alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**David Moody, Manager**

**Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy** 

**P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, New Mexico 88221-3090** 

**Dear Dr. Moody:**

**During the week of June 19, 2006, the U.S. Environ mental Protection Agency (EPA)**  **performed inspections of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) waste management and storage**  **operations (EPA-WIPP-6.06-20a), waste emplacement ( EPA-WIPP-6.06-20c) and the**  **monitoring program (EPA-WIPP-6.06-20b). These insp ections were performed under the**  **authority of 40 CFR 194.21 and 40 CFR Part 191, Sub part A.** 

**As a result of the inspection, EPA determined that the activities related to emissions**  **monitoring during waste management and storage cont inue to comply with the requirements of**  **40 CFR Part 191, Subpart A. EPA also determined th at DOE continues to adequately monitor**  **the ten parameters that are important to the long-t erm containment of waste, as identified in** 

**EPA’s 1998 Certification Decision and 2006 Recertif ication Decision. EPA’s inspection also**  **determined that waste is being appropriately emplac ed in the repository and that the amount of**  **magnesium oxide (MgO) is adequately calculated and tracked. In the emplacement inspection**  **report and in the 2006 Recertification Decision, EP A noted that DOE needs to better understand**  **the uncertainty range for the amount of cellulose, plastic and rubber material in repository. EPA** 

**will continue to work with DOE on this issue.**

**Copies of the enclosed inspection reports will be placed in the EPA public dockets. If**  **you have any questions regarding the enclosed repor ts, please call Chuck Byrum at (214) 665-** 

**7555.**

**Sincerely,**

**Juan Reyes, Director**

**Radiation Protection Division**

**Enclosure**

**cc: (Electronic Distribution) Russ Patterson, DOE/CBFO Daryl Mercer, DO**  **E/CBFO Steve Casey, DOE/CBFO Steve Zappe, NM**  **ED**

**EPA Docket bcc: WIPP Team (w/o enclosures)** 

ORIA:RPD:TPEAKE:mt:09/08/06:6608J:X343-9765
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Eat at Joe’s, Ltd., on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Joseph Fiore, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:





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 result of operations of the Company.





Date: October 7, 2010








/s/ Joseph Fiore


Joseph Fiore


CEO, CFO, Chairman, Secretary, Director


(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 78.36-25 Additional requirements for hybrid work vests. ( a ) In addition to the other requirements in this subpart, commercial hybrid PFD's must be— ( 1 ) Used, stowed, and maintained in accordance with the procedures set out in the manual required for these devices by § 160.077-29 of this chapter and any limitation(s) marked on them; and
( 2 ) Of the same or similar design and have the same method of operation as each other hybrid PFD carried on board.
( b ) [Reserved]
[CGD 78-174A, 51 FR 4350, Feb. 4, 1986]
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 February 26, 2011

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## 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
#### Hill *v.*Grosser *& a.*

Money paid on a contract for the purchase of-land cannot be recovered by one who refuses to complete the contract and take a deed, the other party being in no fault.

Bill in Equity, for keeping on foot a discharged mortgage, and for foreclosure.

*C. U.*Bell, for the plaintiff.

6r. *C. Bartlett, Cross,*and *Morrison Bartlett,*for the defendants.

Allen, J.

The plaintiff bargained with the defendant Anna Grosser for the purchase of the premises, and she signed an agreement to convey, it being understood that he was to assume and pay a mortgage upon the land made by her husband, now deceased, to the defendant Foster. The plaintiff paid one of the mortgage notes and the interest due upon them all, entered into possession of the land, and made improvements. He refused to take a deed when tendered, and abandoned the premises, which were after-wards sold to the defendant Emil Grosser, who gave new mortgages, — one to Foster, who had discharged his previous mortgage, and one to the defendant Anna Grosser. Emil Grosser conveyed the land, subject to the Foster mortgage, to the defendant Theodore Grosser, who now holds the title. The plaintiff, making all those who have been mortgagees or owners of the land parties, seeks to be reimbursed for the amount he paid on the Foster mortgage notes, claims an equitable assignment of that mortgage to that extent, and prays for a foreclosure.

