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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3409 

To amend the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection 

Act to require the appropriate Federal banking agencies to develop a 

Community Bank Leverage Ratio that is between 8 percent and 8.5 

percent for calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 15, 2021 

Mr. MORAN (for himself and Mr. TESTER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and 

Consumer Protection Act to require the appropriate Federal banking agencies to develop a Community Bank 

Leverage Ratio that is between 8 percent and 8.5 percent 

for calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COMMUNITY BANK LEVERAGE RATIO. 

4 Section 201 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Re5 lief, and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5371 note) 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3409 IS

1 is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(b) COMMUNITY BANK LEVERAGE RATIO.— 

4 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para5 graph (2), the appropriate Federal banking agencies 

6 shall, through notice and comment rule making 

7 under section 553 of title 5, United States Code— 

8 ‘‘(A) develop a Community Bank Leverage 

9 Ratio of not less than 8 percent and not more 

10 than 10 percent for qualifying community 

11 banks; and 

12 ‘‘(B) establish procedures for treatment of 

13 a qualifying community bank that has a Com14 munity Bank Leverage Ratio that falls below 

15 the percentage developed under subparagraph 

16 (A) after exceeding the percentage developed 

17 under subparagraph (A). 

18 ‘‘(2) CALENDAR YEARS 2022, 2023, AND 2024.— 

19 The appropriate Federal banking agencies shall, 

20 through notice and comment rule making under sec21 tion 553 of title 5, United States Code develop a 

22 Community Bank Leverage Ratio to apply during 

23 the period beginning on January 1, 2022, and end24 ing on December 31, 2024, that is not less than 8 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3409 IS

1 percent and not more than 8.5 percent for qualifying 

2 community banks.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Eleanor J. Chapin, Appellant, v. George C. Dimmock, Respondent.

—Judgment affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion of

Martin, J.,

delivered at Special Term.
Exhibit
23.1




















CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





The Board
of Directors





Clayton
Williams Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries:







We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 33-68320, 33-68318, 33-68316, 33-69688, and 33-92834 )
and on Form S-3 (No. 333-116825) of Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. and
subsidiaries of our reports dated March 16, 2009 with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2008, and the related financial
statement schedule as of December 31, 2008 and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which reports
appear in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Clayton
Williams Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries.  Our report dated March 16,
2009 refers to the Company’s adoption of the provisions of Financial Accounting
Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income
Taxes”, effective January 1, 2007, and the Company’s adoption of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 157,“Fair Value
Measurements”, as it
relates to financial instruments, effective January 1, 2008.






Dallas,
Texas


March 16,
2009
#### Samuel Lockard, Respondent, v. Louis R. Stegman, Sheriff, etc , Appellant.

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

Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
#### STATE v. T. J. HORTON.

(Filed 26 November, 1930.)

False Pretense A a — Indictment nnder O. S., 4283 must charge an intent to defraud or deceive.

In order to convict a defendant under the provisions of O. S., 4283, for obtaining property in return for a worthless check, the indictment must sufficiently charge an intent to cheat or defraud or that the defendant obtained a thing of value, chapter 14, Public Laws of 1925, which is ineffectual, and chapter 62, Public Laws of 1927, not being in effect at the time of the alleged offense, are not considered.

Appeal by defendant from *Johnson, Special Judge,*at the May Criminal Term, 1930, of Mooke.

Eeversed.

*Attorney-General Brwmmitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*B. 0. Everett and H. F. Seas»ell, Jr., for'defendant.*

Pee CtJEiAM.

The defendant was convicted for obtaining property in return for a worthless check in breach of 0. S., 4283. It is unnecessary to consider either chapter 14, Public Laws 1925, which is not in effect, or chapter 62, Public Laws 1927, because it went into effect after the offense is alleged to have been committed.

C. S., 4383, is as follows: “Every person who, with intent to cheat and defraud another, shall obtain money, credit, goods, wares or any other thing of value by means of a cheek, draft or order of any kind upon any bank, person, firm or corporation, not indebted to the drawer, or where he has not provided for the payment or acceptance of the same, and the same be not paid upon presentation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of the court. The giving of the aforesaid worthless check, draft, or order shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to' cheat and defraud.”

The defendant in apt time moved to dismiss the action; the motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted and appealed.

