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: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending March 17, 2012

|Filer                | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         | End of Comment Period                          
|-------------------- | ----------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|RIVER VALLEY BANCORP | CIC         | Notice by River Valley Bancorp Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, Madison, Indiana, to acquire up to 24.99 percent of River Valley Bancorp, Inc., Madison, Indiana.  Matthew P. Forrester is the plan administrator and the shares are voted by plan participants, none of which exceeds 10 percent individually. | Newspaper:03/28/2012Federal Register:04/12/2012
|Newspaper:           | 03/28/2012 
|Federal Register:    | 04/12/2012 

## 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
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.161 Supports and anchors. ( a ) Each pipeline and its associated equipment must have enough anchors or supports to: ( 1 ) Prevent undue strain on connected equipment;
( 2 ) Resist longitudinal forces caused by a bend or offset in the pipe; and
( 3 ) Prevent or damp out excessive vibration.
( b ) Each exposed pipeline must have enough supports or anchors to protect the exposed pipe joints from the maximum end force caused by internal pressure and any additional forces caused by temperature expansion or contraction or by the weight of the pipe and its contents.
( c ) Each support or anchor on an exposed pipeline must be made of durable, noncombustible material and must be designed and installed as follows: ( 1 ) Free expansion and contraction of the pipeline between supports or anchors may not be restricted.
( 2 ) Provision must be made for the service conditions involved.
( 3 ) Movement of the pipeline may not cause disengagement of the support equipment.
( d ) Each support on an exposed pipeline operated at a stress level of 50 percent or more of SMYS must comply with the following: ( 1 ) A structural support may not be welded directly to the pipe.
( 2 ) The support must be provided by a member that completely encircles the pipe.
( 3 ) If an encircling member is welded to a pipe, the weld must be continuous and cover the entire circumference.
( e ) Each underground pipeline that is connected to a relatively unyielding line or other fixed object must have enough flexibility to provide for possible movement, or it must have an anchor that will limit the movement of the pipeline.
( f ) Except for offshore pipelines, each underground pipeline that is being connected to new branches must have a firm foundation for both the header and the branch to prevent detrimental lateral and vertical movement.
[35 FR 13257, Aug. 19, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 192-58, 53 FR 1635, Jan. 21, 1988]
From: necollins@earthlink.net [mailto:necollins@earthlink.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:00 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, 

Nancy Collins 

14345 Airlie Road 

Monmouth, OR 97361
-----Original Message----- 

From: qbeast@indylink.org [mailto:qbeast@indylink.org] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 8:34 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, 

John and Natalie Parker 

P. O. Box 973 

Hamilton, MT 59840
§ 179.300-4 Insulation. ( a ) Tanks shall not be insulated.
( b ) [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                   5
<MULTIPLIER>                1000

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>              JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                      8,014
<SECURITIES>                5,024
<RECEIVABLES>               3,041
<ALLOWANCES>                0
<INVENTORY>                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>            16,686
<PP&E>                      29,307
<DEPRECIATION>              16,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>              29,822
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>       4,478
<BONDS>                     100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>       0
<PREFERRED>                 0
<COMMON>                    0
<OTHER-SE>                  25,244
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>29,822
<SALES>                     9,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>            9,733
<CGS>                       3,692
<TOTAL-COSTS>               3,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>          19
<INCOME-PRETAX>             6,041
<INCOME-TAX>                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>         0
<DISCONTINUED>              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>             0
<CHANGES>                   0
<NET-INCOME>                6,041
<EPS-BASIC>                 0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>               0.56


</TABLE>
DAVID C. McDONALD (1897 -1971) 

DAVID McDONALD 

McDONALD & McDONALD 

Attorneys at Law 

Established 1927 

P. 0. Box 669122-9428 

Miami, Florida 33135-2321 

TELEPHONE (305) 643-5313 

FACSIMILE (305) 643-4990 

dmm@mcdonaldattomeys.com 

October 1, 2014 

DAVID M. McDONALD* 

*Board Certified in Aviation Law 

Via Fax: 404-305-5223 and 

U.S. Mail, First Class Mail 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Re: Paz Aviation, Inc. 

Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty 

Case No. 2011S0190272 

Our File No. 12-138 

REQUEST FOR HEARING 

To Whom It May Concern: 

RECEIVED 

OCT 0 9 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Paz Aviation, Inc., by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby requests a hearing on 

the Administrator's Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty in accordance with 14 C.P.R. §13.16. 