It was understood that the plaintiff was to assume the mortgage as a part of the purchase-money, and that the money paid to the mortgagee was in part payment for the land. The contract having failed through the plaintiff’s own fault, and by no fault of the defendants, the plaintiff could not recover the amount paid in part performance. *Lane*v. *Shackford, 5*N. H. 133; *Ayer*v. *Hawkes,*
      *51411 N. H. 148, 152, 153; *Ketchum*v. *Evertson,*13 Johns. 365; *Green*v. Green, 9 Cow. 46; *Rounds*v. Baxter, 4 Greenl. 454. Having abandoned the contract and refused to perform, and not being entitled to recover the money which he has paid, he has no interest to protect, and equity will not uphold the mortgage for that purpose.

Refusing to perform the contract on his part, and standing by and seeing the property sold without claiming title or interest, he is estopped from setting up or making claim under a mortgage, which, to the extent of his claim at least, was understood by the defendants and himself to have been paid. *Thompson*v. Sanborn, 11 N. H.*201; Parker*v. Brown, 15 N. H. 184.

*Bill dismissed.*

Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
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

I, Roy T.K. Thung, President and Chief Executive Officer of Independence Holding Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1.	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Independence Holding Company for the period  ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully compiles with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.	the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Independence Holding Company.

 

/s/ Roy T.K. Thung______________________	Date: November 13, 2003__________
Roy T.K. Thung
*President and Chief Executive Officer*
§ 502.204 Evidence admissible. ( a ) In any proceeding under the rules in this part and in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, all evidence which is relevant, material, reliable and probative, and not unduly repetitious or cumulative, will be admissible. All other evidence will be excluded. The presiding officer may consider the Federal Rules of Evidence for guidance.
( b ) A party who objects to a ruling of the presiding officer rejecting or excluding proffered evidence may make an offer of proof. If the ruling excludes proffered oral testimony, an offer of proof may consist of a statement by counsel of the substance of the evidence that would be adduced, or in the discretion of the presiding officer, testimony of the witness. If the ruling excludes documents offered as evidence or reference to documents or records, the documents or records shall be marked for identification and will constitute the offer of proof. [Rule 204.]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending November 28, 2009

|Filer              | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                              
|------------------ | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|JOHN MARSHALL BANK | * Branch       | John Marshall Bank, Falls Church, Virginia, to establish a branch at 4315 50th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. | Newspaper:12/04/2009Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:         | 12/04/2009    
|Federal Register:  | Not applicable
|MONARCH BANK       | * Branch       | Monarch Bank, Chesapeake, Virginia, to establish a branch at 1635 Laskin Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia.    | Newspaper:12/01/2009Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:         | 12/01/2009    
|Federal Register:  | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                  | RSSDID  | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|--------------------------------------- | ------- | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|ALLIANCE BK CORP, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA     | 2712978 | 07/27/2009 | 11/05/2009     | S         | Int Sm Bank
|BANK OF LANCASTER, KILMARNOCK, VIRGINIA | 34425   | 08/10/2009 | 11/19/2009     | S         | Int Sm Bank
|COMMERCEFIRST BK, ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND   | 2897736 | 08/17/2009 | 11/18/2009     | S         | Small 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
#### Hill v. Bourkhard.

1. Appellate Practice.

A decree entered upon a bearing after default for want of answer will not; in tlie absence of an exception, be reviewed.

2.. Same.

When the constitutionality of a statute is challenged on the ground of informality in the legislative proceedings, the questions of fact involved must be submitted to the court below in the first instance and come up for review, and not as original questions.

*Appeal from the County Court of Arapahoe County.*

*59Messrs. Browne, Putnam & Preston, for appellant.

Mr. T. J. Galloway and Mr. Wm. Bond, for appellee.

Reed, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant was the owner of certain, real property in the city of Denver, upon which she was erecting a building. She made a contract with Charles D. Bourkhard to do the painting, etc., for the sum of $500.

