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 November 30, 2013

|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
#### Frederic Currie et al., Doing Business under the Firm Name of Currie *&*Boyce, Appellants, v. Frank J. Sprague, Respondent.

*Currie*v. *Sprague,*138 App. Div. 900, affirmed.

(Argued September 28, 1910;

decided October 18, 1910.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 13, 1910, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the' answer in an action to recover the balance of an account.

The following questions were certified :

“1. Is the separate defense of the amended answer set forth under the caption ‘For a further answer and defense to each and every of the causes of action set forth in the amended complaint’ sufficient in law upon the face thereof?

“ 2. Does the counterclaim alleged in the amended answer state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action ? ”

*Walter W. Irwin*for appellants.

*Meier Steinbrink*and *Paul Eugene Jones*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and questions certified answered in the affirmative ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullén, Ch. J.,- Haight, Yann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hisoook and Chase, JJ.
#### Margaretha Pfeffele v. Second Avenue Railroad Company.

Motion for reargument denied, without costs.
Consumer Product Safety Alert

FROM THE U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207

S a fety Devices Help Prev e n t

Deaths and Injuries

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recommends that consumers purchase and use safety

devices to help prevent deaths and injuries associated with hazards in or around the home.

009611

(800 deaths,

500,000

injuries)
Consumer Product Safety Alert

FROM THE U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207

S a fety Devices Help Prevent Deaths and Injuries ( C o n t i nu e d )

009611
#### Mary E. Riley, *Respondent, v.*Elizabeth A. Hoyt, *Appellant*.

Case not considered. The case does not appear to have been settled or filed in the office of the clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 149 (Friday, August 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 43250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3790]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of a U.S. Government-Owned 
Patent

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The notice of an intent to grant an exclusive license for U.S. 
patent application 11/229,425, filed September 16, 2005 entitled 
``Artillery Rocket Trajectory Correction Kit'' was originally published 
in the Federal Register on July 20, 2007 (72 FR 39801) and a correction 
notice was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2007 (74 FR 
41300). The geographical information has been updated. The correct 
information is: In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 
404.7(b)(1)(i), announcement is made of the intent to an exclusive, 
royalty-bearing, revocable license for all geographic areas including 
the United States of America and its territories and possessions for 
any patents or patent applications claiming priority to U.S. patent 
application.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Russ Alexander, Office of Research 
& Technology Applications, (256) 876-8743.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-3790 Filed 8-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
§ 174.310 Requirements for the operation of high-hazard flammable trains. ( a ) *Applicability.* Each rail carrier operating a high-hazard flammable train (as defined in § 171.8 of this subchapter) must comply with each of the following additional safety requirements with respect to each high-hazard flammable train that it operates: ( 1 ) *Routing.* The additional planning requirements for transportation by rail in accordance with part 172, subpart I of this subchapter.
( 2 ) *Speed restrictions.* All trains are limited to a maximum speed of 50 mph. The train is further limited to a maximum speed of 40 mph while that train travels within the limits of high-threat urban areas (HTUAs) as defined in § 1580.3 of this title, unless all tank cars containing a Class 3 flammable liquid meet or exceed the DOT Specification 117 standards, the DOT Specification 117P performance standards, or the DOT Specification 117R retrofit standards provided in part 179, subpart D of this subchapter.
( 3 ) *Braking.* Each rail carrier operating a high-hazard flammable train (as defined in § 171.8 of this subchapter) operating at a speed in excess of 30 mph must ensure the train is equipped and operated with either a two-way end-of-train (EOT) device, as defined in 49 CFR 232.5, or a distributed power (DP) system, as defined in 49 CFR 229.5.
( 4 ) *New tank cars.* After October 1, 2015, tank cars manufactured for use in a HHFT must meet: ( i ) DOT Specification 117, or 117P performance standard in part 179, subpart D of this subchapter; or
( ii ) An authorized tank specification as specified in part 173, subpart F of this subchapter.
( 5 ) *Retrofit reporting.* Owners of non-jacketed DOT-111 tank cars in PG I service in an HHFT, who are unable to meet the January 1, 2017, retrofit deadline specified in § 173.243(a)(1) of this subchapter are required to submit a report by March 1, 2017, to Department of Transportation. A group representing owners may submit a consolidated report to the Department of Transportation in lieu of individual reports from each tank car owner. The report must include the following information regarding the retrofitting progress: ( i ) The total number of tank cars retrofitted to meet the DOT-117R specification;
( ii ) The total number of tank cars built or retrofitted to meet the DOT-117P specification;
( iii ) The total number of DOT-111 tank cars (including those built to CPC-1232 industry standard) that have not been modified;
( iv ) The total number of tank cars built to meet the DOT-117 specification; and
( v ) Entities required to submit a report under this paragraph shall submit subsequent follow-up reports containing the information identified in this paragraph within 60 days of being notified by PHMSA and FRA.
( 6 ) *Oil spill response plans.* The additional requirements for petroleum oil transported by rail in accordance with part 130 of of this chapter.
( 7 ) *High-hazard flammable train (HHFT) information sharing notification for emergency response planning.* The additional requirements for notification in § 174.312.
( b ) [Reserved]
[80 FR 26748, May 8, 2015, as amended at 83 FR 48401, Sept. 25, 2018; 84 FR 6952, Feb. 28, 2019]
§ 178.33-9 Marking. ( a ) By means of printing, lithographing, embossing, or stamping, each container must be marked to show: ( 1 ) DOT-2P.
( 2 ) Name or symbol of person making the mark specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Symbol, if used, must be registered with the Associate Administrator.
( b ) [Reserved]
[Amdt. 178-40, 41 FR 38181, Sept. 9, 1976, as amended by Amdt. 178-97, 56 FR 66287, Dec. 20, 1991; 66 FR 45386, Aug. 28, 2001]
EXHIBIT 31.1





CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, John R. Hart, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of PICO Holdings, Inc. (the “Registrant”); and


2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.








Date: March 14, 2013





/s/ John R. Hart


John R. Hart


President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 1554.103 Security Directives. ( a ) *General.* When TSA determines that additional security measures are necessary to respond to a threat assessment or to a specific threat against civil aviation, TSA issues a Security Directive setting forth mandatory measures.
( b ) *Compliance.* Each repair station must comply with each Security Directive TSA issues to the repair station within the time prescribed. Each repair station that receives a Security Directive must— ( 1 ) Acknowledge receipt of the Security Directive as directed by TSA;
( 2 ) Specify the method by which security measures have been or will be implemented to meet the effective date; and
( 3 ) Notify TSA to obtain approval of alternative measures if the repair station is unable to implement the measures in the Security Directive.
( c ) *Availability.* Each repair station that receives a Security Directive and each person who receives information from a Security Directive must— ( 1 ) Restrict the availability of the Security Directive and the information contained in the document to persons who have an operational need to know; and
( 2 ) Refuse to release the Security Directive or the information contained in the document to persons other than those who have an operational need to know without the prior written consent of TSA.
( d ) *Comments.* Each repair station that receives a Security Directive may comment on the Security Directive by submitting data, views, or arguments in writing to TSA. TSA may amend the Security Directive based on comments received. Submission of a comment does not delay the effective date of the Security Directive.
#### Mary R. E. Goodspeed, *Appellant, v.*Damon H. Mead and others, *Respondents.*

Motion for reargument or to go to the Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.
#### Patrick F. Duffy, Respondent, *v.*The New York and Manhattan Beach Railway Company, *Appellant.*

Judgment and order denying new trial reversed, and now trial granted, costs to abide event.

Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Pratt, J., not sitting.
§ 1562.21 Scope, general requirements, and definitions. ( a ) *Scope.* This subpart applies to aircraft operations into or out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), fixed base operators located at DCA or gateway airports; individuals designated as a security coordinator by aircraft operators or fixed base operators; and crewmembers, passengers, and armed security officers on aircraft operations subject to this subpart.
( b ) *General requirements.* Each person operating an aircraft into or out of DCA must comply with this subpart, except: ( 1 ) Military, law enforcement, and medivac aircraft operations;
( 2 ) Federal and State government aircraft operations operating under an airspace waiver approved by TSA and the Federal Aviation Administration;
( 3 ) All-cargo aircraft operations; and
( 4 ) Passenger aircraft operations conducted under: ( i ) A full security program approved by TSA in accordance with 49 CFR 1544.101(a); or
( ii ) A foreign air carrier security program approved by TSA in accordance with 49 CFR 1546.101(a) or (b).
( c ) *Other security programs.* Each aircraft operator required to comply with this subpart for an aircraft operation into or out of DCA must also comply with any other TSA-approved security program that covers that operation. If any requirements of the DASSP conflict with the requirements of another TSA-approved security program, the aircraft operation must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the DASSP.
( d ) *Definitions.* For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply: *Armed Security Officer Program* means the security program approved by TSA, in coordination with the Federal Air Marshal Service, for security officers authorized to carry a firearm under § 1562.29 of this part.
*Crewmember* means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time. This does not include an armed security officer.
*DCA* means Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
*DASSP* means the aircraft operator security program (DCA Access Standard Security Program) approved by TSA under this part for aircraft operations into and out of DCA.
*FBO* means a fixed base operator that has been approved by TSA under this part to serve as a last point of departure for flights into or out of DCA.
*FBO Security Program* means the security program approved by TSA under this part for FBOs to serve flights into or out of DCA.
*Flightcrew member* means a pilot, flight engineer, or flight navigator assigned to duty in an aircraft during flight time.
*Gateway airport* means an airport that has been approved by TSA under this part as a last point of departure for flights into DCA under this part.
*Passenger* means any person on an aircraft other than a flightcrew member. A “passenger” includes an armed security officer authorized to carry a firearm in accordance with the rule.
From: 

To: 

Subject: 

Date: 

Grimmoete@laol.com 

.!;&LQill 

EAS Yakataga, Icy Bay 2012 

Tuesday, September 04, 2012 9:13:25 PM 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

Re: Docket DOT -OST -1996-2009 

I recently received a copy of a letter from Steven Hatter to you dated August 21, 2012 regarding EAS 

service to Cape Yakataga and Icy Bay. As the owner of Icy Bay Lodge at East Icy Bay, I was surprised 

that East Icy Bay was not mentioned as a vital stop for the Essential Air Service. 

We started construction of Icy Bay Lodge in 2005 and we have used the EAS service extensively for 

mail, freight, fuel, groceries and clients. We were recently approved by the State of Alaska to take 

clients into Wrangelle-St. Elias National Park, and we have also obtained an Alaska State license to 

transport big game hunters. We are now the only ones operating in Icy Bay for these services. In 

addition, we maintain the communication station for the Marine Exchange of Alaska, which monitors the 

movement of ships up and down the coast for weather, emergencies, etc. By this time I believe you 

have received an e-mail from my caretaker John Peterson in which he describes the services he 

provides and maintains at Icy Bay Lodge. 

We have also opened up and maintain a 2800 ft. old World War II gravel air strip on the East side. It is 

in good enough shape that we were able to land D-3's there. Icy Bay is the only safe harbor for many 

miles and we have had to fly out individuals on the EAS rlight due fo injuries .. We are part of the City of 

Yakutat and are the eyes and ears for law enforcement in Icy Bay. I have people there year-round 

looking after the facilities and the communicating system for the Marine Exchange of Alaska. For these 

reasons I believe that our activities at East Icy Bay qualify us to be considered a "community." 

