alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 72.01-25 Additional structural requirements. ( a ) Vessels required by part 171 of this chapter to have subdivision bulkheads, double bottoms, etc. must comply with the following structural requirements: ( 1 ) Each watertight subdivision bulkhead, whether transverse or longitudinal, shall be constructed in such a manner that it shall be capable of supporting, with a proper margin of resistance, the pressure due to the maximum head of water which it might have to sustain in the event of damage to the vessel, but at least the pressure due to a head of water up to the margin line. The construction of the bulkheads shall be to the satisfaction of the Commandant.
( 2 ) Steps and recesses in subdivision bulkheads shall be watertight and as strong as the bulkhead at the place where each occurs. Decks, trunks, tunnels, duct keels, ventilators, etc., that are made watertight to maintain the subdivision requirements for a vessel shall be of the same strength as the bulkhead at the corresponding levels. The means used for making them watertight and the arrangements adopted for closing openings in them shall be to the satisfaction of the Commandant. Watertight ventilators and trunks shall be carried at least up to the bulkhead deck.
( 3 ) Where frames or beams pass through a watertight bulkhead or deck, such bulkhead or deck shall be made structurally watertight without the use of wood, cement, or similar materials.
( 4 ) Subdivision bulkheads, including steps, recesses, trunks, tunnels, ventilators, etc., which might form part of such bulkheads, shall be thoroughly examined and hose tested upon completion of construction. The water pressure for such tests shall be at least 30 p.s.i. Testing of main compartments by filling them with water is not compulsory.
( 5 ) The forepeak, double bottoms (including duct keels), and inner skins shall be tested with water to-a-head corresponding to the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section upon completion of construction.
( 6 ) The watertight space enclosing the stern tube shall be tested by filling with water to-a-head up to the deepest subdivision load line.
( 7 ) Tanks which are intended to hold liquids, and which form part of the subdivision of the vessel, shall be tested for tightness upon completion of construction with water to-a-head up to the deepest subdivision load line or to-a-head corresponding to 2 ⁄ 3 of the depth from the top of the keel to the margin line in way of the tanks, whichever is greater; but in no case shall the test-head be less than 3 feet above the top of the tank.
( 8 ) The tests referred to in the preceding paragraphs (a) (5), (6), and (7) of this section are for the purpose of insuring that the subdivision structural arrangements are watertight and are not regarded as a test of the fitness of any compartment for the storage of oil, fuel or for other specific purposes for which a test of a superior character may be required depending upon the height to which the liquid has access in the tank or its connections.
( b ) [Reserved]
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16903, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51007, Nov. 4, 1983]
#### Meyer, Plaintiff in Error, v. White, Defendant in Error.

Intervention — Judgment.

The judgment against an intervenor in an action of replevin should not, when it appears that he had never had possession of the property in controversy, extend beyond dismissing his petition and charging him with the costs of the intervention.

*Error to the District Court of Phillips County.*

Messrs. Muntzing & Barnes and Mr. H. V. Cooke, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

Reed, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Thomas White (defendant in error) brought suit by replevin against James P. Brophy, to recover some horses, of which he claimed to be the owner, stating the value of the property at $250. The writ was served and the property delivered to the plaintiff. Meyer (plaintiff in error) claimed the property by virtue of a chattel mortgage executed by Brophy, and filed his petition as intervenor.

It appears that Brophy made no defense to the action of White or the intervention of Meyer. Left White and Meyer to adjudicate and settle the title.

The ease was tried to a jury; verdict .for plaintiff for the possession of the property, or in default of possession for $373, exceeding the value laid in the complaint $123. Motion was made to set aside the verdict and for a new trial; plaintiff’s counsel remitted the excess of $123. The motion was overruled and judgment entered as follows: “ It is considered, ordered, and adjudged that the said plaintiff do have and recover *of and from the said intervenor Alex P.*Meyer, *343
      *the possession of the property in controversy herein to wit,** * * *or in case a return of said property cannot be had that he do have and recover of and from said intervenor, Alex F. Meyer, the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, the value of said property, together with his costs by him laid out and expended in this behalf, taxed at seventeen and dollars, and let execútion issue*therefor.” • . ■

When we realize that the suit was brought by White against Brophy, and that the sheriff delivered the property to White, who retained it, and that the intervenor had never had the possession, such a result would not seem to be conducive to the happiness of an individual who was unfortu-: nate enough to file a petition of intervention, and would rather have a tendency to discourage efforts of that kind in that vicinity.

It also appears that the plaintiff, while retaining the replevied property, sued out a writ of execution to make the amount of the judgment against the intervenor, and was stopped by the suing out of this writ of error.

It seems to this court that the ambition of the district court should have been fully satisfied by awarding judgment against the defendant Brophy, finding against the intervenor and dismissing his petition, and charging him with the necessary costs of intervention.

The judgment of the district court will be reversed as to all the parties, and remanded.

