alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53425-53426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21593]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.

[[Page 53426]]

1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, 
or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, 
including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or 
through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is 
listed in Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the 
Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and 
permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. 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 the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than October 1, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Anne MacEwen, Bank 
Applications Officer) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. EuroBancshares, Inc., to engage de novo through its subsidiary, 
EUBK Securities, Inc. (in formation), both of San Juan, Puerto Rico, in 
securities brokerage, riskless principal transactions, and other 
transactional services, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(7)(i), (ii) and 
(v) of Regulation Y.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Steve Foley, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. Commerce Bancshares Inc., Franklin, Tennessee, to engage de novo 
in management consulting activities, pursuant to section 
225.28(b)(9)(ii) of Regulation Y.
    C. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. CLC Enterprises, Inc., Nelson, Nebraska, to engage de novo in 
lending activities, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 11, 
2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-21593 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### Sue CORBIN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-55624.

D.C. No. CV-01-00477-RSWL (SH).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 14, 2003.

*370Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Corbin’s request for oral argument.

MEMORANDUM**

Sue Corbin appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice her action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal. *Lee v. City of Los Angeles,*250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir.2001). We reverse and remand.

Corbin alleged that Orange County deputy sheriffs violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they stopped Corbin and her elderly mother even though Corbin committed no traffic infraction, and then searched bags and packages in Corbin’s locked hatchback after Corbin said her license was in her wallet under the driver’s seat. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim. *See United States v. Colin,*314 F.3d 439, 442 (9th Cir.2002) (traffic stop must be based on “reasonable suspicion” that traffic violation has occurred); *Knowles v. Iowa,*525 U.S. 113,117-18,119 S.Ct. 484, 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998) (traffic citation cannot be the basis of full search of car).

Corbin has also stated a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by alleging that the deputy sheriffs violated her rights because of her gender. *See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara,*307 F.3d 1119, 1125-26 (9th Cir.2002) (rejecting heightened pleading standard for constitutional torts involving allegation of improper motive).

In light of the foregoing, Corbin’s allegations that the County and the Sheriffs Department failed to train the deputy sheriffs properly are also sufficient to state a claim. *See In re Estate of Amos v. City of Page, Arizona,*257 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir.2001).

We do not consider Corbin’s allegations of age discrimination or her contention that the statute governing *in forma pauperis*proceedings is unconstitutional because Corbin did not raise these issues in district court. *See Crawford v. Lungren,*96 F.3d 380, 389 n. 6 (9th Cir.1996).

We grant Corbin’s motions for extensions of time to respond to the screening letter and her request that the district court record be incorporated into the record on appeal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1197 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1197

  To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian 
Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to decrease the requisite blood quantum 
      required for membership in the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo tribe.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2001

  Mr. Reyes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian 
Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to decrease the requisite blood quantum 
      required for membership in the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo tribe.

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

SECTION 1. BLOOD QUANTUM REQUIRED FOR TRIBAL MEMBERSHIP DECREASED.

    Section 108(a)(2)(i) of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and 
Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 1300g-7) is 
amended by striking ``\1/8\'' and inserting ``\1/16\''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB
for  the  period  ended September 30, 2002,  as  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on  the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund Management
XXI,  Inc.,  the  Managing General Partner  of  the  Partnership,
certify,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. 1350, as  adopted  pursuant  to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The  Report  fully  complies with the  requirements  of
          Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act
          of 1934; and

     2.   The   information  contained  in  the   Report   fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Partnership.


                           /s/ Robert P Johnson
                               Robert P. Johnson, President
                               AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                               Managing General Partner
                               November 1, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023458
<NAME> AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XXII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             893
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   893
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,866
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (16,973)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       893
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,616
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,616)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,616)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,616)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
191 La. 189

#### RHODES v. SINCLAIR REFINING CO. et al.

No. 34843.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 31, 1938.

T. m -n- 1 „ *i-*t> , ,. Jim W. Richardson, of Bogalusa, for appellant.

Porteous, Johnson & Humphrey, of New Orleans, for appellees.

HIGGINS, Justice.

This is an action ex delicto by a resident and citizen of Louisiana, against the Sinclair Refining Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Maine, and A. L. Nye, a -resident and citizen of Louisiana, jointly, severally and in solido, filed in the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of Washington, Louisiana.

The defendant, Sinclair Refining Company, filed a petition and bond for removal 'of the case to the Federal Court. The trial judge granted the order for the removal upon the showing made by the company in its petition therefor.

The plaintiff’s application for a sus-pensive appeal from the order was immediately granted in open court and the appeal was properly and timely perfected in the Supreme Court, but the Refining Company ignored the appeal and filed the transcript of the case in the Federal Court.

The Federal Judge decided that, although there was a diversity of citizenship between the parties, this was not a separable action, and remanded the case to 'the State Court. The defendant, Refining Company, then filed in the State Court its answer to the plaintiff’s petition. '

It is conceded by both sides to this controversy that the sole and only remaining issue was whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to an appeal from the order removing the case to the Federal Court, to determine against whom the cost of this appeal should be assessed. The recent case of Fournet v. De Vilbiss et al., 187 La. 191, 174 So. 259, is decisive of the issue presented, for we there held that the plaintiff was entitled to appeal to the State Appellate Court from the order of the State trial judge removing his case to the Federal Court.