Sincerely, 

McDONALD & McDONALD 

DMM:mml 

cc: Willi= P. Vines, Esq. 

cc: Paz Aviation, Inc.- via email
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 110 (Friday, June 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 31855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2854]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Advanced Energy Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 30, 2007, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Advanced Energy Consortium 
(``AEC'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and 
objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identifies of the parties 
to the venture are: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX; BP 
America Inc., Houston, TX; ConocoPhillips Company, Houston, TX; 
Marathon Oil Company, Houston, TX; Occidental Oil & Gas Corporation, 
Houston, TX; Shell International E & P Inc., Houston, TX; Schlumberger 
Technology Corporation, Sugar Land, TX; and Halliburton Energy 
Services, Inc., Houston, TX. The AEC wa formed by a written agreement 
effective as of January 1, 2007, to engage in research concerning 
subsurface microsensors, nanosensors and nonomaterials to benefit the 
exploration and production function of the petroleum industry. The AEC 
will not engage in production or sales activities. Participation in the 
venture is open to other companies (subject to the numerical limit on 
participants as set from time to time by the Board of Management of the 
venture) who meet the qualifications and receive the approvals 
specified in the written agreement.

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-2854 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****NGA Chart: 91280          Scale: 125,010          Edition: 7          Edition Date: 30-JAN-99          CORRECTED TO NTM:  1999/16**Notice ListingOCVLeftIndex-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NGA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NGA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **
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 July 9, 2011

----

Bank Branches, DomesticSecretary          FirstBank, Lakewood, Colorado -- to establish a branch at 2100 Broadway Street, Boulder.            -Approved, July 8, 2011            St. Louis          Summit Bank, Arkadelphia, Arkansas -- to establish a branch at 201 Skyline Drive, Suite 38, Conway.            -Approved, July 7, 2011            Secretary          SunTrust Bank, Atlanta, Georgia -- to establish branches at 3604 Memorial Drive, Decatur; 1702 North Main Street, Jacksonville, Florida; and 548 East Belvedere Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland.            -Approved, July 5, 2011            Bank Holding CompaniesChicago          First American Bank Corporation, Elk Grove Village, Illinois -- to engage de novo in extending credit and servicing loans.            -Approved, July 8, 2011            Minneapolis          Golden Oak Bancshares, Inc., Sparta, Wisconsin -- to become a bank holding company and to acquire shares of Park Bank, Holmen.            -Approved, July 8, 2011            Philadelphia          Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc., Lititz, Pennsylvania -- to acquire Abington Bancorp, Inc., Jenkintown, and thereby acquire Abington Savings Bank, and to merge Abington Savings Bank with and into Susquehanna Bank, Lititz.            -Approved, July 5, 2011            San Francisco          Western Liberty Bancorp, Las Vegas, Nevada -- to form a subsidiary, OREOSUB, Las Vegas, to engage in extending credit and servicing loans.            -Approved, July 8, 2011            Banks, NationalSecretary          Wilmington Trust, N.A., Wilmington, Delaware -- location determination of master account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.            -Approved, July 8, 2011            Extensions of TimeDirector, BS&R          Citigroup Inc., New York, New York -- extension of time to divest certain real estate held by a Mexican subsidiary.            -Granted, July 5, 2011            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
-----Original Message----- 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:19 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 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, 

l. sleboda-turner
```

[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: 07-3623]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, August 3, 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. 07-3623 Filed 7-20-07; 11:14 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
#### Caroline G. Redington, Respondent, *v.*George H. Hartford, Appellant.

Reported below, 141 App. Div. -.

(Argued January 3, 1911;

decided January 10, 1911.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 23, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action on contract.

The motion was made upon the grounds that the Appellate Division had unanimously decided that the verdict was supported by the evidence, and the executions presented no question of law for review.

*R. Burnham Moffat*for motion.

*Martin Conboy*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
98-2467.

#### State ex rel. Doyle v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

In Prohibition. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, May 25, 1995 (73), Para 73.18 Leave of Absence]
[Page 820]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.73.18  leave of absence

  By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to Mrs. MEYERS, for 
May 23, 24, and 25.
  And then,
```
#### Frank Guillaume, *Respondent, v.*The General Trans-Atlantic Company, *Appellant.*

-Judgment affirmed.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0657. WALTER FRANK COLEMAN v. THE STATE.

