alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wilbur *v.*Abbott.

For general purposes, *nul tiel record*is the general issue in debt on a judgment.

Debt, on a judgment recovered in Louisiana. This is the same case reported in 58 N. H. 272. The defendant pleaded *nul tiel record*to each count, and the plaintiff joined issue. The plaintiff filed three special replications to each plea, alleging that the defendant is estopped to plead *nul tiel record*because of certain proceedings in the courts of Louisiana (set forth in the replications), whereby it was adjudged that he was estopped to deny the validity of the judgment declared upon. The defendant moved to reject the replications, on the ground that the plaintiff, having joined issue on the plea of *nul tiel record,*cannot set up any other matter as an answer to that plea.

*Gr. Y. Sawyer Sawyer, Jr.,*for the plaintiff. .

*S. 0. Eastman,*for the defendant.

Smith, J.

In Gould PL, *c.*6, s. 10, *nul tiel record*is said to be the general issue in debt on judgment. So in Lawes Pl. 225. It is the only general plea in such an action, and puts in issue the verity of the record itself; and no evidence but that is admitted. *Pillsbury*v. *Springfield,*16 N. H. 565, 572; Gould Pl., *c.*6, *s.*10; Story on Pl. 336. It is the proper plea when there is either no record, or where there is a variance in the statement of it. 1 Ch. Pl. 480, 481. The plea of *nul tiel record*does not conclude to the contrary, because the matter is to be determined by the court by inspection of the record. Hence it concludes with a verification, although it is a direct denial of the allegation in the declaration that there is such a record; and herein it differs from the general issue in other forms of action where the parties are at issue, when the defendant simply denies the essential part of the declaration. It confesses nothing, and avoids nothing; and there remains nothing for the plaintiff to do but to traverse the denial of the want of a record, concluding with a verification by the record.

For general purposes *nul tiel record*is the general issue, and in this case it can make no practical difference to the parties whether the estoppel is pleaded, or given in evidence under the issues which have been joined.

*Motion granted.*

Stanley and Clark JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.
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 October 13, 2012

|Filer                     | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                              | End of Comment Period                                 
|------------------------- | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|BANQUE CENTRALE POPULAIRE | FBSEA          | Banque Centrale Populaire, Casablanca, Morocco, to establish a representative office in Washington, D.C.                     | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                | Not available 
|Federal Register:         | Not applicable
|FIRST COMMUNITY BANK      | * Branch       | First Community Bank, Bluefield, Virginia, to establish a branch at 7290-17 Beach Drive SW, Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina | Newspaper:10/15/2012Federal Register:Not applicable   
|Newspaper:                | 10/15/2012    
|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
#### § 1312.11 Special notification for ordered matter.

Every tariff publication containing matter filed in compliance with a Board decision or court order shall indicate in the publication the relevant decision or order, and as well the number of days' notice authorized or required.
§ 1150.3 Information about applicant(s). ( a ) The name, address, and phone number of the representative to receive correspondence concerning this application.
( b ) Facts showing that applicant is either a common carrier by railroad or has been organized to implement the proposal for which approval is being sought.
( c ) A statement indicating whether the rail line will be operated by applicant. If not, the operator which has been selected must join in the application, and provide all information required for an applicant. If the operator has not yet been selected, state who is being considered.
( d ) A statement indicating whether applicant is affiliated by stock ownership or otherwise with any industry to be served by the line. If so, provide details about the nature and extent of the affiliation.
( e ) Date and place of organization, applicable State statutes, and a brief description of the nature and objectives of the organization.
( f ) If a corporation, submit: ( 1 ) A list of officers, directors, and 10 principal stockholders of the corporation and their respective holdings. A statement whether any of these officers, directors or major shareholders control other regulated carriers. Also a list of entities, corporation(s) individual(s), or group(s) who control applicant, the extent of control, and whether any of them control other common carriers.
( 2 ) As exhibit A, any resolution of the stockholders or directors authorizing the proposal.
( g ) If a partnership or individual, submit the name and address of all general partners and their respective interests, and whether any of them control other carriers.
( h ) If applicant is an entity other than as described in paragraphs (f) or (g) of this section, submit name, title, and business address of principals or trustee, and whether the entity controls any other common carriers.
( i ) If applicant is a trustee, receiver, assignee, or a personal representative of the real party in interest, details about the appointment (including supporting documents, such as the court order authorizing the appointment and the filing) and about the real party in interest.
( j ) If applicant is an existing carrier, it may satisfy the informational requirements of paragraphs (f) through (i) of this section by making appropriate reference to the docket number of prior applications that have been filed within the previous three years in which the information has been submitted.
[47 FR 8199, Feb. 25, 1982, as amended at 81 FR 8855, Feb. 23, 2016]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0633

