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: 2
Federal Reserve Bank of: New York

## Filings received during the week ending April 30, 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
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: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending September 11, 2010

|Filer                         | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         | End of Comment Period                             
|----------------------------- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|PATRIOT FINANCIAL PARTNERS LP | CIC           | Patriot Financial Partners, GP, L.P., Patriot Financial Partners, L.P., Patriot Financial Partners Parallel, L.P., Patriot Financial Partners, GP, LLC, Patriot Financial Managers, L.P., and Messrs. Ira M. Lubert, W. Kirk Wycoff and James J. Lynch, all of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to purchase up to 19.2 percent of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc., Greenville, SC. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:07/20/2010
|Newspaper:                    | Not available
|Federal Register:             | 07/20/2010   

## 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD LOVELACE, #225683,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 15-CV-11886

WARDEN J. BARRETT,

Respondent.

__________________________________/

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the June 30, 2015 Opinion and Order issued in this case,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dated at Detroit, Michigan, this 30th day of

June, 2015.

DAVID J. WEAVER

CLERK OF THE COURT

BY: s/Lisa Wagner

Deputy Clerk

and Case Manager to 

Judge Robert H. Cleland

2:15-cv-11886-RHC-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 06/30/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 51
#### § 1018.3 Communications.

Unless otherwise specified, all communications concerning the regulations in this part should be addressed to the Chief, Section of Financial Services, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC.

[81 FR 8851, Feb. 23, 2016]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, July 10, 1995 (91), Para 91.35 Unfinished Business--Approval of the Journal]
[Page 1102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.91.35  unfinished business--approval of the journal

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, pursuant to clause 5, rule I, 
announced the unfinished business to be the question on agreeing to the 
Chair's approval of the Journal of June 30, 1995.
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House agree to the Chair's approval of said Journal?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, announced that the yeas had it.
  So the Journal was approved.
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL EARL WATERS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF CULVER CITY; BROTMAN

MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; DON

PEDERSEN; ADAM TREANOR; JESSE

BUTLER; SCOTT NARIMATSU,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-55585

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-09160-SJOMAN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 7, 2013** 

Pasadena, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Michael Earl Waters appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §

1983 claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). He contends that

FILED

NOV 12 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
the district court erred in concluding that defendants Brotman Medical Center

(“Brotman”) and Dr. Narimatsu were not “state actors.”

To state a § 1983 claim, Waters must allege not only that Brotman and

Narimatsu were state actors, see George v. Pacific–CSC Work Furlough, 91 F.3d

1227, 1230 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam), but also that they acted with “deliberate

indifference” in their failure to provide him adequate medical treatment, see

Clouthier v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2010). 

We need not reach the state action issue because Waters has not adequately alleged

deliberate indifference. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105–06 (1976).

Because dismissal of the § 1983 claim was proper, we do not disturb the

district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Waters’s state law claims against Brotman and Narimatsu. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

AFFIRMED.
MAURICE NESBITT

,
Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 4 797

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 20, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Frank E. Sheffield , Judge

.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender

, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General

, Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SWANSON

, OSTERHAUS

, and KELSEY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
#### § 109.25 Equipment.

When an agent exercises an authority under subpart B of this part, the agent shall use the appropriate safety, handling, and other equipment authorized by his or her operating administration's equipment requirements for hazardous material inspectors and investigators.
ABLE TELCOM HOLDING CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS




EXHIBIT 11     Computation of Per Share Earnings


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                         1996            1995           1994
                                                        ----            ----           ----
<S>                                   <C>              <C>           <C>       
Net (Loss) income                     $  (5,910,248)   $ (281,166)   $  946,013
                                      ==============   ===========   ==========

Weighted average shares outstanding
   Primary  and fully diluted             8,361,458      8,283,668    7,736,122
                                      ==============    ===========  ==========

(Loss) income per share
   Primary and fully diluted          $        (.71)   $      (.03)  $     .12
                                               =====           =====       ====
</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 11

COMPUTER NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
Statement Re: Computation of Net Income (loss) Per Basic and
Diluted Share
(in thousands, except per share data)
(Unaudited)

Weighted AverageNet income (loss)
    
    Shares Outstanding
    
    Per share AmountThree Months Ended October 31, 2003:Basic
    
    $
    237
    
    
    
    27,193
    
    
    $
    .01Dilutive effect of employee
awards and options and convertible notes(1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,557
    
    
    
    Diluted
    
    $
    237
    
    
    
    28,750
    
    
    $
    .01Three Months Ended October 31, 2002:Basic
    
    $
    (864
    )
    
    
    26,896
    
    
    $
    (.03
    )Dilutive effect of employee
awards and options and convertible notes(1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Diluted
    
    $
    (864
    )
    
    
    26,896
    
    
    $
    (.03
    )Nine Months Ended October 31, 2003:Basic
    
    $
    (27,667
    )
    
    
    27,047
    
    
    $
    (1.02
    )Dilutive effect of employee
awards and options and convertible notes(1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Diluted
    
    $
    (27,667
    )
    