Walter Frank Coleman pled guilty to influencing a witness.1 He subsequently

filed a “Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Void Judgment,” arguing the trial court’s

failure to conduct a hearing prior to sentencing him as a recidivist rendered his

sentence void. The trial court denied the motion, and Coleman appeals. 

As the Supreme Court has explained, a post-conviction motion to vacate an

allegedly void conviction is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal case. See Roberts

v. State, 286 Ga. 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010); Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1)

(686 SE2d 786) (2009). Any appeal from an order denying or dismissing such a

motion must be dismissed. See Roberts, supra; Harper, supra. 

A direct appeal may lie from an order denying a motion to vacate or correct a

void sentence, but only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is,

in fact, void. See Harper, supra at 217 n.1; Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676

SE2d 465) (2009). “Motionsto vacate a void sentence generally are limited to claims

that – even assuming the existence and validity of the conviction for which the

sentence was imposed – the law does not authorize that sentence, most typically

because it exceedsthe mostsevere punishment for which the applicable penalstatute

provides.” von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). Thus,

when a sentence is within the statutory range of punishment, it is not void. Jones v.

1 Coleman filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court

denied. Coleman appealed the ruling, which this Court affirmed on appeal. See

Coleman v. State, 337 Ga. App. 732 (788 SE2d 826) (2016).

December 28, 2016
State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004).

Here, Coleman does not argue that his sentence falls outside the permissible

statutory range; rather, he contends that the trial court did not follow the proper

procedure in imposing sentence.2 As the Supreme Court stated in Jones v. State, 278

Ga. 669, 671 (604 SE2d 483) (2004), post-appeal “[r]ulings on pleadings asserting

erroneous procedure or unfair treatment are not subject to direct appeal because they

are not rulings on whether the sentence is void.” See Jones v. State, 290 Ga. App.

490, 493 (1) (659 SE2d 875) (2008). Because Coleman has not raised a colorable

void-sentence claim, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

2 Coleman argues that OCGA § 17-10-7 (a) mandates a hearing on the issue of

recidivist sentencing. This statute contains no such requirement. 

12/28/2016
#### In the Matter of the Application of John T. Pirie, an Creditor of the Estate of Adele M. Downing, Deceased. John T. Pirie et al., Appellants; Raphael Krasnow, Respondent.

(Submitted May 31, 1910;

decided June 7, 1910.)

Motion for re-argument. (See 198 N. Y. 209.)

Haight, J.

By a subsequent citation issued in these proceedings Frederick A. Wright, as administrator of the estate of Susan Wright, deceased, was brought in and made a party creditor in these proceedings and thereby he introduced in evidence a transcript of a judgment entered in Nassau county on November 8th, 1899, in favor of Susan Wright for $893.90 against A dele M. Downing.

I am of the opinion that under section 2J55 of the Code, Wright, as administrator, became a party to these proceedings and was thereupon entitled to prosecute the same, even though the original petitioner failed to establish his claim.

The motion for re-argument should be denied, but the remittitur should be amended so as to affirm the order of the Appellate Division in so far as it reverses the decree of the surrogate as to the claim of John T. Pirie, with costs against him in all courts. But as to the claim of Frederick A. Wright, as administrator of Susan Wright, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the decree of the surrogate affirmed, with costs to him in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Cullen, Cli. J., Vann, Webneb. Willabd Babtlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ., concur.

Motion denied.
§ 179.200-4 Insulation. ( a ) If insulation is applied, the tank shell and expansion dome when used must be insulated with an approved material. The entire insulation must be covered with a metal jacket of a thickness not less than 11 gauge (0.1196 inch) nominal (Manufacturer's Standard Gauge) and flashed around all openings so as to be weather tight. The exterior surface of a carbon steel tank and the inside surface of a carbon steel jacket must be given a protection coating.
( b ) If insulation is a specification requirement, it shall be of sufficient thickness so that the thermal conductance at 60 °F is not more than 0.225 Btu per hour, per square foot, per degree F temperature differential, unless otherwise provided in § 179.201-1. If exterior heaters are attached to tank, the thickness of the insulation over each heater element may be reduced to one-half that required for the shell.
[29 FR 18995, Dec. 29, 1964. Redesignated at 32 FR 5606, Apr. 5, 1967, and amended by Amdt. 179-10, 36 FR 21349, Nov. 6, 1971; Amdt. 179-50, 60 FR 49078, Sept. 21, 1995]