The defendant’s motion should have been allowed. The warrant does not sufficiently charge either an intent to cheat and defraud or that the defendant obtained anything of value by means of the check. *S. v. Freeman,*172 N. C., 925; *S. v. Edwards,*190 N. C., 322. Judgment

Eeversed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 21


                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        STATE OF
SUBSIDIARY                                            INCORPORATION
----------                                            -------------
<S>                                                       <C>
The Canton Oil & Gas Company                              Ohio

  Target Oilfield Pipe & Supply Company                   Ohio

Ward Lake Drilling, Inc.                                  Michigan

Peake Energy, Inc.                                        Delaware

Engine Power Systems, Inc.                                Ohio

</TABLE>

As of December 31, 1995, the other subsidiaries included in the registrant's
consolidated financial statments, and all other subsidiaries considered in the
aggregate as a single subsidiary, did not constitute a significant subsidiary.
REPORTING OPTIONS FOR ADULT 

VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

THIS IS OUR ARMY. www.armyresilience.army.mil

@ArmyResilience

Recognizing and reporting retaliation for 

an Unrestricted Report of sexual assault: 

Retaliation may consist of the following acts:

• Reprisal

• Ostracism

• Maltreatment, including cruelty and oppression

Report Retaliation to the following:

• Brigade SARC 

• Installation IG

• DoD IG Hotline: 800.424.9098

• DoD Safe Helpline: 877.995.5247

For more information on retaliation reporting options 

visit https://www.safehelpline.org/experiencingretaliation-after-sexual-assault

Filing an Unrestricted Report allows for an official investigation, command notification, 

and reporting to law enforcement. You can make an Unrestricted Report to a SARC, VA, 

law enforcement official, a commander, or health care personnel. 

Filing a Restricted Report allows you to confidentially disclose a sexual assault to a SARC 

or VA without notifying your command or law enforcement. 

• Medical Treatment

• Sexual Assault Forensic Exam

• Counseling

• Chaplain Services

• Special Victim Counsel

• Legal Advocacy

• Victim Advocacy

• Command Support/Intervention

• Official Investigation

When you file an Unrestricted Report you are eligible for:

UNRESTRICTED 

REPORT

RESTRICTED 

REPORT

• Medical treatment

• Sexual Assault Forensic Exam

• Counseling

• Chaplain Services

• Special Victim Counsel

• Legal Advocacy

• Victim Advocacy

When you file a Restricted Report, you are 

eligible for:

You may change a Restricted Report 

to an Unrestricted Report at any time.

There are two reporting options for victims of sexual assault: Restricted and Unrestricted. The major difference 

between these reporting options is that an Unrestricted Report will trigger an official investigation, include 

command involvement, and allow requests for an expedited transfer and/or military protective order, whereas a 

Restricted Report will not. Your SARC or VA can explain your options.

An Unrestricted Report also allows you to request 

protective and support measures like an Expedited 

Transfer or Military Protective Order. An Unrestricted 

Report cannot be changed to a Restricted Report.

A victim can file a Restricted Report even if...

1. The sexual assault has been inadvertently or previously disclosed 

to command by the victim, suspect, or third party; 

2. The matter has been reported to law enforcement, to include the 

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division, by anyone other than 

the victim; or 

3. An investigation is initiated, in progress, or closed.

Victims may elect to make a Restricted Report of sexual assault at 

any time, EXCEPT in cases where the victim: 

• Personally reported the incident to law enforcement (including 

CID); or 

• Previously filed an Unrestricted Report with a signed 

DD Form 2910 (the Victim Reporting Preference 

Statement) for the same sexual assault

NEW UPDATE
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6044-6045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02128]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-392]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: 
Pharmacore, Inc.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and 
applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the 
issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 
1301.33(a) on or before April 4, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Attorney General has delegated her 
authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of

[[Page 6045]]

the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority 
to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation 
and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of 
manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of 
controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with 
suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion 
Control (``Deputy Assistant Administrator'') pursuant to section 7 of 
28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on 
December 3, 2015, Pharmacore, Inc., 4180 Mendenhall Oaks Parkway, High 
Point, North Carolina 27265 applied to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Controlled substance                       Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxymorphone (9652).........................  II
Noroxymorphone (9668)......................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
as active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for clinical trials.

    Dated: January 27, 2016.
Louis J. Milione,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-02128 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
NUMBER 13-18-00475-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JASON ROSALEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court

of San Patricio County, Texas.

