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: 2
Federal Reserve Bank of: New York

## Filings received during the week ending January 9, 2010

|Filer                               | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                               | End of Comment Period                                
|----------------------------------- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|FIRST NIAGARA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. | * 3A1         | First Niagara Financial Group, Inc., Buffalo, New York, to become a bank holding company by acquiring Harleysville National Corporation and Harleysville National Bank and Trust Company, both of Harleysville, Pennsylvania. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                          | Not available
|Federal Register:                   | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### The State, ex rel. The B. F. Goodrich Co., *v.*Wanamaker et al., Judges.

(No. 24754

— Decided June 13, 1934.)

*Messrs. Waters, Andress, Wise, Roetsel db Maxon*, and *Mr. Joseph G. Herbert,*for relator.

*Messrs. Cowan, Adams & Adams,*for respondents.

This cause came on to be beard upon tbe demurrer of tbe respondents to tbe relator’s petition, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged that said demurrer be, and tbe same hereby is, sustained for tbe reason that tbe writ of prohibition cannot be made to serve tbe purpose of a proceeding in error to correct mistakes of a lower court in deciding questions of law within its jurisdiction. *State, ex rel. Barbee, Exr.,*v. *Allen, Probate Judge,*96 Ohio St., 10; *State, ex rel. Carmody,*v. *Justice, Judge,*114 Ohio St., 94, and *Silliman*v. *Court of Common Pleas,*126 Ohio St., 338.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that tbe petition of tbe relator be, and tbe same hereby is, dismissed.

*Petition dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Jones, Zimmerman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.

Matthias and Bevis, JJ., not participating..
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2101

To establish that it is the policy of the United States that public lands

be used for public utility infrastructure before private lands are condemned for such purpose, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 7, 2001

Mr. CALVERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and

Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To establish that it is the policy of the United States that

public lands be used for public utility infrastructure before private lands are condemned for such purpose, 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. USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN BY PUBLIC UTILI4 TIES.

5 It is the policy of the United States that public lands

6 be used for the siting of electric utility transmission facili-
2

•HR 2101 IH

1 ties and other utility infrastructure before private property

2 is acquired by condemnation for such purposes.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF EARNINGS AS OF JUNE 27, 1997 AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS THEN ENDED AND THE NOTES
THERETO AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FILED IN THE 1997 JEFFERIES GROUP, INC. SECOND QUARTER 10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1997
<CASH>                                          70,035
<RECEIVABLES>                                  255,735
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                        1,620,267
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            286,979
<PP&E>                                          38,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,458,643
<SHORT-TERM>                                   100,000
<PAYABLES>                                           0
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                          1,407,494
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             250,082
<LONG-TERM>                                     53,074
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           188
<OTHER-SE>                                     210,184
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,458,643
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               85,032
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            31,376
<COMMISSIONS>                                  136,440
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   92,965
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,444
<COMPENSATION>                                 185,036
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 56,894
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      56,894
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,145
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.37
        

</TABLE>
41

C.7. Local Trends in Farm Income and Expenditures as Reported by Banks in Each RegionPercent

Farm income Farm household spending Farm capital sp

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same 

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2005: Q4... 26 32 42 4 55 41 18 5

2006: Q1... 37 38 25 6 62 32 22 5 Q2... 40 47 13 9 59 32 27 5 Q3... 52 41 7 20 59 21 47 4 Q4... 35 27 38 17 54 29 34 42007: Q1... 21 29 50 11 50 38 19 4 Q2... 10 39 51 4 55 41 7 5 Q3... 2 32 66 2 50 48 5 4 Q4... 2 12 86 2 28 71 2 2

Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2005: Q4... 30 49 21 13 58 30 27 5

2006: Q1... 31 52 16 13 58 29 27 5 Q2... 37 57 6 15 60 25 37 5 Q3... 42 48 10 15 54 31 31 5 Q4... 25 43 32 8 62 29 18 62007: Q1... 18 38 44 5 59 36 14 5 Q2... 13 49 39 7 55 38 12 5 Q3... 6 38 56 5 52 44 8 5 Q4... 7 25 68 5 47 48 7 3

Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2005: Q4... 24 29 48 14 62 24 24 4

2006: Q1... 36 45 18 18 68 14 27 5 Q2... 35 48 17 17 65 17 32 5 Q3... 23 55 23 5 86 9 23 5 Q4... 22 44 33 11 72 17 17 62007: Q1... 20 30 50 0 75 25 5 5 Q2... 10 15 75 5 70 25 10 4 Q3... 5 11 84 5 53 42 5 2 Q4... 5 0 95 11 42 47 11 2 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. n.a. Not available. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
No. 72-6259.

