alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 97 (Monday, May 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9647]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 14, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (David Tatum, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. CapGen Capital Group LLC, Washington, DC; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of CapGen 
Capital Group LP, Washington, D.C., and thereby indirectly acquire 
voting shares of The BANKshares, Inc., Melbourne, Florida, and its 
subsidiaries, BankFIRST, Winter Park, Florida, and Bank Brevard, 
Melbourne, Florida. In connection with this application, CapGen Capital 
Group LP, Washington, DC, also has applied to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring 21.8 percent of the voting shares of The 
BANKshares, Inc., Melbourne, Florida, and thereby acquire voting shares 
of BankFIRST, Winter Park, Florida, and Bank Brevard, Melbourne, 
Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 15, 2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-9647 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
ALARIS

PO Box 1835

Lusby, MD 20657

240.538.8444

Tony@TeamAlaris.com

22 January 2016

United States Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Links to previously approved manuals for 333 Petition Docket No. FAA-2016-1501

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please accept this letter as documentation to support Docket FAA-2016-1501. Some of the manuals for 

the systems requested are too large to upload to the Docket on Regulations.gov. Specifically, an error 

occurred during upload stating that the maximum file size for upload was 10MB. The files below exceed 

that limitation. While all the manuals listed below have been submitted on previously approved

petitions, I have included internet links in the event they are needed. 

DJI S-900 User Manual

http://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/s900/en/S900_User_Manual_en_v1.4.pdf

DJI Inspire 1 User Manual 

http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_User_Manual_v1.4_en.pdf

DJI Inspire 1 Quick Start Guide 

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_Quick_Start_Guide_v1.4_en.pdf

DJI Phantom 3 Professional User Manual 

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_User_Manual_v1.4_en_0915.pdf

DJI Phantom 3 Professional Quick Start Guide -

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_Quick_Start_Guide_en_v1.2.pdf

3D Robotics IRIS+ Operations Manual

https://3drobotics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/IRIS-Plus-Operation-Manual-vH-web.pdf

3D Robotics IRIS+ Flight Checklist

https://3drobotics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/IRIS-Plus-Flight-Checklist-vB.pdf
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if there are any questions. 

Sincerely,

Anthony J. Pucciarella

ALARIS

Agent for Cedarville Engineering
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      53,117,000
<SECURITIES>                                13,093,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,400,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,160,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,658,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             121,965,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  83,302,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               121,965,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           184,945,200
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           141,186,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,047,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             40,712,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                16,050,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         24,662,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                24,662,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.54


</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1 

EPA’s Planned Proposed Rulemaking to Address the Process for Tribes to Obtain 

Treatment in a Similar Manner as States for the Clean Water Act Impaired Water Listing 

and Total Maximum Daily Load Program – Meeting with Members of the Western 

Governors’ Association 

 Thursday, June 18, 2015 

12:15 – 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time 

Meeting Summary 

EPA Moderators: Mark Rupp, EPA Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

 Ellen Gilinsky, Senior Policy Advisor, EPA Office of Water 

 Ken Kopocis, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water 

EPA Presenter: Sarah Furtak, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds 

Participants: Senior officials from the states of Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma, 

 South Dakota, Wyoming 

 Staff representatives from the Western Governors’ Association and the 

 Western States Water Council 

The planned proposed rulemaking to address the process for tribes to obtain treatment in a 

similar manner as states for the Clean Water Act (CWA) Impaired Water Listing and Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program was one of two topics on the agenda. A planned 

proposed rulemaking fact sheet (May 2015) of the same name was provided to invitees in 

advance of the meeting and is available in docket EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0622. 

Ellen Gilinsky gave welcoming remarks. Sarah Furtak gave a brief overview of EPA’s planned 

proposed rulemaking to address the process for tribes to obtain treatment in a similar manner as 

states for the CWA Section 303(d) Impaired Water Listing and TMDL Program. 

 

Ken Kopocis then invited questions and comments from the participants. He responded to these 

issues consistent with the fact sheet identified above. The following is a list of questions and 

issues raised: 

• One participant said that EPA should formally consult with the state and a tribe before 

the tribe applies for TAS. 

• One participant asked for more details on how EPA consulted and coordinated with 

tribes as compared to states in developing the planned proposal. 

• One participant asked if tribe can get treatment in a similar manner as a state without 

water quality standards.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vernon Brown, Appellant.

[700 NYS2d 916]

—Judgment unani*1052mously affirmed. Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of defendant, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of the recross-examination of the police officer who observed defendant engaged in what appeared to be a drug transaction. Defendant had a full opportunity to cross-examine the officer with respect to his observations, and it was within the sound discretion of the court to prohibit questions seeking to ascertain why the other participant in the transaction was not arrested *(see, People v Snell,*234 AD2d 986, *lv denied*89 NY2d 1015). The proper exercise of the court’s discretion “in determining the extent of the cross-examination * * * should not be disturbed” *(People v Greer,*42 NY2d 170, 176). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wisner, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.
No. 96-7832.

#### Singleton *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certio-rari denied.
# C_2013071EN.01003003.xml

| 9.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/30

---

Action brought on 18 December 2012 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-154/12)

2013/C 71/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Parrat, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European External Action Service

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The partial annulment of the decision fixing the applicant’s seniority in grade at 16 November 2011 at the time of his appointment to a post in the Administrators’ function group, after having received certification.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the part of the decision of 23 January 2012 which amends the applicant’s seniority in grade and fixes it at 16 November 2011 instead of 1 January 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the part of the decision of 23 January 2012 which amends the applicant’s seniority in grade and fixes it at 16 November 2011 instead of 1 January 2011;

| — | Order the EEAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EEAS to pay the costs.

