alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 40288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3627]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, August 31, 2007.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-3627 Filed 7-20-07; 11:17 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
# EUR-Lex - 52001XC1219(03) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 52001XC1219(03)

**Commission communication pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Modification by the United Kingdom of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between the Orkney Mainland (Kirkwall) and the islands of Papa Westray and North Ronaldsay (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal C 363 , 19/12/2001 P. 0020 - 0020 *

Commission communication pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92

Modification by the United Kingdom of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between the Orkney Mainland (Kirkwall) and the islands of Papa Westray and North Ronaldsay

(2001/C 363/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The United Kingdom has decided to modify the public service obligations in respect of the scheduled air services between the Orkney Mainland (Kirkwall) and the islands of Papa Westray and North Ronaldsay as set out in the notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 394 of 30 December 1997, p. 4, as modified in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 369 of 22 December 2000, p. 2, pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.

2. The modified public service obligations are as follows:

- Minimum frequencies:

- to Papa Westray - two return trips per day except Sunday all year round,

- to North Ronaldsay - two return trips per day except Sunday all year round.

- Capacity:

- the capacity of the aircraft used should be not less than eight passenger seats on each route.

- Fares:

- the price of a single adult fare must not exceed GBP 15 on each route.

The maximum fare on each route may be increased once every year with the prior written consent of Orkney Islands Council in line with the United Kingdom's retail price index (all items) or any successor index to this.

No other changes may be made to the fare levels without the prior written consent of Orkney Islands Council.

The new maximum fare on each route must be notified to the Civil Aviation Authority and to the European Commission which may publish them in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
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 January 11, 2014

|Filer                          | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | End of Comment Period                                 
|------------------------------ | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|TRISTATE CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC | 4c8            | Notice by TriState Capital Holdings, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA to acquire Chartwell Investment Partners, L.P., Berwyn, PA pursuant to section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act and the  non expedited procedures in section 225.24 of Regulation Y | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                     | Not applicable
|Federal Register:              | Not available 

## 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
**EXHIBIT4.44****THIS LOAN AGREEMENT**is made on the 28th day of December 2007.**BETWEEN:**(1) **Top Eastern Investment Limited**, a limited company incorporated under the laws of the HongKong Special Administrative Region (“Hong Kong”) and whose registered office is at Suites1506-1508, 15th Floor, One Exchange Square, 8 Connaught Place, Central, Hong Kong(the “**Borrower**”); and(2) **Nam Tai Electronic & Electrical Products Limited**, a limited company incorporated under thelaws of the Cayman Islands and whose registered office is at Cricket Square, Hutchins Drive,P.O. Box 2681, Grand Cayman KY1-1111, Cayman Islands (the “**Lender**”).**IT IS HEREBY AGREED**as follows:1. The Lender hereby agrees to lend to the Borrower an interest-free loan of HK$24,107,111 (the“Loan”) on 31st December 2007.2. The Borrower hereby agrees to repay the Loan to the Lender immediately upon demand of theLender, which demand may be made orally or in writing.3. This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be governed by andconstrued in all respects in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong and the parties heretohereby irrevocably submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Hong Kong Courts.**IN WITNESS**whereof this Agreement has been duly executed the day and year first above written.       SIGNED by Mr. Chui Kam Wai, Director,  )   for and on behalf of **Top Eastern Investment**  )  /s/ [signature illegible]**Limited**in the presence of :  )   /s/ K. H. Lee  )   K. H. Lee   )   Senior In-House Counsel             SIGNED by Ms. Wong Kuen Ling, Karene,  )   Director, for and on behalf of **Nam Tai**  )  /s/ [signature illegible]**Electronic & Electrical Products Limited**,  )   in the presence of :  )   /s/ K. H. Lee  )   K. H. Lee   )   Senior In-House Counsel  )
§ 1242.00 Separation of common operating expenses. ( a ) Commencing with annual reports for the year 1978 or for any portion thereof until further order, all class I railroad companies including class I switching and terminal companies subject to section 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended shall separate operating expenses common to both freight service and passenger service in accordance with the regulation in this part.
( b ) The carrier shall maintain records supporting its common operating expense apportionments to freight and passenger services. The carrier shall report common expense apportionments to the Board as required.
[43 FR 7637, Feb. 24, 1978, as amended at 67 FR 57534, Sept. 11, 2002]
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA - 2011 - 0631 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM134AD

7X- 211, R1 --- 6/14/11 7X- 212, R1 --- 6/23/11 AFM, R12 --- 6/16/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administrati on

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
DALLAS TEEM, 189 5.

