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 November 7, 2009

|Filer                       | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                             
|--------------------------- | ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|The St, Henry Bancorp, Inc. | * 18C* 3A1    | Application by The St. Henry Bancorp, Inc., St. Henry, OH to become a bank holdinng company by acquiring 100% of the voting shares of The St. Henry Bank, St. Henry, OH and application by The St. Henry Bank, St. Henry, OH to merge with SHB Interim Bank, St. Henry, OH. | Newspaper:12/04/2009Federal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                  | 12/04/2009   
|Federal Register:           | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location          | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|MARBLEHEAD BK, MARBLEHEAD, OHIO | 513920 | 08/17/2009 | 10/29/2009     | 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
#### JENNIE ZUSI AND FRANK ZUSI, PLAINTIFFS, v. FREDERICK MURWEIS, MAUD LOVETT AND LESTER C. LOVETT, DEFENDANTS. MILLIE HESS AND SAMUEL HESS, PLAINTIFFS, v. LESTER C. LOVETT, DEFENDANT.

Decided October 16, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Parker and Bodike.

For the defendant, *George L. Burton.*

For the plaintiffs, *Quinn, Parsons & Doremus.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs recovered a verdict against the defendants.

Our examination of the testimony adduced at the trial leads us to the conclusion that the negligence of the defendant Maud Lovett was clearly established, and that the injury complained of was not contributed to in any way by the negligence of the driver of the car in which the plaintiffs were riding.

There was testimony that the car which the defendant Maud Lovett was driving was provided by her husband, Lester C. Lovett, and that she had his permission to drive it when she wanted to. This evidence raised a jury question *(Missell*v. *Hayes,*86 *N. J. L.*348), which was left to the jury in an admirable charge.

*902Our examination of the record leads us to the conclusion that the jury’s finding on the question of agency was supported by evidence, and that the refusal of the trial judge to grant a nonsuit, or direct a verdict for the defendant Lester C. Lovett was in all respects proper.

The rule will be discharged.
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 February 6, 2010

|Filer                                 | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                   | End of Comment Period                                  
|------------------------------------- | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | Investment     | Bank of America, N.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, to make an indirect investment of $11 million in BANA Canada Funding Company Limited, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                            | Not applicable
|Federal Register:                     | Not applicable
|XENITH BANK                           | * Branch       | Xenith Bank, Richmond, Virginia, proposes to establish a branch at 8200 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1400, McLean, Virginia.                                           | Newspaper:01/28/2010Federal Register:Not applicable    
|Newspaper:                            | 01/28/2010    
|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
Editorial Note on Part 106
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 106 appear at 70 FR 56088, Sept. 23, 2005.

§ 106.100 Required information for a petition for rulemaking. ( a ) You must include the following information in your petition for rulemaking: ( 1 ) A summary of your proposed action and an explanation of its purpose.
( 2 ) The language you propose for a new or amended rule, or the language you would delete from a current rule.
( 3 ) An explanation of your interest in your proposed action and the interest of anyone you may represent.
( 4 ) Information and arguments that support your proposed action, including relevant technical and scientific data available to you.
( 5 ) Any specific cases that support or demonstrate the need for your proposed action.
( b ) If the impact of your proposed action is substantial, and data or other information about that impact are available to you, we may ask that you provide information about the following: ( 1 ) The costs and benefits of your proposed action to society in general, and identifiable groups within society in particular.
( 2 ) The direct effects, including preemption effects under section 5125 of Federal hazardous materials transportation law, of your proposed action on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, and on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. (See 49 CFR part 107, subpart C, regarding preemption.)
( 3 ) The regulatory burden of your proposed action on small businesses, small organizations, small governmental jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.
( 4 ) The recordkeeping and reporting burdens of your proposed action and whom they would affect.
( 5 ) The effect of your proposed action on the quality of the natural and social environments.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TIMOTHY BOULDING,

Plaintiff, No. 15-12706

v. District Judge Robert H. Cleland

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

BHAMINI SUDHIR, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

Plaintiff Timothy Boulding, a pro se prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan

Department of Corrections, has filed a Motion Requesting Rule 26(f) Meeting [Doc.#20]. 

 Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), which requires a case management conference between the

parties, specifically exempts proceedings “exempted from initial disclosure under Rule

26(a)(1)(B).” That Rule, in turn, exempts “an action brought without an attorney by a

person in the custody of the United States, as state, or a state subdivision.”