*Reversed.*
```

[House Report 106-160]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    106-160

======================================================================

 
   PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1259, SOCIAL SECURITY AND 
                 MEDICARE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

May 24, 1999.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______

    Mr. Linder, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 186]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 186, by a record vote of 7 to 3, report the 
same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution 
be adopted.

                  summary of provisions of resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration in the House 
of H.R. 1259, the ``Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit 
Box Act of 1999,'' under a closed rule. The rule provides two 
hours of debate divided equally between the chairmen and 
ranking minority members of the Committees on the Budget, 
Rules, and Ways and Means.
    The rule provides that the bill be considered as read and 
that the amendment printed in section 2 of the resolution be 
considered as adopted.
    Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with 
or without instructions.

                            committee votes

    Pursuant to clause 3(b) of House rule XIII the results of 
each record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together 
with the names of those voting for and against, are printed 
below:

Rules Committee record vote No. 26

    Date: May 24, 1999.
    Measure: H.R. 1259, Social Security and Medicare Safe 
Deposit Box Act of 1999.
    Motion by: Mr. Frost.
    Summary of motion: To make in order a minority substitute 
amendment offered by Representatives Spratt, Moakley, and 
Rangel.
    Results: Defeated 3 to 7.
    Vote by Members: Goss--Nay; Linder--Nay; Diaz-Balart--Nay; 
Hastings--Nay; Myrick--Nay; Sessions--Nay; Frost--Yea; Hall--
Yea; Slaughter--Yea; Dreier--Nay.

Rules Committee record vote No. 27

    Date: May 24, 1999.
    Measure: H.R. 1259, Social Security and Medicare Safe 
Deposit Box Act of 1999.
    Motion by: Mr. Goss.
    Summary of motion: To report the resolution.
    Results: Adopted 7 to 3.
    Vote by Members: Goss--Yea; Linder--Yea; Diaz-Balart--Yea; 
Hastings--Yea; Myrick--Yea; Sessions--Yea; Frost--Nay; Hall--
Nay; Slaughter--Nay; Dreier--Yea.

                                  

```
#### § 1242.73 Cleaning car interiors and freight lost and damaged—all other (accounts XX-53-70 and 51-53-00).

Separate common expenses on basis of solely related freight and passenger expenses or special study.
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 October 29, 2011

|Filer               | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                            | End of Comment Period                          
|------------------- | ----------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|FFD FINANCIAL CORP. | * 3A1       | FFD Financial Corp.,Dover, Ohio, to become a bank holding company by acquiring First Federal Community Bank, Dover, Ohio, a thrift, upon its conversion to a national bank | Newspaper:11/25/2011Federal Register:11/25/2011
|Newspaper:          | 11/25/2011 
|Federal Register:   | 11/25/2011 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                 | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|-------------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|COMMERCIAL & SVG BK, MILLERSBURG, OHIO | 189129 | 07/11/2011 | 10/27/2011     | S         | Int Sm 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 (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

# Actions under delegated authority

## Actions taken during the week ending October 30, 2010

----

Bank Holding CompaniesChicago          Fentura Financial, Inc., Fenton, Michigan -- to establish a subsidiary, Fentura Holdings, L.L.C., Fenton, and thereby engage in extending credit and servicing loans.            -Approved, October 27, 2010            New York          New York Private Bank & Trust Corporation, New York, New York, and Emigrant Bancorp, Inc. -- to convert New York Private Bank & Trust, FSB, Wilmington, Delaware, a federal savings bank subsidiary, to New York Private Trust Company, a trust company, and thereby engage in trust company functions.            -Approved, October 29, 2010            Kansas City          Raton Capital Corporation, Raton, New Mexico -- to continue to engage in lending activities.            -Approved, October 27, 2010            Philadelphia          WSFS Financial Corporation, Wilmington, Delaware -- waiver of application to acquire Christiana Bank & Trust Company, Wilmington, in connection with its merger with and into WSFS's subsidiary thrift, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB.            -Granted, October 28, 2010            Bank MergersSt. Louis          Arvest Bank, Fayetteville, Arkansas -- to purchase certain assets and assume certain liabilities of the Lee's Summit, Missouri, branch of Community First Bank, Butler, and to retain the acquired facility as a branch.            -Approved, October 27, 2010            Banks, ForeignNew York          Bank of Baroda, Mumbai, India -- to establish a branch in Houston, Texas.            -Withdrawn, October 29, 2010            Change in Bank ControlPhiladelphia          Drexel Morgan & Co., Radnor, Pennsylvania -- change in bank control of Drexel Morgan and its subsidiary bank, The Haverford Trust Company, Radnor.            -Permitted, October 26, 2010            Extensions of TimeChicago          Prairieland Bancorp Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, Bushnell, Illinois -- extension to January 8, 2011, to increase its ownership of Prairieland Bancorp, Inc., Bushnell, and thereby indirectly increase its ownership of Farmers and Merchants State Bank of Bushnell.            -Granted, October 28, 2010            International OperationsDirector, BS&R          Citigroup Inc., New York, New York -- to retain temporarily its interest in certain property held by a subsidiary.            -Granted, October 26, 2010            MembershipSt. Louis          Piggott State Bank, Piggott, Arkansas -- to become a member of the Federal Reserve System.            -Approved, October 29, 2010            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-110162) and on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-30870,
333-36140, 333-83282 and 333-100037) of Therma-Wave, Inc. of our report dated
June 10, 2004 relating to the financial statements and financial statement
schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
June 10, 2004
1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2596