#### Rafael Pisano v. The State.

*No. 579.*

*Decided January 12.*

1. Indictment—Duplicity.—In order to constitute duplicity in an indictment, two or more distinct felonies must be averred in the same count.

2. Same—Counts—Distinct Offenses—Election.—It is the proper practice to set out distinct offenses in different counts; and where the evidence develops distinct transactions, the State should he required to elect upon which count the conviction would he asked.

3. Same—Repugnancy.—Repugnancy in an indictment is where two inconsistent allegations are pleaded in the same count.

4. Same—Theft—-Counts—Allegations in of Different Ownership.—Where the two different counts in an indictment for theft alleged that the stolen property belonged to different persons, *Sold,*the indictment was neither repugnant nor duplicitous.

5. Refused Instructions—Practice.—Requested instructions are always properly refused when not warranted by the evidence adduced at the trial.

Appeal from the District Court of Duval. Tried below before Hon. A. L. McLane.

This appeal is from a conviction for theft of four horses, the property of Miguel de la Garza, the punishment being assessed at five years’ *64imprisonment in the penitentiary. The indictment contained two counts, and the conviction was upon the first count.

No statement is necessary.

No briefs have come to the hands of the Reporter.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Motion was made to quash the indictment, because it charged no offense; because it was repugnant; and because it was duplicitous, and charged two separate and distinct offenses. The indictment contained two counts. The first alleged theft of four horses from Miguel de la Garza; the second charged theft of four horses from Reyes Pena. In order to constitute duplicity, two or more distinct felonies must be averred in the same connt. In this indictment distinct offenses are apparently set out in different counts. This is the proper practice. If the evidence develops distinct transactions, the State should be required to elect upon which count the conviction wonld be asked. As to repugnancy, it may be stated, in a general way, to consist in pleading two inconsistent allegations in the same count. It does not apply to repugnancy which of necessity exists between different counts in the same indictment. The exceptions are not well taken. Boren v. The State, 23 Texas Crim. App., 35; Willson’s Crim. Stats., secs. 1989, 1990.

Special instructions requested by appellant, in effect directing an acquittal if he was guilty of robbery, were properly refused, because not warranted by the testimony adduced on the trial.

We are of the opinion the evidence amply supports the verdict, the charge is fair and full, and the judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

*Affirmed.*

Judges all present and concurring.
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: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending February 18, 2012

|Filer                         | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                              | End of Comment Period                                 
|----------------------------- | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|PLAINSCAPITAL BANK            | * Branch       | PlainsCapital Bank, Dallas, Texas, to establish a branch at 6100 Colleyville Boulevard, Suite 170, Colleyville, Texas 76034.                 | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                    | Not available 
|Federal Register:             | Not applicable
|UTB FINANCIAL HOLDING COMPANY | * 3A1          | UTB Financial Holding Company, Dallas, Texas, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of United Texas Bank, Dallas, Texas. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available 
|Newspaper:                    | Not available 
|Federal Register:             | Not available 

## 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
#### In the Matter of the Petition of JOHN McARDLE, an Imprisoned Debtor, to be Discharged from Imprisonment.

*Order in proceedings for the discharge of an imprisoned debtor*— when *it does not involve a substantial right so as to be appealable.*

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Kings county, overruling certain objections filed by a creditor, to the jurisdiction of the court over proceedings instituted by the petitioner, an imprisoned debtor, to procure his discharge from imprisonment.

The court at General Term said : *“*It is not necessary to pass upon the various objections raised by the appellant, in this matter, as we think the order appealed from did not affect a substantial right. (Code of Civil Pro., §§ 1312 and 190 [note].) The matter is still pending before the county judge, who may yet dismiss the proceeding upon a final hearing. The appellant has as yet suffered no injury, and until some order is entered affecting a substantial right, he is not in a position to appeal.

Appeal dismissed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

*H. G.*Place, for L. L. McCullough, creditor, appellant.

*Bobert*Jolmstone, for McArdle, respondent.