The Refining Company, by filing its answer to this suit in the State District *721Court, acquiesced in the judgment of the Federal Court, remanding the case to the State, Court, and thereby recognized the jurisdiction of the State, Court, but we might say in passing that the Federal Judge’s ruling is in accord with the views we expressed in the case of Fournet v. De Vilbiss et al., supra.

The defendant, Refining Company, having submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the State Court by appearing therein and answering to the merits of the suit, after the order of the State District Court was nullified by the Federal Court’s ruling, it is unnecessary for us to further set aside the order of removal granted by the trial judge.-

For the reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed at the appellee’s cost.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6310] 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces a meeting of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) to prepare for the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Council Meeting. 

The ITAC will meet on October 8, 2008, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., at 1120 20th Street, NW., 10th floor, Washington, DC 20036. The purpose of the meeting is to prepare advice for the U.S. government on the annual ITU Council Meeting, which will be held from November 12-21, 2008 at ITU headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. 

                        This meeting is open to the public as seating capacity allows. The public will have an opportunity to provide comments at this meeting. People desiring further information on these meeting may contact the Secretariat at                         *jillsonad@state.gov*                         or 202-647-5872.                     

Dated: September 15, 2008. 

Richard C. Beaird, 

International Communications & Information Policy, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-22104 Filed 9-19-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-133-01-PB

Andre Laventure

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

September 6, 2006 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to engage in plea negotiations. The government

does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from September 6, 2006 to December 5, 2006. 

In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial

Case 1:06-cr-00133-PB Document 10 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The August 29, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued

to November 28, 2006 at 4:15 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 29, 2006

cc: Mark Campbell, Esq.

Debra Walsh, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00133-PB Document 10 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1108

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that remarriage of the

surviving spouse of a veteran after age 55 shall not result in termination

of dependency and indemnity compensation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 20, 2001

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

Committee on Veterans Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that

remarriage of the surviving spouse of a veteran after

age 55 shall not result in termination of dependency

and indemnity compensation.

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

3 SECTION 1. RETENTION OF DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY

4 COMPENSATION FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES

5 REMARRYING AFTER AGE 55.

6 (a) EXCEPTION TO TERMINATION OF BENEFITS

7 UPON REMARRIAGE.—Section 103(d) of title 38, United
2

•HR 1108 IH

1 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol2 lowing new paragraph:

3 ‘‘(6) The remarriage after age 55 of the surviving

4 spouse of a veteran shall not bar payment of benefits

5 under section 1311 of this title.’’.

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (4) of

7 such section is amended by striking ‘‘this subsection’’ and

8 inserting ‘‘paragraph (2) or (3)’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EAGLE
WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 29, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ACCOMPANYING NOTES.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                         7,685
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,006
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    3,537
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              13,430
<PP&E>                                         1,586
<DEPRECIATION>                                   677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                25,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,210
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          17
<OTHER-SE>                                    22,091
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  25,309
<SALES>                                        1,903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,346
<CGS>                                            770
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  323
<INCOME-TAX>                                     100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              223
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                       0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.016
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.016


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1305 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1305

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the tax on beer to 
                          its pre-1991 level.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2001

   Mr. English (for himself, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Armey, Mr. Barcia, Mr. 
    Bereuter, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Bonior, Mrs. Bono, Mr. 
Chambliss, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. Cox, Mr. Cunningham, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Ehrlich, 
   Mr. Foley, Mr. Frost, Ms. Granger, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. 
Holden, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. John, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, 
  Mrs. Kelly, Mr. King, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. McCrery, Mr. 
McInnis, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Ney, Mr. 
  Otter, Mr. Pombo, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. 
Rohrabacher, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Sensenbrenner, 
  Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shows, Mr. Schrock, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Simpson, Mr. 
   Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Terry, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. 
Toomey, Mr. Walsh, and Mr. Quinn) introduced the following bill; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the tax on beer to 
                          its pre-1991 level.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF 1990 TAX INCREASE ON BEER.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 5051(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to imposition and rate of tax on beer) 
is amended by striking ``$18'' and inserting ``$9''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Brendon A. Cate,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 06-cv-200-SM

Public Service Enterprise Group,

Inc., and Aerotek, Inc.

f/k/a Onsite Energy Services,

Defendants

O R D E R

Granted (document no. 10). The motion was made within a

reasonable time and sets forth sufficient grounds upon which to

conclude that pro se plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of both

defendants was due to inadvertence and was unintentional, as

evidenced by plaintiff's subsequent inquiry of the clerk as to

the status of pleadings in the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(1) and (6). The Amended Notice is allowed; Defendant

Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. is dismissed with

prejudice. Defendant Aerotek, Inc. remains. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

October 27, 2006

cc: Brendon A. Cate, pro se

David A. Anderson, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00200-SM Document 12 Filed 10/27/2006 Page 1 of 1

Cate v. Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. et al Doc. 12

Dockets.Justia.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 06-cv-421-JM

Kingston, NH 43 Mill Rd

Kingston, NH 10 Towle Rd, et. al

O R D E R

Since I am retiring effective May 31, 2010, the trial and

summary judgment deadlines must be changed. The new dates are

set as follows:

1. Summary Judgment Deadline: 01/20/2010

2. Trial: 04/20/2010.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 1, 2009

cc: Robert J. Rabuck, Esq.

 Rodkey Craighead, Jr., Esq.

 Alexander R. Cain, Esq.

 Brian C. Dauphin, Esq.

 Murat Erkan, Esq.

 Robert A. Shaines, Esq.

 Scott W. LaPointe, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00421-SM Document 41 Filed 10/01/09 Page 1 of 1