alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

# Actions under delegated authority

## Actions taken during the week ending May 21, 2011

----

Bank Holding CompaniesSan Francisco          Circle Bancorp, Novato, California; Shoreline Capital Partners, LP, Mill Valley; and Cole Financial Ventures, Inc. -- to become bank holding companies and to acquire Circle Bank on its conversion from an industrial bank to a commercial bank.            -Withdrawn, May 18, 2011            New York          People's United Financial, Inc., Bridgeport, Connecticut -- waiver of application to merge with Danvers Bancorp, Inc., Danvers, Massachusetts, in connection with the merger of their respective subsidiary savings banks, People's United Bank, Bridgeport, and Danversbank, Danvers.            -Granted, May 20, 2011            Bank MergersSecretary          FirstBank, Lakewood, Colorado -- to merge with FirstBank of Arizona, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona.            -Approved, May 19, 2011            Change in Bank ControlMinneapolis          Gebsco, Inc., Mondovi, Wisconsin -- change in bank control of Gebsco and its subsidiary bank, Alliance Bank, Mondovi.            -Permitted, May 16, 2011            Kansas City          Security National Corporation, Omaha, Nebraska -- to retain control of Security National and its subsidiary bank, Security National Bank of Omaha, Omaha.            -Permitted, May 17, 2011            Extensions of TimeSt. Louis          Cabool State Bank Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Cabool, Missouri -- extension to September 3, 2011, to increase its ownership of Cabool Bancshares, Inc., Cabool, and thereby increase its indirect control of Cabool State Bank.            -Granted, May 18, 2011            Secretary          China Investment Corporation, Beijing, People's Republic of China; Central Huijin Investment Limited; and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited -- commenter's request to extend the comment period on the applications to acquire shares of The Bank of East Asia (U.S.A.) National Association, New York, New York.            -Denied, May 16, 2011            MembershipDallas          First Capital Bank, Quanah, Texas -- to become a member of the Federal Reserve System.            -Approved, May 19, 2011            Regulations and PoliciesFOMC          Federal Open Market Committee -- minutes of the meeting on April 26-27, 2011.            -Published, May 18, 2011            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
Editorial Note on Part 98
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 98 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49232, Sept. 25, 2009.

§ 98.30-6 Vessels carrying IBCs. Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs) with a classification of 31A may be used on a vessel to which this part applies and must meet at a minimum the following constructional requirements: ( a ) The shell thickness must be a minimum 6.36 mm (0.25 inches) in reference steel.
( b ) There must be a self-closing relief valve set to open at no less than 5 psig.
( c ) Closures used on fill openings, in excess of 20 square inches, must be equipped with a device to prevent them from fully opening without first relieving internal pressure.
( d ) All venting requirements must be followed in accordance with 49 CFR 178.345-10, Table 1.
[USCG-2011-0088, 78 FR 54786, Sept. 6, 2013]
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: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending August 20, 2011

|Filer                                 | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                              
|------------------------------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|COMMUNITY FIRST BANK OF THE HEARTLAND | * 18C* Branch  | Community First Bank of the Heartland, Mt. Vernon, Illinois, to merge with First State Bank of Dix, Dix, Illinois, and to retain the acquired facilities as branch offices. | Newspaper:09/16/2011Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                            | 09/16/2011    
|Federal Register:                     | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                          | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|----------------------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|ALLIED BK, MULBERRY, ARKANSAS                   | 28349  | 03/14/2011 | 08/01/2011     | S         | Small Bank 
|ARVEST BK, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS               | 311845 | 01/10/2011 | 08/01/2011     | S         | Large Bank 
|DUQUOIN ST BK, DUQUOIN, ILLINOIS                | 823142 | 04/18/2011 | 08/05/2011     | S         | Small Bank 
|LEITCHFIELD DEPOSIT B&TC, LEITCHFIELD, KENTUCKY | 643546 | 05/02/2011 | 08/12/2011     | O         | Small Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for Forth Quarter of 2011 (October 1, 2011 - December 31, 2011)

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4940

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JOE LEWIS JEFFERSON, a/k/a Stink, a/k/a Louis Jefferson, 

a/k/a Joe Little, a/k/a Jo Jo, a/k/a Joseph Wayne Jefferson, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

District Judge. (4:07-cr-00023-D-1; 5:07-cr-00197-D) 

Submitted: November 23, 2009 Decided: December 10, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States 

Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant 

United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Following his guilty plea to identity fraud, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) (2006), and possession of a 

firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2006), Joe Lewis Jefferson was 

sentenced to 156 months’ imprisonment on the identity fraud 

conviction and a concurrent 120 months’ imprisonment on the 

firearm and ammunition count. Jefferson appeals his sentence, 

arguing that the district court erred when it imposed a 

departure sentence that was too extensive. Finding no error, we 

affirm. 