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Ricardo Townsend, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Freaky, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 22, 2010

Filed: March 29, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo Townsend appeals his drug conviction entered by the district court1

following a jury trial. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the conviction was not

supported by the evidence because it consisted primarily of the testimony of

cooperating witnesses who had a motive to lie.
-2-

After careful review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support

the jury’s verdict finding Townsend guilty of conspiring to distribute 50 grams or

more of cocaine base. See United States v. Burdine, 515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir.

2008) (this court reviews sufficiency of evidence in light most favorable to

government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in government’s favor and accepting all

reasonable inferences that support jury’s verdict). Nine cooperating witnesses

testified about buying cocaine base from Townsend to redistribute to others.

Significantly, the witnesses testified about their prior criminal histories and their

cooperation agreements, and it was up to the jury to determine the credibility of these

witnesses. Further, police officers testified about seizing cocaine base from

Townsend’s mobile home and investigating his drug operations. See United States

v. Hernandez, 569 F.3d 893, 896 (8th Cir. 2009) (to establish conspiracy to distribute

drugs, government must prove there was an agreement to distribute drugs, and

defendant knew of conspiracy and intentionally joined it); United States v. McKay,

431 F.3d 1085, 1094 (8th Cir. 2005) (evidence was sufficient to support defendants’

participation in drug conspiracy where 6 cooperating witnesses testified about buying

drugs from defendants; impeachment evidence was for jury to consider).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________
#### William F. Keller, Respondent, *v.*Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Appellant.

*Keller*v. *Lehigh Valley R. R. Co.,*132 App. Div. 946, affirmed.

(Argued October 6, 1910;

decided October 25, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered May 29, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant’s negligence.

*John Taber*and *John M. Brainard*for appellant.

*Frank O. Sargent*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
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 28, 2012

|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
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1545 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1545

To provide for the certification by the Federal Aviation Administration 
   of airports serving commuter air carriers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 1995

 Mr. Oberstar introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the certification by the Federal Aviation Administration 
   of airports serving commuter air carriers, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 
44706(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows:
            ``(1) that serves any scheduled passenger operation of an 
        air carrier aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats 
        or any unscheduled passenger operation of an air carrier 
        aircraft designed for more than 30 passenger seats;''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

FIRST FARMERS AND MERCHANTS CORPORATION

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 Quarterly Report ofFirst Farmers and Merchants Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1)   The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   Information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

Date       May 8, 2006                                                  /s/T. Randy Stevens                     

                                                              T. Randy Stevens, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman

Date       May 8, 2006                                          /s/Patricia P. Moody                                          

Patricia P. Moody, Assistant Treasurer(principal financial

           officer and principalaccounting officer)
#### Joseph Bauer *v.*The State of Ohio.

Motion for a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Clarke county.

By the Court.

A room occupied as a news depot, in which papers, pamphlets and the like are kept for sale, and *71.communicating by a doorway with another room used as an outer hall or entrance to the building, is a “ store-house ” within the meaning of the burglary act, and is correctly described in the indictment as the property of the party so occupying it, and having its exclusive use and control, at the time of the breaking and entry, although another person used and occupied it, in common with the news man, during other specified hours of each day.

*Keifer & White,*for Bauer :

*Allen*v. *The*State, 10 Ohio St. 287; *Thalls*v. *The State,*21 Ohio St. 233 ; 9 Gray, 108 ; 1 Hale’s P. C. 556 ; Roscoe’s Cr. Ev. 353; *Roger’s case,*1 Leach, 104; *Carroll’s case,*Ib. 272; 2 East, P. C. 501, 502, 506-7; *People*v. *McClosky,*5 Park, 57; *People*v. *Bush,*3 Park. 552; *State*v. *Rand,*33 N. H. 216; *Mason*v. *People,*26 N. Y. 200 ; *Rex*v. *Sifton,*1 Eng. C. C. 202; *People*v. *Fralick,*Hill & Denio, 63 ; 1 Whar. Cr. Law, secs. 1569, 1577, 1586-1588; *Pendleton Street R. R. Co.*v. *Stallman,*22 Ohio St. 1; *L. M. R. R. Co.*v. *Wetmore,*19 Ohio St. 110; *White*v. *Thomas,*12 Ohio St. 312; *Baldwin v. Bank of Massilon,*1 Ohio St. 140.

*John Little,*attorney-general for the State.

*Motion overruled.*