ORDER TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

This cause is currently before the Court on appellant's third unopposed motion for 

extension of time to file the brief. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed

December 6, 2018. This Court has previously granted appellant two extensions of time 

totaling 125 days to file the brief, and appellant now seeks an additional 60 days, until 

June 10, 2019, to file the brief. 
2

The Court GRANTS appellant’s third unopposed motion for extension to file the 

brief and ORDERS the Honorable Sandra A. Eastwood to file the brief on or before June 

10, 2019. The Court looks with disfavor on the delay caused by counsel’s failure to timely 

file a brief in this matter. No further extensions will be granted absent exigent 

circumstances. If counsel fails to file the brief within the specified period of time, the 

Court will act appropriately to ensure that appellant's rights are protected. See id. R. 

38.8(b)(4). 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

16th day of April, 2019.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 245 (Thursday, December 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66340-66341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31105]



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

[[Page 66341]]


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration


Notice of Approval of Applicant as Trustee

     Notice is hereby given that First Trust of Illinois, National 
Association, with offices at 400 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, 
Illinois, 60611, has been approved as Trustee pursuant to Public Law 
100-710 and 46 CFR part 221.

    Dated: December 18, 1995.

    By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31105 Filed 12-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P
#### Mary McGrath, Administratrix, Appellant, v. The Brooklyn City Railroad Company, Respondent.

Exceptions overruled, and judgment for defendants on order made at circuit.

Opinion by

Pratt, J.
The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 97-2711/3291

___________

Robert B. DePugh, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeals from the United States

* District Court for the 

Willis Swearingin, former Sheriff * Western District of Missouri.

Carroll County, Missouri, in his *

personal and official capacities, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: March 6, 1998

 Filed: March 13, 1998

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert B. DePugh appeals the judgment of the District Court granting

1

defendant&s motion for entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c)

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action. DePugh also appeals the District Court&s award

of attorney fees in the amount of $5,000 to defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1994).

Having reviewed the record and the parties& submissions on appeal, we conclude that
-2-

the District Court did not err in granting defendant&s motion for entry of judgment under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c). We also conclude that the District Court did not

abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to defendant. DePugh&s other arguments

are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We grant

Swearingin&s motion for sanctions against DePugh for filing a frivolous appeal.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EX-34.14
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG

Ernst & Young LLP
Suite 1000
55 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard
Atlanta, Georgia 30308

Phone: (404) 874 8300
www.ey.com


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To the Board of Directors:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation
AB Servicing Criteria, that ZC Real Estate Tax Solutions Limited ('the Company'
or 'ZCRETS') complied with certain servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the ZC Tax
Source (ZCTS) Real Estate Tax Outsourcing Platform (the Platform) as of and for
the year ended December 31, 2007. The Company has determined that only certain
servicing criteria Item 1122 (d)(1)(iv), Item 1122 (d)(4)(xi), Item 1122
(d)(4)(xii) and Item 1122 (d)(4)(xiii) are applicable to the activities
performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The
Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB are not
applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the Platform
covered by this report. See Appendix A of management's assertion for the
Platform and Servicer covered by this report. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the
Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the servicing activities performed by the Company
during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to
determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our
tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by
the Company during the period covered by this report for the Platform. We
believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as or and for the year ended December 31,
2007 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


February 14,2008



A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM
10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         404,745
<SECURITIES>                                    50,256
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                       153
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               480,839
<PP&E>                                         104,259
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,718
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 646,772
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,393
<BONDS>                                        463,751
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           503
<OTHER-SE>                                     141,618
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   646,772
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,201
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               167,998
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   153
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,278
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (218,442)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (218,442)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (218,442)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (13.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (13.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### CHARLES F. DUNN v. JOHN H. DOVE, JESEPHER HURST, TOLSON JARMAN and F. E. WALLACE, Trustee.

(Filed 7 October, 1925.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Barnhill, J.,*at August Term, 1925, of LeNOIR.

Affirmed.

*Charles F. Dunn for plaintiff.*

*F. E. Wallace and Cowper, Whitaker & Allen for defendant.*

Pee CuRiAM.

Tbe principles of law involved in this case are practically tbe same as those in *Dunn v. McKnight, post,*860. On tbe authority in that ease, this case is

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 66797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31239]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Privatization and Outsourcing

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Privatization and 
Outsourcing will meet in open session on January 16-17, 1996 at TASC, 
1101 Wilson Boulvelard, Arlington, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense.
    Persons interested in further information should call Ms. Julia 
Vindasius at (703 695-7178 or Ms. Lois Lembo 358-9090 ext 6430.

    Dated: December 19, 1995.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-31239 Filed 12-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M