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

DAVID RAY SCHULTZ,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Appellant David Ray Schultz was granted an extension of time to file and serve the 

opening brief on or before March 1, 2024. The opening brief is now overdue.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file, and serve the 

opening brief on appeal no later than April 12, 2024. Failure to file the brief within that 

time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all parties. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 12 2024

03/12/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0633
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

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending July 17, 2010

----

Testimony and Statements            Monetary Policy -- statement by Chairman Bernanke before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on July 21 and before the House Committee on Financial Services on July 22, 2010, on the semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress.            -Discussed, July 15, 2010            Forms            Forms -- initial Board review to implement the Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with Limitations on Interbank Liabilities (Regulation F).            -Proposed, July 14, 2010            Monetary and Financial Policy            Monetary Policy -- semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress.            -Authorized, July 14, 2010            Enforcement            A.E. Bancorp, Inc., Buffalo Grove, Illinois -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.            -Announced, July 12, 2010                        Bank of Whitman Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Colfax, Washington; Whitman Bancorporation, Inc.; and Bank of Whitman -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.            -Announced, July 14, 2010                        Bannister Bancshares, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.            -Announced, July 13, 2010                        First Olathe Bancshares, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.            -Announced, July 13, 2010                        Home Valley Bank, Grants Pass, Oregon -- issuance of a prompt corrective action directive with the consent of the bank.            -Announced, July 12, 2010                        Pilot Bancshares, Inc., Tampa, Florida, and Pilot Bank -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and the State of Florida Office of Financial Regulation.            -Announced, July 14, 2010                        Premier Bank Holding Company, Tallahassee, Florida -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.            -Announced, July 13, 2010            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
§ 1130.1 When no damages sought. ( a ) *Form and content.* Informal complaint may be by letter or other writing filed with the Board and will be serially numbered as filed. The complaint must contain the essential elements of a formal complaint as specified at 49 CFR 1111.2 and may embrace supporting papers.
( b ) *Correspondence handling.* When an informal complaint appears susceptible of informal adjustment, the Board will send a copy or statement of the complaint to each subject of the complaint in an attempt to have it satisfied by correspondence, thereby avoiding the filing of a formal complaint.
( c ) *Discontinuance of informal proceeding.* The filing of an informal complaint does not preclude complainant from filing a formal complaint. If a formal complaint is filed, the informal proceeding will be discontinued.
[47 FR 49570, Nov. 1, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 44827, Sept. 30, 1983; 69 FR 12806, Mar. 18, 2004; 82 FR 57382, Dec. 5, 2017; 84 FR 12944, Apr. 3, 2019]
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 05-0666

IN RE  THE STATE OF TEXAS, BY AND THROUGH 

THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

Real party in interest’s Motion for Clarification is granted in part.

1.The Court’s order dated August 18, 2005, granting relators’ emergency motion for temporary relief, filed August 18, 2005, is amended.

Paragraph 1 of the Court’s August 18, 2005, order shall read as follows:

  To the extent that the Thirteenth Court of Appeals’ order dated August 11, 2005, in Cause No. 13-05-460-CV, styled *Americo Energy Resources, LLC v. The State of Texas, by and through The Texas Department of Transportation*, (the Court of Appeals’ Order) interferes with any party’s right or ability to seek or be granted relief, including a temporary restraining order or other injunctive relief, that order is stayed pending further order of this Court.  Except as herein provided, the Court of Appeals’ Order remains in full force and effect.

2. Paragraph 2 shall read as follows:

The real party in interest is requested to respond to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before 3:00 p.m., August 23, 2005.

Done at the City of Austin, this August 19, 2005.