While I can understand that Mr. Hatter did not recommend continuing EAS stops to WEST Icy Bay due 

to their "private" airstrip designation, I would greatly appreciate your consideration in continuing EAS 

stops to EAST Icy Bay. Because flights from Yakutat to Cape Yakataga would travel directly over Icy 

Bay, it would be cost effective make a stop at East Icy Bay as well. 

Please go to our web site at www.icybaylodge.com and see what we have to offer. If you have any 

questions please call me at 303-807-5657. 

Thanks for your consideration. 

Pete Grimm 

Owner of Icy Bay Lodge
#### Robert POWELL and Elizabeth W. Lawrence, Appellants, United States of America (Intervening Plaintiff), v. The PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, George M. Harrison, Individually and as Grand President of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees; and S. V. M. Loehr, General Chairman, Individually and as General Chairman of the Pennsylvania System Board of Adjustment, the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees.

No. 12696.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Sept. 15, 1958.

Decided Oct. 1, 1958.

Lawrence J. Richette, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.

Allen S. Olmsted, 2d, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.

Before GOODRICH, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal following a refusal by the district court to vacate an order previously made.

So far as the Pennsylvania Railroad is concerned, the original dismissal with prejudice settles the matter. The Railroad complied with the court’s order and no timely appeal was taken. The motion to vacate does not extend the time for appeal. This matter is covered by our decisions in Raughley v. Pennsylvania R.R., 3 Cir., 1956, 230 F.2d 387, and Safe Harbor Waterpower Corp. v. Federal Power Commission, 3 Cir., 1941, 124 F.2d 800.

So far as the amount to be distributed pursuant to a court order is concerned, that is clearly settled by the stipulation made between the parties and recognized in the argument before Judge Kirkpatrick March 27, 1958. If there are other claimants to the fund in addition to those represented by the attorneys in the case before us, they are not involved in this appeal and have no standing in court at the present time.

So far as the claim by the attorneys for additional compensation is concerned, the appeal is timely. They claim an arrangement with the clients whereby they are to receive one-third of the fund. The court has allowed $30,000 which is one-tenth of the fund. If this is incorrect they are entitled to have the error corrected.

The motions to dismiss will be granted except so far as the claim by the attorneys for additional compensation is concerned. The briefs may be typewritten.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 26, 2016

d1017 

# Order

Clerk October 26, 2016

150457(23)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150457

COA: 321158

Oakland CC: 2012

- 240470

- FH

JEFFREY HAWKINS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 22,

2015 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does n ot appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
§ 174.14 Movements to be expedited. ( a ) A carrier must forward each shipment of hazardous materials promptly and within 48 hours (Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays excluded), after acceptance at the originating point or receipt at any yard, transfer station, or interchange point, except that where biweekly or weekly service only is performed, a shipment of hazardous materials must be forwarded on the first available train.
( b ) A tank car loaded with any Division 2.1 (flammable gas), Division 2.3 (poisonous gas) or Class 3 (flammable liquid) material, may not be received and held at any point, subject to forwarding orders, so as to defeat the purpose of this section or of § 174.204 of this subchapter.
[Amdt. 174-26, 41 FR 16092, Apr. 15, 1976, as amended by Amdt. 174-68, 55 FR 52677, Dec. 21, 1990]
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

I certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. the Annual Report on Form 10-K of LabOne, Inc. for the year ending December 31, 2004 (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 LabOne, Inc.

 

LabOne, Inc.

Date:  March 15, 2005
By  /s/ *W. Thomas Grant II*
Order entered June 10, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-14-00683-CV

IN RE EDRICK PHILLIPS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 7 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. W04-58212-Y



### ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.4





Certification of Chief Financial Officer





I, Brian C. White, of Integrated Device Technology, Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a- 14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, certify to my knowledge that:





(i)           the Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended December 28, 2014 (the “ Report ”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








By:/s/ Brian C. WhiteDate:February 12, 2015Brian C. WhiteVice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)








A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.