federal 

Implementation Plan signed by March 20, 2012, we cannot allow your requested extension until 

February 24, 2012. Please submit the information requested in our letter dated December 30, 2012 by 

February 6, 2012. 

We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions please call Vanessa Hinkle of 

my staff at 303-312-6561. 

Sincerely, 

/ / . 

~::~_ ~:;;k: ;-::-A ?~.I-----" ' 

Callie A. Videtich " 

Acting Assistant Regional Administrator 

Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance 

cc:	 John Bunyak, NPS 

Sandra Silva, USFWS 

Thomas Dzomba, lJSFS
#### § 502.991 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

This section displays the control numbers assigned to information collection requirements of the Commission in this part by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-511. The Commission intends that this section comply with the Act, which requires that agencies display a current control number assigned by the Director of OMB for each agency information collection requirement:

| Section | Current OMB control no. |
| --- | --- |
| 502.27 (Form FMC.12) | 3072-0001 |

[49 FR 44369, Nov. 6, 1984. Redesignated at 58 FR 27211, May 7, 1993]
§ 221.19 Possession or sale of vessels by mortgagees or trustees other than pursuant to court order. ( a ) A mortgagee or a trustee of a preferred mortgage on a Documented Vessel that is not eligible to own a Documented Vessel does not require the express approval of the Maritime Administrator to take possession of the vessel in the event of default by the mortgagor other than by foreclosure pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 31329, if provided for in the mortgage or a related financing document, but in such event the vessel may not be operated, or caused to be operated, in commerce. The vessel may not, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, be operated for any other purpose unless approved in writing by the Maritime Administrator, nor may the vessel be sold to a Noncitizen without the approval of the Maritime Administrator.
( b ) The Maritime Administrator hereby grants approval for such mortgagee or trustee to operate the vessel to the extent necessary for the immediate safety of the vessel, for its direct return to the United States or for its movement within the United States, or for repairs, drydocking or berthing changes, but only under the command of a Citizen of the United States.
( c ) A Noncitizen mortgagee that has brought a civil action *in rem* for enforcement of a preferred mortgage lien on a citizen-owned Documented Vessel pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 31325(b)(1) may petition the court pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 31325(e)(1) for appointment of a receiver and, if the receiver is Person eligible to own a Documented Vessel, to authorize the receiver to operate the mortgaged vessel on such terms and conditions as the court deems appropriate. If the receiver is not a Citizen of the United States, the vessel may not be operated in coastwise trade without prior written approval of the Maritime Administrator.
[57 FR 23478, June 3, 1992, as amended at 63 FR 6881, Feb. 11, 1998]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                        866
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              50,566
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                328,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         631,555
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   501,700
<COMMON>                      261,761
<OTHER-SE>                    (1,066,284)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  (302,823)
<SALES>                       884,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              884,077
<CGS>                         776,827
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 776,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              1,203,955
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            7,829
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (1,096,705)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (1,096,705)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (1,096,705)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0
        


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN WILLIAM ARGEL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

RON GODWIN, Warden; SCOTT 

FRAUENHEIM, Warden, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-15203 

D.C. No. 1:21-cv-00597-DADBAM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner John William Argel appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 3 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-15203 

§ 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Argel’s action because Argel failed to 

allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 

338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed 

liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible 

claim for relief); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)

(requirements for an Eighth Amendment violation in the prison context); Castro v. 

County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073-76 (9th Cir. 2016) (requirements for 

establishing liability on the basis of custom or policy); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 

1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability); 

Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (requirements for a First 

Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context); McGary v. City of Portland, 

386 F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004) (requirements for an ADA claim); Witherow 

v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (requirements for a First Amendment 

claim based on mail restrictions); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 

1994) (no due process claim for deprivation of property where California law 

provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Argel’s motions for 

appointment of counsel because Argel failed to demonstrate “exceptional 

circumstances” warranting the appointment of counsel. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 
3 22-15203 

F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional 

circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Argel’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. ANTHONY E. PROCTOR, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 270 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 24th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 109 (Thursday, June 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31600-31601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2821]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center Advisory 
Board; Notice of Reestablishment

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Reestablishment of the National Historic Oregon Trail 
Interpretive Center Advisory Board.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is published in accordance with Section 9(a)(2) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, Public Law 92-463. Notice 
is hereby given that the Secretary of the Interior has reestablished 
the Bureau of Land Management's National Historic Oregon Trail 
interpretive Center Advisory Board. The purpose of the Advisory Board 
will be to advise the Bureau of Land Management's Vale District Manager 
regarding policies, programs, and long-range planning for the 
management use, and further development of the Interpretive Center; 
establish a framework for enhanced partnership and participation 
between the Bureau and the Oregon Trail Preservation Trust; ensure a 
financially secure, world-class historical and educational facility, 
operated through a partnership between the Federal Government and the 
community. This cooperative relationship enriches and maximizes visitor 
experiences in the region, and improves the coordination of advice and 
recommendations from the public served.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Herrema, National Landscape 
Conservation System (100), Bureau of Land Management, 1620 L Street, 
NW., Mail Stop 301, Washington, DC 20036, Telephone (202) 452-7787.

Certification Statement

    I hereby certify that the reestablishment of the National Historic 
Oregon Trail Interpretive Center Advisory Board is necessary and in the 
public interest in connection with the Secretary of the Interior's 
responsibilities to manage the lands,

[[Page 31601]]

resources, and facilities administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management.

    Dated: May 29, 2007.
Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 07-2821 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-M
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  18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  the  undersigned  officer  of  Atrion
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that
the Company's  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2003 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d),  as  applicable,  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934  and that the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: November 12, 2003                    /s/ Emile A. Battat
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Emile A. Battat
                                            Chief Executive Officer


     The foregoing  certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C.ss.1350
and not for any other purpose.


                                       21
Exhibit 4.53
 Supplemental Loan Agreement
 Borrower (Party A):
    
    Zastron Electronic (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.Address:
    
    Gu Su Industrial Estate, Xixiang, Baoan, ShenzhenPostal Code:
    
    518126Lender (Party B):
    
    Zastron Precision-Tech LimitedAddress:
    
    Cricket Square, Hutchins Drive, P.O. Box 2681, Grand CaymanKY1 -1111, Cayman Islands
  (1)
    
    A Loan Agreement (Former Loan Agreement) was made
and entered into by and between Party A and Party B on 30th March, 2004, wherein, Party A
borrowed USD18,660,000 and the loan term of one year, from 31st March 2004 to
30th March 2005;(2)
    
    Afterwards, several Supplemental Loan Agreements were entered into by and between both Party
A and Party B upon consensus through consultation to defer the repayment deadline. In
accordance with the Supplemental Loan Agreement signed on 5th September 2007, the
maturity date for loan was 30th March 2008.(3)
    
    Upon consultation, both Party A and Party B enter into the Agreement in the purpose of
extending the repayment deadline in the Former Loan Agreement by one year, in order to
jointly abide by and implement.
 Article 1
    
    Loan Term
 st th
 Article 2
    
    Validity of the Aforesaid Agreement
  - 1 -




---



##### 



Article 3
    
    Coming into Effect of the Agreement
  Article 4
    
    This Agreement shall be made in triplicate and automatically
become null and void upon the repayment of the principal by Party A.
 Article 5
    
    The Agreement shall comply with the Regulations for Foreign
Exchange Control of the Peoples Republic of China.
 
 (Seal)
(Signature)  rd
 
 For and on behalf ofZastron Precision-Tech Limited(Signature)

          Authorized
Signature (illegible)
 rd
 - 2 -