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: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending April 24, 2010

|Filer                          | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    | End of Comment Period                                  
|------------------------------ | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------
|HOMETOWN BANCSHARES, INC.      | CIC            | Notice of Change in Bank Control filed by Hometown Bancshares, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (Tammy Rae Waggoner, Trustee), Middlebourne, WV to retain control of 10.77 percent of the outstanding voting shares of Hometown Bancshares, Inc., Middlebourne, WV. | Newspaper:05/11/2010Federal Register:Not available     
|Newspaper:                     | 05/11/2010    
|Federal Register:              | Not available 
|PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | Other Foreign  | Application by PNC Bank, N.A., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to establish an agreement corporation subsidiary, Harris Williams UK Holdings LLC, Richmond, Virginia, pursuant to section 211.5(g) of Regulation K                                                       | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                     | Not applicable
|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
#### § 67.537 Issuance of Certificate of Ownership.

An issuance fee is charged for a Certificate of Ownership in accordance with subpart T of this part. A supplemental issuance fee is charged for a Certificate of Ownership attachment for each additional vessel with the same ownership and encumbrance information.
#### Stowell *v.*Fowler.

In assumpsit on a claim barred by the statute of limitations, evidence that the defendant said he had no money; that he would settle when he should get the money; that he would not promise any time when he would pay; that he expected his mother would die, and if she should ho would settle up the matter, — is not sufficient to take the case out of the statute, without proof of the defendant’s ability to pay.

Assumpsit. Plea, the statute of limitations. Replication, a new promise within six years.

One C, having the claim to collect, called on the defendant and informed him that something must be done about it, and asked him what he would do. The defendant said he would not give a note to anybody, but would settle as soon as he could; that it should all be settled up; that he thought the bill was pretty strong, and that there was something wrong about it, but that he would settle it when he should get the money. He would not promise any time when he would - pay, but said he expected his mother would die, and if she should he would settle up the matter.

On two previous occasions the defendant said lie had no money, and could do nothing about the claim then; that he did not know when he should have any, but expected some to come to him at some time. He made no objection to the bill, but declined to give a note, and gave C to understand that he would settle.

On the above testimony the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which was denied by the referee who heard the cause, and the defendant excepted.

*Corser*and *W. T. S. E.*Norris, for the defendant.

*Ray 8f*Walker, for the plaintiff.

*586Smith, J.

To entitle the plaintiff to recover, he must prove a direct and unqualified admission of a previous subsisting debt which the defendant was liable and willing to pay. *Ventris*v. Shaw, 14 N. H. 422. If the evidence shows an undertaking to pay, it was to pay as soon as the defendant should be in funds. His promise was not contingent upon the death of his mother, but that event was one occasion when he expected to be in funds. There was no evidence that the defendant subsequently had money from which he might have settled this claim. The promise was, to “ settle when he should get the money.” The motion for a nonsuit should have been granted. *Exeter Bank*v. Sullivan, 6 N. H. 124, 132, 135, 136; *Butterfield v. Jacobs,*15 N. H. 140; *Weare*v. *Chase,*58 N. H. 225; *Dodge*v. *Leavitt, ante*245; 3 Par. Cont. 70.

*Exceptions sustained.*

Foster, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
#### § 9.8 Broken periods.

In computing extra compensation where the services rendered are in broken periods and less than 2 hours intervene between such broken periods the time served should be combined with the waiting time and computed as continuous service.
§ 38.20-5 Venting—T/ALL. ( a ) Safety relief valves on cargo tanks in barges may be connected to individual or common risers which shall extend to a reasonable height above the deck. An alternate arrangement consisting of a branch vent header system as required by § 38.20-1 may be installed. In any case, the provisions of § 38.20-1 (d) through (j) shall apply.
( b ) Arrangements providing for venting cargo tanks at sea on unmanned barges will be considered by the Commandant upon presentation of plans.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0461

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

NICOLE ABENICIA NOLI,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 8, 2021 within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 29 2021

01/29/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0461
Editorial Note on Part 106
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 106 appear at 70 FR 56088, Sept. 23, 2005.