---
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
      10.1

    


    Summary
      of Consignment Contract

    


    On
      January 2, 2008, Hangzhou Shan He Electric Company Limited (the “Supplier”)
      entered into a Consignment Contract (the “Contract”) with Hangzhou Lotour
      Digital Products Business Company Limited (the “Buyer”), whereby the Supplier
      shall provide the Buyer with certain audiovisuals and small household appliances
      that the Buyer has an exclusive right to sell (the “Products”), for sale in the
      branch stores owned by the Buyer. 

    


    The
      Supplier entered into this Contract on behalf of itself and any of its
      subsidiaries, branches, branch offices or authorized agents. The Buyer entered
      into this Contract on behalf of itself and any of its subsidiaries, branches,
      branch offices or authorized agents. 

    


    Under
      this Contract, in each case, the Buyer shall place a purchase order to the
      Supplier. The Supplier shall confirm the Supplier’s orders upon the receipt of
      them and deliver the Products to the Buyer in accordance with the orders as
      mutually agreed upon. Title to, and ownership in, all Products shall remain
      in
      the Supplier until such time as the payment for the goods may be
      settled.

    


    The
      payment for the goods shall be settled every fifteen (15) days (each, the
“Settlement Period”). For each settlement, the Supplier shall be entitled to an
      amount equal to the sales sum made by the Buyer for the Products during such
      a
      Settlement Period minus the Buyer’s costs, expenses and commissions with
      connection thereto. The Supplier shall be responsible for providing, at its
      own
      cost, the Buyer with sample products and display facilities within the Buyer’s
      stores and product guarantee for the Products sold by the Buyer, and sending
      its
      sales representatives to the Buyer’s stores for the purpose of promoting the
      Products. The Buyer shall be entitled to 5% of the sales sum as general
      commissions and other discretional commissions as mutually agreed upon by both
      parties. 

    


    This
      Contract shall be valid from January 2, 2008 through December 31, 2008. This
      Contract is governed by PRC law.
* 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. 99-60029 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHARLES L. YOUNG; TYRONE EUGENE GREEN, Defendants-Appellants.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:98-CR-10-2-WS

-------------------- December 15, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Charles L. Young and Tyrone Eugene Green appeal their convictions following a jury trial for armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d), and for using and carrying a firearm in relation to a bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Their argument that the district court erred in denying their motion to suppress the testimony of Government witnesses because the Government procured the testimony with promises ofNo. 99-60029 -2- more lenient sentences, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2), is foreclosed by United States v. Haese , 162 F.3d 359, 366 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 1795 (1999). The appellants’ argument that the district court erred in denying their motion for a mistrial is also without merit. The denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Coveney , 995 F.2d 578, 584 (5th Cir. 1993). The appellants contend that, if Juror No. 17, who was excused by the trial judge after the jury had been selected, had been honest in her answers during voir dire, they would have been able to challenge her for cause and would have been able to use their alternate strike to challenge Juror No. 34, whom they contend was unfavorable to them. However, the appellants chose to exercise all of their peremptory strikes prior to reaching Juror No. 34, and an earlier dismissal for cause of Juror No. 17 would have had no effect on the number of peremptory strikes they had or used. To the extent that the appellants argue that their Sixth Amendment rights were violated by having a juror serve who should have been excused for cause, the argument is without merit because they did not challenge the juror for cause nor do they allege that he was biased or incapable of performing his duties in accordance with his instructions and oath. See Wainwright v. Witt , 469 U.S. 412, 424 (1985). The appellants have failed to demonstrate any error on the district court’s part. Accordingly, the district court’s judgments are AFFIRMED.
No. 47688.

#### Protests 715698-G, etc., of R. T. Shelton Co. et al. (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the items in question consist of hats similar to those the subject of *Caradine Hat Co.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith certain of the items were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and others imported subsequent to the Netherlands Trade Agreement, T. D. 48075, were held dutiable at 12)4 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), as claimed.
# C_2012243EN.01002501.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/25

---

Action brought on 4 June 2012 — Cat Media Pty v OHIM — Avon Products (RETANEW)

(Case T-246/12)

2012/C 243/44

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cat Media Pty Ltd (Warriewood, Australia) (represented by: I. De Freitas, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Avon Products, Inc. (New York, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 in case R 740/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 in case R 740/2011-1;

| — | Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the appellant’s costs in relation to these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the appellant’s costs in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RETANEW’, for goods in class 3 — Community trade mark application No W00884450

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3531051 of the word mark ‘ANEW’ for goods in classes 3 and 5

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and refused the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          35,791
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,190
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,572
<INVENTORY>                                    356,439
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               439,148
<PP&E>                                         182,356
<DEPRECIATION>                                  69,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 640,877
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          430,944
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         80
<COMMON>                                         8,475
<OTHER-SE>                                     201,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   640,877
<SALES>                                      1,637,821
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,637,821
<CGS>                                          790,718
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,806,650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,502
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                21,661
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,534
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (188,465)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (188,465)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (188,465)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>