#### Theriault et al. *v.*Establishment of Religion on Taxpayers' Money in the Federal Bureau of Prisons et al.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari denied.
---

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures Year
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total1984
          3
          7
          10
          12
          321985
          12
          21
          17
          18
          681986
          14
          14
          21
          16
          651987
          22
          19
          12
          16
          691988
          11
          6
          12
          7
          361989
          5
          7
          5
          5
          221990
          3
          5
          6
          3
          171991
          2
          2
          3
          1
          81992
          1
          1
          1
          4
          71993
          1
          2
          2
          0
          51994
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01995
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01996
          0
          2
          0
          0
          21997
          0
          0
          0
          1
          11998
          0
          0
          1
          0
          11999
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12000
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02001
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02002
          1
          0
          0
          1
          22003
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12004
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12005
          0
          0
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a. Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.
Industrial banks and mutual savings banks also are
excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: August 25, 2005
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1962

To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the time for use by

members of the Selected Reserve of entitlement to certain educational

assistance.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 2001

Mr. BUYER (for himself and Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the time

for use by members of the Selected Reserve of entitlement to certain educational assistance.

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF TIME FOR USE BY CERTAIN

4 MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE OF

5 ENTITLEMENT TO EDUCATIONAL ASSIST6 ANCE.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 16133

8 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking

9 ‘‘(1) at the end’’ and all that follows through the end and
2

•HR 1962 IH

1 inserting ‘‘on the date the person is separated from the

2 Selected Reserve.’’.

3 (b) CERTAIN MEMBERS.—Paragraph (1) of sub4 section (b) of that section is amended in the flush matter

5 following subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘shall be deter6 mined’’ and all that follows through the end and inserting

7 ‘‘shall expire on the later of (i) the 10-year period begin8 ning on the date on which such person becomes entitled

9 to educational assistance under this chapter, or (ii) the

10 end of the 4-year period beginning on the date such person

11 is separated from, or ceases to be, a member of the Se12 lected Reserve.’’.

13 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Subsection (b) of

14 that section is further amended—

15 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘subsection

16 (a)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (a) and (b)(1)’’;

17 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘subsection

18 (a)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (b)(1)’’; and

19 (3) in paragraph (4)—

20 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘sub21 section (a)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (a) and

22 (b)(1)’’; and
3

•HR 1962 IH

1 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking

2 ‘‘clause (2) of such subsection’’ and inserting

3 ‘‘subsection (a)’’.

Æ
#### Joseph Otis GOVAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 03-6825.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 6, 2003.

Decided Aug. 20, 2003.

Joseph Otis Govan, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Otis Govan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Govan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EXHIBIT 99.2

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003
                           (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

      In  connection  with  the  accompanying  Annual  Report  of  Carrington
 Laboratories, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December
 31, 2002, as filed with the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the  date
 hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert W.  Schnitzius, Chief Financial Officer  of
 the Company, hereby certify that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));  and

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



 Dated:  March 27, 2003             /s/ Robert W. Schnitzius
                                    ------------------------
                                    Robert W. Schnitzius
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (principal financial and
                                    accounting officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Karen L. Bartlett

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00358-JL

Mutual Pharmaceutical

Company, Inc.

ORDER

The parties shall be advised that the audio recordings

referenced in this court's recent order (document no. 477)

include the full testimony of witnesses Dr. Nam Heui Kim and

Robert Dettery, but only part of the testimony of Dr. Claes

Dohlman. If either party has possession, custody, or control of

electronic file(s) containing Dr. Dohlman's testimony as

presented to the jury, it shall provide copies of such file(s) to

this court and the opposing party by May 31, 2011, or else shall

notify this court and the opposing party by that date that it has

no such file(s).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: May 24, 2011

cc: Bryan Ballew, Esq.

Keith M. Jensen, Esq.

Patrick J. O’Neal, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 480 Filed 05/24/11 Page 1 of 2
Eric Roberson, Esq.

Christine M. Craig, Esq.

Timothy P. Beaupre, Esq.

Jeffrey D. Geoppinger, Esq.