§ 106.130 PHMSA response to an appeal. Unless PHMSA provides otherwise, filing an appeal will not keep a final rule from becoming effective. We will handle an appeal according to the following procedures: ( a ) *Appeal of a final rule or withdrawal of a notice of proposed rulemaking.* ( 1 ) We may consolidate your appeal with other appeals of the same rule.
( 2 ) We may grant or deny your appeal, in whole or in part, without further rulemaking proceedings, unless granting your appeal would result in the issuance of a new final rule.
( 3 ) If we decide to grant your appeal, we may schedule further proceedings and an opportunity to comment.
( 4 ) PHMSA will notify you, in writing, of the action on your appeal within 90 days after the date that PHMSA published the final rule or withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking at issue in the Federal Register. If we do not issue a decision on your appeal within the 90-day period and we anticipate a substantial delay, we will notify you directly about the delay and will give you an expected decision date. We will also publish a notice of the delay in the Federal Register.
( b ) *Appeal of a decision.* ( 1 ) We will not consider your appeal if it merely repeats arguments that PHMSA has previously rejected.
( 2 ) PHMSA will notify you, in writing, of the action on your appeal within 90 days after the date that PHMSA served you with written notice of its decision on your petition for rulemaking. If we do not issue a decision on your appeal within the 90-day period, and we anticipate a substantial delay, we will notify you directly about the delay and will give you an expected decision date.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         232,359
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               232,359
<PP&E>                                             152
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           455
<OTHER-SE>                                     232,056
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   232,511
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,812
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,753
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,753
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
§ 80.20 Exception to requirements. ( a ) This part does not apply to vessels that comply with the safety standards set forth in the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.
( b ) If the exception in paragraph (a) of this section applies, the country of registry must appear in printed advertising or promotional literature as described in § 80.30(a), in a type no smaller than six points, American point system.
[CGD 72-187R, 38 FR 9081, Apr. 10, 1973, as amended by CGD 79-180, 48 FR 7456, Feb. 22, 1983; CGD 90-008, 55 FR 30661, July 26, 1990]
Editorial Note on Part 98
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 98 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49232, Sept. 25, 2009.

§ 98.30-4 Vessels carrying MPTs. Each MPT on a vessel to which this part applies must bear, on a metal or other corrosion-resistant tag— ( a ) An inspection date for pressure relief devices and vacuum relief devices in accordance with paragraph (b) of § 64.79 of this chapter that is not more than 12 months earlier than the month in which the vessel is operated;
( b ) An inspection date in accordance with paragraph (b) of § 64.81 of this chapter that is not more than 30 months earlier than the month during which the vessel is operated; and
( c ) A hydrostatic test date in accordance with paragraph (b) of § 64.83 of this chapter that is not more than 60 months earlier than the month during which the vessel is operated.
[CGD 84-043, 55 FR 37411, Sept. 11, 1990. Redesignated by USCG-2011-0088, 78 FR 54785, Sept. 6, 2013]
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1599

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade of the United States for the vessel TOO MUCH FUN.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 9, 1995

Mr. DAVIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade of the

United States for the vessel TOO MUCH FUN.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46, Unit6 ed States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue

7 a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorse8 ment for employment in the coastwise trade of the United
2

•HR 1599 IH

1 States for the vessel TOO MUCH FUN (United States

2 official number 936565).

Æ
# C_2014052EN.01001302.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Trento Sviluppo srl, Centrale Adriatica Soc. coop. arl v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

(Case C-281/12) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices - Directive 2005/29/EC - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘misleading action’ - Cumulative nature of the conditions set out in the provision in question)

2014/C 52/21

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Trento Sviluppo srl, Centrale Adriatica Soc. coop. arl

Appellants:

Respondent: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — Concept of ‘misleading action’ — Cumulative nature of the conditions listed under the provision in question.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

A commercial practice must be classified as ‘misleading’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) where that practice contains false information, or is likely to deceive the average consumer, and is likely to cause the consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise. Article 2(k) of the directive must be interpreted as meaning that any decision directly related to the decision whether or not to purchase a product is covered by the concept of ‘transactional decision’.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.

1

---
Argued and submitted September 13,

affirmed October 11, 1995

#### Robert ZAGORIN, *Appellant, v.*Robert DURHAM, *Respondent, and*OREGONIAN PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., an Oregon corporation, dba The Oregonian; Combined Communications, Inc., an Oregon corporation; and The Associated Press, a foreign corporation, *Defendants.*

(16-92-06166; CA A81540)

904 P2d 178

David C. Force argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.