Appellee was a laborer employed by the contractor; performed labor to the amount of $86.65, which was unpaid, and brought this suit against appellant and the contractor to enforce a mechanic’s lien, under the act of 1889.

' A demurrer was filed to the original complaint, which was sustained, and an amended complaint filed, to which no objection was taken, and defendant’s- counsel were given eight days to answer. The time expired. No answer was filed, and a default taken. Some days afterwards evidence was taken and the claim established to the satisfaction of the court, and a decree entered for the plaintiff. No exception was taken to the default or the decree or judgment. It has been 'frequently held in this court that unless an exception was taken, the judgment would not be reviewed. A motion was made to set aside the default and judgment which was overruled, but no exception taken.

It is assigned for error that the complaint was insufficient to warrant a judgment, but it is not urged in argument nor are any defieienees pointed out. No objection was mad'e to it in the lower court, and upon examination I fail to see why it is not sufficient.

The only point urged in the printed argument is that the statute of 1889, under which the suit was instituted, was unconstitutional by reason of some informality in the legislative proceedings. The same question was .presented and-ably urged in *Rice v.*Carmichael, 4 Colo. App. 84. This court said:

> *60“It was not raised in the court below.' If the question is to be examined in this court — the questions presented being of, -law and fact, the question, of fact should have been submitted and determined in the lower court. The jurisdiction of this court in questions of that kind being purely appellate, no cognizance can be taken of them in this court in the first instance. This court has no machinery for bringing in evidence and determining questions of fact. They must come up for review, not as original questions.”

The judgment of the county court should be affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
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 17, 2010

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## 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
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: 2
Federal Reserve Bank of: New York

## Filings received during the week ending May 14, 2011

|Filer                        | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | End of Comment Period                                  
|---------------------------- | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|Banco BPI, S.A.              | FBSEA          | Banco BPI, S.A., Porto, Portugal, to establish  representative offices in Newark, New Jersey and Fall River, Massachusetts, pursuant to Section 10(a) of the International Banking Act of 1978, as amended and Section 211.24(a)(1) of Regulation K. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable 
|Newspaper:                   | Not available 
|Federal Register:            | Not applicable
|BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, THE | Premises       | The Bank of New York Mellon, New York, New York, proposes to increase its investment in bank premises.                                                                                                                                               | 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
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending January 28, 2012

|Filer                      | Filing Type        | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                    | End of Comment Period                                  
|-------------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------
|COASTAL BANK & TRUST       | Member             | Coastal Bank & Trust, Jacksonville, North Carolina, to become a member of the Federal Reserve System.                                                                                                              | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                 | Not applicable    
|Federal Register:          | Not applicable    
|MONARCH BANK               | * Branch           | Monarch Bank, Chesapeake, Virginia, to establish a branch to be located at 2999 Corporate Lane, Suites B8 & B9, Suffolk, Virginia.                                                                                 | Newspaper:02/09/2012Federal Register:Not applicable    
|Newspaper:                 | 02/09/2012        
|Federal Register:          | Not applicable    
|SANDY SPRING BANCORP, INC. | * 3A5* 18C* Branch | Sandy Spring Bancorp., Inc., Olney, Maryland, to acquire 100% of the voting securities of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc., Annapolis, Maryland, and thereby indirectly acquire CommerceFirst Bank, Annapolis, Maryland | Newspaper:02/16/2012Federal Register:02/21/2012        
|Newspaper:                 | 02/16/2012        
|Federal Register:          | 02/21/2012        

## 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
Release dates | 
    Full version (23 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 March 20, 2010

---





## Testimony and Statements

|
|

## 

|
|

## Forms

|
|

## 

|
|

## Regulations and Policies

|
|

## 

|
|

## Reserve Bank Operations

|
|

## 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
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

97-1831.

#### Leber v. Buckeye Union Ins. Co.

Erie App. No. E-96-014. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Erie County. Upon consideration of the joint application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.

Resnick, J., not participating.