Andrew Weber, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas
§ 58.25-50 Rudder stops. ( a ) Power-operated steering gear must have arrangements for cutting off power to the gear before the rudder reaches the stops. These arrangements must be synchronized with the rudder stock or with the gear itself rather than be within the control system for the steering gear, and must work by limit switches that interrupt output of the control system or by other means acceptable to the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center.
( b ) Strong and effective structural rudder stops must be fitted; except that, where adequate positive stops are provided within the steering gear, such structural stops need not be fitted.
Release dates | 
    Full version (24 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 April 3, 2010

---





## Forms

|
|

## Personnel

|
|

## 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7326

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLAUDE SLOAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big 

Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00004-JPJ-1)

Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 24, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claude Sloan, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7326 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Claude Sloan appeals the district court’s order denying his tenth motion for 

compassionate release. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the 

informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Sloan’s informal brief does not challenge 

the district court’s disposition of this motion, he has forfeited appellate review of the 

court’s order.*

 See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal 

brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues 

preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States 

v. Sloan, No. 2:18-cr-00004-JPJ-1 (W.D. Va. Nov. 8, 2022). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* To the extent Sloan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition 

for actual innocence, that order is not properly before us. Sloan noted this appeal before 

the district court entered its order denying that petition, and he did not subsequently note 

an appeal of that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A).

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7326 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Wilson L. Gordon, *Respondent, v.*Jacob Skillman, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements., Opinion by

Dwight, J.
§ 52.01-5 Plans. ( a ) Manufacturers intending to fabricate boilers to be installed on vessels must submit detailed plans as required by subpart 50.20 of this subchapter. The plans, including design calculations, must be certified by a registered professional engineer as meeting the design requirements in this part and in Section I of the ASME BPVC (incorporated by reference; see § 52.01-1).
( b ) The following information must be included: ( 1 ) Calculations for all pressure containment components including the maximum allowable working pressure and temperature, the hydrostatic or pneumatic test pressure, the maximum steam generating capacity and the intended safety valve settings.
( 2 ) Joint design and methods of attachment of all pressure containment components.
( 3 ) A bill of material meeting the requirements of Section I of the ASME BVPC, as modified by this subpart.
( 4 ) A diagrammatic arrangement drawing of the assembled unit indicating the location of internal and external components including any interconnecting piping.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1625-0097) [CGD 81-79, 50 FR 9432, Mar. 8, 1985, as amended by USCG-2006-25697, 71 FR 55746, Sept. 25, 2006; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65160, Oct. 31, 2008]
Editorial Note on Part 107
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 107 appear at 67 FR 61011, Sept. 27, 2002, 70 FR 56089, Sept. 23, 2005, and 70 FR 73159, Dec. 9, 2005.

§ 107.217 Notice. ( a ) The applicant shall mail a copy of the application and any subsequent amendments or other documents relating to the application to each person who is reasonably ascertainable by the applicant as a person who will be affected by the determination sought. The copy of the application must be accompanied by a statement that the person may submit comments regarding the application within 45 days. The application must include a certification that the application has complied with this paragraph and must include the names and addresses of each person to whom the application was sent.
( b ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, if the State or political subdivision determines that compliance with paragraph (a) of this section would be impracticable, the applicant shall: ( 1 ) Comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section with regard to those persons whom it is reasonable and practicable to notify; and
( 2 ) Include with the application a description of the persons or class or classes of persons to whom notice was not sent.
( c ) The Chief Counsel may require the applicant to provide notice in addition to that required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, or may determine that the notice required by paragraph (a) of the section is not impracticable, or that notice should be published in the Federal Register. Late-filed comments are considered so far as practicable.
( d ) The Chief Counsel may notify any other persons who may be affected by the outcome of a determination on the application.
( e ) Any person submitting written comments with respect to an application filed under this section shall send a copy of the comments to the applicant. The person shall certify that he has complied with the requirements of this paragraph. The Chief Counsel may notify other persons participating in the proceeding of the comments and provide an opportunity for those other persons to respond.
[Amdt. 107-3, 41 FR 38171, Sept. 9, 1976, as amended by Amdt. 107-24, 56 FR 8621, Feb. 28, 1991; Amdt. 107-25, 57 FR 20429, May 13, 1992; Amdt. 107-38, 61 FR 21099, May 9, 1996; 71 FR 30068, May 25, 2006]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on May 30, 2007, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. specifically, Agilent, Santa Rosa, CA; and Phase Matrix, San Jose, CA have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Chroma Systems Solutions, Irvine, CA; PXIT, Inc., Lexington, MA; and Acqiris, Monroe, NY have withdrawn as parties to this venture. No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.                

                    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 8, 2007. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on April 9, 2007 (72 FR 17583).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 07-3417 Filed 07-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M