Larry A. Brisbee argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Barbara L. Johnston.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Richardson, Chief Judge, and Haselton, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*274PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendant, entered on a jury verdict, in this defamation case. We affirm.

All of the issues raised by plaintiffs two assignments of error relate to the trial court’s rejection of plaintiffs evidence that he suffered humiliation and emotional distress as a result of alleged defamatory statements made by defendant. 1 The jury was given a special verdict form in this case. It answered “No” to the question: “Has the plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant made a defamatory statement with respect to plaintiff?” Because the jury found that defendant did not make a defamatory statement, any asserted error with relation to plaintiffs damages could not have affected the outcome of the case and was harmless.2 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Affirmed.

1

 Plaintiffs assignments challenge the trial court’s rejection of evidence and related rulings, including the court’s decisions on jury instructions.

2

 Further, plaintiff provided only selected portions of the transcript for our review, and he did not provide an agreed narrative statement in lieu of a transcript. ORAP 3.05.
§ 92.20-50 Heating and cooling. ( a ) All manned spaces must be adequately heated and cooled in a manner suitable to the purpose of the space.
( b ) The heating and cooling system for accommodations must be capable of maintaining a temperature of 21 °C (70 °F) under normal operating conditions without curtailing ventilation.
( c ) Radiators and other heating apparatus must be so placed and shielded, where necessary, to avoid risk of fire, danger, or discomfort to the occupants. Pipes leading to radiators or heating apparatus must be insulated where those pipes create a hazard to persons occupying the space.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ )

CHRISTOPHER SANDERS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 06

- 1411 (PLF)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al

., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On February 21, 2017, the C ourt reinstated plaintiff Christopher Sanders’s

procedural due process claim (“Count 2”) in the case , after Sanders exhausted his administrative

remedies before the Office of Employee Appeals. See Order (Fe b . 21, 2017) at 1

- 2 [Dkt. 141]. 1

This determination also resurrected a portion of Sanders’s motion for summary judgment, which

the Court previously had denied as moot for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See

Sanders v. District of Columbia , 85 F. Supp. 3d 523, 539 (D.D.C. 2015); see also Plaintiff’s

Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II of the Complaint at 1 [Dkt. 96].

Defendants have asked that their motion for summary judgment on Count 2 also be reinstated.

See Defendants’ ( 1) Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II and ( 2) Supplemental

1 In his complaint, Sanders alleged both a substantive and procedural due process

claim in Count 2. The Court previously dismissed Sanders’s substantive due process claim

because Sanders failed to show that he had a clearly established fundamental right in his

eligibility to be rehired by the DC Metropolitan Police Department

. See Sanders v. District of

Columbia

, 522 F. Supp. 2d 83, 91

- 92 (D.D.C. 2007)

. By opinion and order on April 7, 2015, the

Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ summary judgment motion with respect to

the First Amendment Claim in Count 1. See Sanders v. District of C olumbia , 85 F. Supp. 3d at

532

- 37.2 Authority in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment at 2 [Dkt. 148]. The Court

will grant their request.

On July 13, 2017, the Court will hear oral argument regarding plaintiff’s and

defendants’ cross

- motions for summary judgment on the procedural due process claim in Count

2. In the Court’s view, each part y ’s original motion for summary judgment has been revived

with regard to the procedural due process claim in Count 2. Because defendants’ o riginal motion

for summary judg ment [Dkt. 96] dealt largely with whether Sanders had failed to exhaust his

administr ative remedies with regard to Count 2, the Court will consider defendants’ most recent

filing [Dkt. 148] as a supplemental memorandum to it s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 95]

and as supplemental authority in opposition to plaintiff ’ s motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 95] is reinstated

with respect to Count 2

.

SO ORDERED.

____ /s/

____________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: June 14, 2017
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 December 25, 2010

|Filer                | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                              | End of Comment Period                             
|-------------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------
|FNB Bancshares, Inc. | * 3A1         | FNB Bancshares, Inc., Sycamore, OH to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100% of the voting shares of First National Bank of Sycamore, Sycamore, OH. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:01/24/2011
|Newspaper:           | Not available
|Federal Register:    | 01/24/2011   

## 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