    
    27,047
    
    
    $
    (1.02
    )Nine Months Ended October 31, 2002:Basic
    
    $
    (16,735
    )
    
    
    28,574
    
    
    $
    (.59
    )Dilutive effect of employee
awards and options and convertible notes(1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Diluted
    
    $
    (16,735
    )
    
    
    28,574
    
    
    $
    (.59
    )




| | (1) |  | Potential dilutive securities, consisting of convertible notes,
outstanding
stock options and shares issuable under the employee stock purchase plan,
are excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share due to
their anti-dilutive effect.
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABAMECTIN FOCUS MEETING AGENDA 2/14/2013

Introductions

1. Goals of the Focus meeting

--ID areas of uncertainty which may affect risk assessment

--acquire information necessary to conduct a sound risk assessment

2. Registration Review Schedule

--abamectin docket opens _____________________

--PWP publication _______________________

--FWP publication _______________________

--DCI expected to be issued ____________________

3. Brief overview of cheminova’s, nufarm’s, tide’s, ensystex’s, and celsius property’s registrations 

(presented by each technical registrant in turn)

4. Overview of key uncertainties which may affect registration review (by EPA)

--label uncertainties—

master label?

Non-specified maximum use rates in the LUIS report

--data requirements

--HASPOC findings for subchronic inhalation tox study and subchronic dermal tox study

5. Other outstanding issues

--current labels—grape REI and new environmental hazards section with surface water text (RD)

6. Questions from abamectin registrants for EPA
§ 62.35-1 General. ( a ) Minimum instrumentation, alarms, and safety controls required for specific types of automated vital systems are listed in table 1 to § 62.35-50.
( b ) Automatic propulsion systems, automated electric power management systems, and all associated subsystems and equipment must be capable of meeting load demands from standby to full system rated load, under steady state and maneuvering conditions, without need for manual adjustment or manipulation.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6944
BERNARD THOMAS HORTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ARCHIE GEE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-334) Submitted: October 10, 1997 Decided: November 12, 1997 Before HALL, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Thomas Horton, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant Appellant's motion to amend his pleadings, we deny a certi ficate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Horton v. Gee , No. CA-97-334 (D. Md. June 19, 1997). 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
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 November 27, 2010

|Filer                   | Filing Type     | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                          
|----------------------- | --------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|BROOKLINE BANCORP, INC. | * 3A5* 4c8* 3A1 | Brookline Bancorp, Inc., Brookline, Massachusetts, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of First Ipswich Bancorp, Ipswich, Massachusetts, and thereby indirectly acquire First National Bank of Ipswich, Ipswich, Massachusetts and, upon becoming a bank holding company, to continue to control 100 percent of the voting shares of Brookline Bank, Brookline, Massachusetts and Eastern Funding LLC, New York, New York, pursuant to sections 3(a)(1), 3(a)(5), and 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act. | Newspaper:12/15/2010Federal Register:12/17/2010
|Newspaper:              | 12/15/2010     
|Federal Register:       | 12/17/2010     

## 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
#### § 58.01-45 Machinery space, ventilation.

Each machinery space must be ventilated to ensure that, when machinery or boilers are operating at full power in all weather including heavy weather, an adequate supply of air is maintained for the operation of the machinery and for the safety, efficiency, and comfort of the crew.

[CGD 83-043, 60 FR 24775, May 10, 1995]
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: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending March 12, 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANACIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MAY 31, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE FIFTY-TWO WEEKS ENDED MAY 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  195,324
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,577
<INVENTORY>                                     63,962
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               325,162
<PP&E>                                       1,076,436
<DEPRECIATION>                                 269,153
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,493,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          348,516
<BONDS>                                        251,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           393
<OTHER-SE>                                     538,329
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,493,087
<SALES>                                      3,212,431
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,212,431
<CGS>                                        1,566,265
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,566,265
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,592
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                169,298
<INCOME-TAX>                                    72,121
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             97,177
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    97,177
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1692 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1692

  To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to increase the 
limitation amount applicable to contributions to candidates in Federal 
    elections by individuals and to decrease the limitation amount 
      applicable to contributions to such candidates by nonparty 
                  multicandidate political committees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 1995

 Mr. Clinger introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to increase the 
limitation amount applicable to contributions to candidates in Federal 
    elections by individuals and to decrease the limitation amount 
      applicable to contributions to such candidates by nonparty 
                  multicandidate political committees.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN THE LIMITATION AMOUNT APPLICABLE TO 
              CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES BY INDIVIDUALS.

    Section 315(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
(2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking out ``$1,000'' and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``$2,000 in the case of an individual and 
$1,000 in the case of a person other than an individual''.

SEC. 2. DECREASE IN THE LIMITATION AMOUNT APPLICABLE TO CONTRIBUTIONS 
              TO CANDIDATES BY NONPARTY MULTICANDIDATE POLITICAL 
              COMMITTEES.

    Section 315(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
(2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking out ``$5,000'' and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``$2,500 in the case of a nonparty 
multicandidate political committee and $5,000 in the case of a 
multicandidate political committee of a political party''.
                                 <all>
```