Because Plaintiff’s case is exempted from the requirements of Rule 26(f), his

motion [Doc. #20] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: July 29, 2016

-1-

2:15-cv-12706-RHC-RSW Doc # 45 Filed 07/29/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 314
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on July 29, 2016 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with

the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered

electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following nonregistered ECF participants July 29, 2016.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla 

Case Manager for the 

Honorable R. Steven Whalen

-2-

2:15-cv-12706-RHC-RSW Doc # 45 Filed 07/29/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 315
----

----

**EXHIBIT        32.2**

**CERTIFICATION        OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| BY:                            | /s/                  Stephen C. Richter                           |   |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                           | Stephen                  C. Richter                               |
|                           | Executive                  Vice President/Chief Financial Officer |
|                           |
|                           |
| March                  1, 2007 |

----

----
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 April 3, 2010

|Filer                                 | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    | End of Comment Period                                
|------------------------------------- | ------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|FIRST CAROLINA BANCSHARES CORPORATION | CIC           | David Muldrow Beasley, Society Hill, South Carolina, to individually retain 27.05% of the voting shares of First Carolina Bancshares Corporation, Darlington, South Carolina. Additionally, David Muldrow Beasley, Henry Wesley Beasley, Richard Lewis Beasley, and Richard Lee Beasley, as a group acting in concert, to retain 71.04% of the voting shares of First Carolina Bancshares Corporation, Darlington, South Carolina. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                            | Not available
|Federal Register:                     | Not available

## 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
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40766 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

LILIA ESTHER GARZA

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12

- CR

- 223

- 8

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Lilia Esther Garza has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Garza has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us
to make a fair evaluation of Garza ’s claims of ine ffective assistance of counsel;

we th erefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
June 1 6 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40766 Document: 00513079609 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015No. 14

- 40766

2 review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 135 S. Ct. 123 ( 201 4).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Garza ’s response. We concur with counse l’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused
from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Gar za’s motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED. Case: 14-40766 Document: 00513079609 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
#### § 58.25-45 Buffers.

For each vessel on an ocean, coastwise, or Great Lakes voyage, steering gear other than hydraulic must be designed with suitable buffering arrangements to relieve the gear from shocks to the rudder.
§ 78.47-38 Valves and closing appliances. ( a ) All valves and closing appliances, or other mechanisms which may be required to be operated for damage control purposes in case of emergency shall be conspicuously marked with letters at least 1 inch high identifying the control and the direction of operation. In all cases indication shall be provided to show whether the control is open or closed.
( b ) [Reserved]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Interstate Bakeries
Corporation (the "Company") for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Paul E. Yarick, Senior Vice President-Finance and Treasurer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.(S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Paul E. Yarick
--------------------------
Paul E. Yarick
Senior Vice President-Finance and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)

August 22, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Interstate Bakeries Corporation and will be retained by Interstate
Bakeries Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
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 July 24, 2010

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                            | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|FIFTH THIRD BANK  | * Branch       | Application by Fifth Third Bank, Cincinnati, OH to establish a branch at 825 West Market Street, Troy, OH. | Newspaper:07/17/2010Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 07/17/2010    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable
|FIFTH THIRD BANK  | * Branch       | Application by Fifth Third Bank, Cincinnati, OH to establish a branch at 31125 Beck Road, Novi, MI.        | Newspaper:07/17/2010Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 07/17/2010    
|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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8597

GEORGE E. TURNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-94-3343-21BD)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George E. Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that

a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Turner v. Johnson, No. CA-94-3343-21BD (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 1995). We

deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
(Company letterhead)


July 24, 2000

Ms. Lori Adamski
Patriot Bank Corp. and Patriot Bank as jointly and severally
     liable Co-Lessees ("Patriot")
High and Hanover Streets
Pottstown, PA  19464

Re:   Master Equipment Lease Agreement 200273, Master Equipment Lease Agreement
Schedule 00010 ("Agreement")

Dear Ms. Adamski:

We are in receipt of your request to sub-lease some or all of the equipment
currently covered under the above referenced Agreement to Universal Money
Centers, Inc. ("UMC"). As you know, pursuant to section 24 of the Master
Equipment Lease Agreement, our consent is required for such an arrangement.

With this letter Newcourt Communications Finance Corporation, as Lessor, hereby
consents to this request to sub-lease provided Patriot understands and
acknowledges, by signing below, that this consent shall not relieve the Patriot
of its duties, liabilities and obligations under this Agreement, and that
Patriot shall be remain solely liable under this Agreement. Patriot also agrees
not to assert against Newcourt any defense, setoff, recoupment, claim or
counterclaim which the Patriot may have against UMC with respect to the
Agreement, Equipment and/or this consent to sub-lease. Patriot shall not be
relieved of its liability under the Agreement because of any agreement, release,
compromise or novation which may be made by Newcourt with UMC or any other party
with respect to the Agreement, Equipment and/or this consent to sub-lease.

Yours truly,                             Patriot Bank Corp. and Patriot Bank as
                                         jointly and severally liable Co-Lessees


By:  /s/ James V. Marino                 By:  /s/ Lori Adamski
------------------------                      ----------------------------------
James V. Marino                          Authorized Signature

                                         Lori Adamski Deposit Services Team
                                         Leader
                                         Print Name & Title


                                                         7/26/00
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Date
§ 64.67 Shutoff valve. A shutoff valve may not be located— ( a ) Between the tank opening and pressure relief device; or
( b ) On the discharge side of the pressure relief device.