Opinion by

Pratt, J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

Appeal from County Court dismissed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
§ 174.9 Safety and security inspection and acceptance. ( a ) At each location where a hazardous material is accepted for transportation or placed in a train, the carrier must inspect each rail car containing the hazardous material, at ground level, for required markings, labels, placards, securement of closures, and leakage. These inspections may be performed in conjunction with inspections required under parts 215 and 232 of this title.
( b ) For each rail car containing an amount of hazardous material requiring placarding in accordance with § 172.504 of this subchapter, the carrier must visually inspect the rail car at ground level for signs of tampering, including closures and seals, for suspicious items or items that do not belong, and for other signs that the security of the car may have been compromised, including the presence of an improvised explosive device. As used in this section, an improvised explosive device is a device fabricated in an improvised manner incorporating explosives or destructive, lethal, noxious, pyrotechnic, or incendiary chemicals in its design, and generally includes a power supply, a switch or timer, and a detonator or initiator. The carrier should be particularly attentive to signs that security may have been compromised on rail cars transporting materials covered by § 172.820 of this subchapter, rail carload quantities of ammonium nitrate or ammonium nitrate mixtures in solid form, or hazardous materials of interest based on current threat information.
( c ) If a rail car does not conform to the safety and security requirements of this subchapter, the carrier may not forward or transport the rail car until the deficiencies are corrected or the car is approved for movement in accordance with § 174.50.
( d ) Where an indication of tampering or suspicious item is found, a carrier must take appropriate action to ensure the security of the rail car and its contents have not been compromised before accepting the rail car for further movement. If the carrier determines that the security of the rail car has been compromised, the carrier must take action, in conformance with its existing security plan (see subpart I of part 172 of this subchapter) to address the security issues before forwarding the rail car for further movement.
[73 FR 20773, Apr. 16, 2008]
-----Original Message----- 

From: connie_engle@alumni.brown.edu [mailto:connie_engle@alumni.brown.edu] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 8:39 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone and 

Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (RIN 

1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from charging 

higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for mental 

health treatment than they would for other physical health care. Thank you 

for ensuring that mental health care and physical health care coverage are 

included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Constance Engle 

244 Englewood Dr 

Hendersonville, NC 28739
#### George W. Hall *v.*George W. Hall’s Estate.

Special Term, at Brattleboro, November, 1910.

Present: Rowell, C. J., Munson, Watson, Haselton, and Powers, JJ,

Opinion filed January 27, 1911.

*Wills*— Construction—Videlicet.

Appeal from decree of the probate court distributing the estate of George W. Hall; George W. Hall appellant. Heard at the September Term, 1908, Windham County, *Miles,*J., presiding. Judgment affirming the decree of the probate court. The appellant excepted.

*Davis & Davis*for the appellant.

*W. W. Stickney, John G. Sargent*and *Homer L. Skeels*for the defendant.

Haselton,. J.

This is an appeal from the decree of the probate court distributing the estate of George W. Hall, deceased. In county court it was heard with the appeal of Martha M. Hall, from the same decree, and the question raised and decided in her appeal is the sole question raised herein. This case was not in this Court argued on the part of the appellant, the excepting party. For the reasons given in the opinion in the case of *Martha M. Hall, Apt.*v. *George W. Hall’s Estate, ante, p 259,*the

*Judgment of the county court herein is affirmed. Let the 3'esult be certified to the probate court.*
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 December 14, 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
#### § 1584.103 [Reserved]
# EUR-Lex - 52002XC0119(02) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 52002XC0119(02)

**Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures **

*
Official Journal C 016 , 19/01/2002 P. 0003 - 0003 *

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2002/C 16/03)

1. The Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below, as provided in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995(1) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

2. Procedure

Community producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the removal of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Community producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3. Time limit

Community producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Division B-1), B-1049 Brussels(2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

4. This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995.

>TABLE>

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2).

(2) Telex: COMEU B 21877; fax (32-2) 295 65 05.
-----Original Message----- 

From: ak1662@gmail.com [mailto:ak1662@gmail.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 10:04 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Amy Knapp 

2233 Whitcomb Pl 

Falls Church, VA 22046
§ 1018.62 Reasons for terminating collection action. Collection action may be terminated: ( a ) When it becomes clear that the Government cannot collect or enforce collection of any significant sum from the debtor having due regard for the judicial remedies available to the Government, the debtor's future financial prospects, and the exemptions available to the debtor under State and Federal law;
( b ) When the debtor cannot be located, there is no security remaining to be liquidated, the applicable statute of limitations has run, and the prospects of collecting by offset, notwithstanding the bar of the statute of limitations, are too remote to justify retention of the claim; or
( c ) When it is likely that the cost of the collection action will exceed the amount recoverable.