 Although Jefferson does not dispute the legal or 

factual correctness of the district court’s findings at 

sentencing and does not claim that the district court was 

unjustified in departing under the relevant guidelines 

provisions, Jefferson does assert that his sentence is “only 24 

months less than the maximum” and that it is excessive in light 

of his guilty plea, acceptance of responsibility, and efforts to 

cooperate with authorities. The district court provided ample 

analysis of the reasons it believed Jefferson’s departure 

sentence was warranted, not only during Jefferson’s sentencing 

hearing, but also in a detailed sentencing memorandum. Given 

the extent of Jefferson’s criminal history, the negligible 

deterrent effect of his prior more lenient sentences, the 

2 
3 

increasingly serious and extensive nature of Jefferson’s 

offenses, and the district court’s meaningful articulation of 

the reasons for its departure and the extent of the departure, 

we find that the extent of Jefferson’s departure sentence was 

reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50-51 

(2007); United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 

(4th Cir. 2007). 

 Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. 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. 

AFFIRMED
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2021

To release restrictions imposed on the use of certain real property conveyed

by the Secretary of the Interior to Lawrence County, Ohio.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 12, 1995

Mr. CREMEANS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To release restrictions imposed on the use of certain real

property conveyed by the Secretary of the Interior to

Lawrence County, Ohio.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST RE4 GARDING USE OF PREVIOUSLY CONVEYED

5 PROPERTY IN LAWRENCE COUNTY, OHIO.

6 (a) RELEASE REQUIRED.—The Secretary of the Inte7 rior shall release, without consideration, the reversionary

8 interest of the United States in the real property described

9 in subsection (b).
2

•HR 2021 IH

1 (b) DESCRIPTION.—The real property referred to in

2 subsection (a) is a parcel of real property consisting of

3 approximately 15.41 acres located in Fayette Township,

4 Lawrence County, Ohio, which was originally conveyed by

5 the Secretary of the Interior to the Board of Lawrence

6 County Commissioners pursuant to section 203(k)(2) of

7 the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of

8 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484(k)(2)).

9 (c) INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE.—The Secretary shall

10 execute and file in the appropriate office or offices a deed

11 of release, amended deed, or other appropriate instrument

12 effectuating the release of the reversionary interest under

13 this section.

Æ
98-2246.

#### State v. Martin.

Montgomery App. No. 15615. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
#### Ex Parte Victory Reed.

*No. 841.*

*Decided December 5.*

Habeas Corpus to Recover Custody of a Child—Jurisdiction.—A habeas corpus sued out by a parent to recover possession and custody of a child is a civil proceeding, and the Criminal Court of Appeals, as organized under the amended Act of 1889, has been deprived of jurisdiction of such cases, the object of that amendment being to separate entirely the criminal from the civil jurisdiction in appellate proceedings.

Appeal from the County Court of Bowie. Tried below before Hon. J. J. King, County Judge.

The opinion states the case.

No briefs on file.

*10SIMKIHS, Judge.

Relator filed her application for a writ of habeas corpus before Hon. J. J. King, county judge of Bowie County, alleging that her daughter, Adar Reed, a minor under the age of 12 years, was held and illegally restrained of her liberty by one Eugene Burnett, who was in no way related to said child. But that, as her mother, relator was entitled to the custody of the child, and prayed that the said Adar be brought before the court, that justice might be done. Respondent Burnett, answering, moved to dismiss the writ, because the petition was insufficient, and the writ was not under seal. The writ, as issued, was signed by the judge himself. The respondent further answered, that the child was delivered to him by its grandmother, in early infancy, with the mother’s consent, who was a dissolute woman, and unfit to raise it; and that respondent had taken care of the child ever since. The court sustained the motion to dismiss, and relator appealed to this court.

We must also dismiss this appeal. It is a civil proceeding, and this court can not entertain civil appeals. Whatever appellate jurisdiction we may have had in such matters, prior to the adoption of the amendment of 1889, was unquestionably taken away by it. For the very object of that amendment was entirely to separate the criminal from the civil jurisdiction in appellate proceedings. We say it is a civil proceeding, for, though the theory of the writ in such cases is, that it relieves from improper restraint, yet the true question in the proceeding is to determine what is for the best interest of the child—in whose custody it should be placed.