Joseph P. Thomas, Esq.

Paul J. Cosgrove, Esq.

Linda E. Maichl, Esq.

Stephen J. Judge, Esq.

Pierre A. Chabot, Esq.

 

2

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 480 Filed 05/24/11 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-20735

 

ISMENIA R. DAVID,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DAVE & BUSTER’S Inc.,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CV-3403

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

July 11, 2000

Before POLITZ, JONES & STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ismenia R. David appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment for Dave & Buster’s. Her appeal is limited to her claim

that Dave & Buster’s violated section 510 of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1140, by firing

her to prevent her from exercising rights under Dave & Buster’s

ERISA plan. The parties join issue over whether back pay is an

equitable remedy available under ERISA § 502(a)(3)(29 U.S.C. §

1132(a)(3)) or whether it is a form of extracontractual or

compensatory relief of the sort we have previously held to be
No. 99-20735

-2-

unavailable in ERISA cases. See Corcoran v. United HealthCare,

Inc., 965 F.2d 1321, 1334-35 (5th Cir. 1992); Medina v. Anthem Life

Ins. Co., 983 F.2d 29, 32 (5th Cir. 1993); Rogers v. Hartford Life

and Acc. Ins. Co., 167 F.3d 933, 944 (5th Cir. 1999). But see

Schwartz v. Gregori, 45 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1995).

We pretermit the issue. David has waived any challenge to the

district court’s conclusion that she was not entitled to plan

benefits by failing to appeal the district court’s summary-judgment

determination that she had a preexisting condition which was not

covered by Dave & Buster’s’s ERISA plan. Dave & Buster’s could

not, as a matter of law, have interfered with a benefit to which

David had no entitlement. See Perdue v. Burger King Corp., 7 F.3d

1251, 1255 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Wolf v. Coca-Cola Co., 200

F.3d 1337, 1340-41 (11th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED ON ALTERNATE GROUNDS.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 4Federal Reserve Bank of: ClevelandFilings received during the week ending November 30, 2013FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
#### In the Matter of Patricia Griffin, Respondent, v Daniel B. Griffin, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 570]

*798In a child, support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Edlitz, J.), entered February 9, 2004, which denied his objections to an order of the same court entered December 23, 2003 (Kava, S.M.), which, inter alia, fixed the amount of child support arrears he owed for the parties’ three children in the sum of $10,599.90.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the objections are sustained, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for a recalculation in accordance herewith of the amount of child support arrears.

Parents are obligated by law to support their children until the age of 21 *(see*Family Ct Act § 413; *Neckers v Neckers,*160 AD2d 693 [1990]; *Matter of Lucas v Fiero,*138 AD2d 488 [1988]). Here, arrears in child support were assessed for a period after the parties’ two oldest children reached the age of 21. In determining the amount of child support arrears, the Family Court did not take into account the appropriate reductions for the emancipation of each of these two children by operation of law *(see Lee v Lee,*18 AD3d 508, 511 [2005]). Thus, while the Support Magistrate correctly determined that the order of support, dated October 1, 1999, terminated by operation of law on May 31, 2003, when the parties’ youngest child reached the age of 21, in calculating the amount of arrears, the Support Magistrate also should have taken into account the emancipation of the parties’ two older children upon their each having reached the age of 21 *(see Lee v Lee, supra).*In addition, the Support Magistrate’s finding that the order of support was not allocated among the parties’ three children is unsupported by the record given that the amount of child support thereunder was calculated by applying 29% to the combined parental income, representing the “child support percentage” set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (b) (3) (iii) for three children.

We reject the father’s contention that the happening of certain events in the lives of the subject children constituted emancipating events before they reached the age of 21, in the absence of an express agreement by the parties to that effect *(cf. Matter of Loveday v Loveday,*272 AD2d 401 [2000]; *Matter of Mancini v Mancini,*236 AD2d 475 [1997]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the father’s remaining contention. Crane, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.
1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-2559

___________ Peter Grzeskowiak, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District Keith Mills, Parole Officer, * of Minnesota. * Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: December 7, 2001 Filed: December 26, 2001

___________ Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Peter Grzeskowiak appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he sought to hold his parole officer liable for ignoring Mr. Grzeskowiak’s requests to visit his mother. Upon our de novo review, we are satisfied that the district court’s disposition was correct given Mr. Grzeskowiak’s status as a parolee.-2- Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.