But even if we had jurisdiction in such cases, this cause is not properly before us. What purports to be the original papers in the case are sent up here, and called a transcript. The attention of the county clerk and the attorney for relator is called to Willson’s Criminal Statutes, sections 2658-2661.

The appeal is dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Judges all present and concurring.
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30629 Conference Calendar

ARTHUR RAYMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WACKENHUT CORPORATION; TERRY TERRELL; O. KENT ANDREWS; BECK, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-1299

- - - - - - - - - - February 9, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. * PER CURIAM: ** Arthur Raymond, Louisiana prisoner #132634, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous. Raymond contends that the confiscation of his transcripts from a fellow prisoner violated his right of access to the courts; violated the Due Process Clause; and violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause.No. 98-30629 -2- Regarding Raymond’s access-to-the-courts contention, we have reviewed the record and Raymond’s brief and we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, in regard to that issue, we dismiss Raymond’s appeal for essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court. Raymond v. Wackenhut Corp. , No. 97-CV1299 (W.D. La. Apr. 21, 1998). Louisiana provides adequate state-law remedies for deprivations of property. Marshall v. Norwood , 741 F.2d 761, 763-64 (5th Cir. 1984). Raymond has failed to show any due process violation resulting from the confiscation of his property. Raymond does not offer factual or legal arguments to support his Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause contention beyond the mere mention of the issue. He has failed to brief that issue for appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). APPEAL DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Argued and submitted September 25,

conviction affirmed; remanded with instructions November 8, 1995

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*RICHARD DALE EVARTS, *Appellant.*

(10-93-08440; CA A86055)

904 P2d 657

Louis R. Miles, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Conviction affirmed. Remanded with instructions to enter modified judgment reducing period of post-prison supervision to 36 months. *State v. McFee,*136 Or App 160, 901 P2d 870 (1995).
#### § 1150.5 Operational data.

As exhibit D, an operating plan, including traffic projection studies; a schedule of the operations; information about the crews to be used and where employees will be obtained; the rolling stock requirements and where it will be obtained; information about the operating experience and record of the proposed operator unless it is an operating railroad; any significant change in patterns of service; any associated discontinuance or abandonments; and expected operating economies.
#### The People of The State of New York, *Respondents v.*Lorenzo Baker, Appellant.—

Judgment and conviction affirmed. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.
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 December 15, 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6547

PERRY CRAIG,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden; CHARLES CONDON,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-1006-0-11)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 3, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Perry Craig, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within

which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions

to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time

to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on April 3, 1997; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on April 9, 1998, which is beyond

the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a timely

appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this

court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s

appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, May 16, 1995 (67), Para 67.28 U.S. Military Academy Board of Visitors]
[Page 747]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.67.28  u.s. military academy board of visitors

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. CAMP, announced that pursuant to the 
provisions of section 4355(a) of title 10, United States Code, the 
Speaker did appoint as members of the Board of Visitors to the United 
States Military Academy the following Members of the House: Mrs. Kelly, 
Messrs. Taylor of North Carolina, Hefner, and Laughlin.
  Ordered, That the Clerk notify the Senate of the foregoing 
appointments.
```
§ 44.01-12 Voyage limits; special service. ( a ) Special service load lines may be assigned for operation not more than a specified limited distance offshore which shall not exceed 20 nautical miles. The offshore distance shall be measured from the coastline except where a line of inland waters has been otherwise established.
( b ) For continental United States ports, special service load lines may be issued for operation between but not to exceed the extreme port limits specified below, or for operation between intermediate ports within the extreme limits specified: ( 1 ) Central and Northern Atlantic Coast—From Norfolk, Virginia, to Eastport, Maine.
( 2 ) Southeast Atlantic Coast—from Key West, Florida, to Jacksonville, Florida, except that the special service load line is not valid for manned vessels during the hurricane season, i.e., July 1st to November 15th, both dates inclusive, unless the vessel is operated in accordance with a Coast Guard approved heavy weather plan.
( 3 ) Gulf of Mexico Coast—from the mouth of the Rio Grande River, Texas, to Key West, Florida, except that the special service load line is not valid for manned vessels during the hurricane season, i.e., July 1st to November 15th, both dates inclusive, unless the vessel is operated in accordance with a Coast Guard approved heavy weather plan.
( 4 ) Pacific Coast—From San Francisco, California, to San Diego, California.
( c ) Assignment of special service load lines for voyage limits between the islands of a group over which the United States has jurisdiction shall be made only upon authorization by the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, after submittal to him of the information called for by § 44.01-5(b).
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16755, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 79-142, 45 FR 57402, Aug. 28, 1980]