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 |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 2Federal Reserve Bank of: New YorkFilings received during the week ending December 20, 2014FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodKOREA EXCHANGE BANK                                                                                                     FBSEAKorea Exchange Bank, Seoul, Korea, to establish an agency in New York, New York, pursuant to Section 211.24(a)(1)(i)(A) of Regulation K.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not applicableSTERLING BANCORP                                                                                                        * 3A5Sterling Bancorp, Montebello, New York, to acquire 100 percent of Hudson Valley Holding Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire Hudson Valley Bank, N.A., both of Yonkers, New York, pursuant to Section 3(a)(5) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended and Section 225.15 of Regulation Y.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 01/09/2015
EXHIBIT 21

                  SUBSIDIARIES OF CALTON, INC.

Calton Homes, Inc.                     Calcap XXXII, Inc.
Calcap Commercial Management, Inc.     Calcap XXXIII, Inc.
Calton Homes of Florida, Inc. (1)      Calcap XXXIV, Inc.
Calton Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc. (2) Calcap 36, Inc.
Calton Homes of Pennsylvania at        Calcap 42, Inc.
 Pennway, Inc. (2)                     Calcap 46, Inc.
Calton Homes of California, Inc. (3)   Calcap 48, Inc.
Calton California Equity Corp. (3)     Calton General, Inc.
Calton Manzanita Corp. (3)             Calton Funding, Inc.
Calton Tamarack Corp. (3)              Talcon Assignment, Inc.
Calton Lindenwood Corp. (3)            Calton Homes of Chicago, Inc. (5)
Calton Homes of Tampa, Inc. (1)        Haddon Group of Virginia, Inc.
Calton Homes Finance, Inc.             Wagner Joint Venture
Calton Homes Finance II, Inc.          Pennway Joint Venture, L.P.
Calton Capital, Inc.                   Talcon Title, L.P.
Calton Capital II, Inc.                Talpro 31, L.P.
Calcap VII, Inc.                       Talpro 32, L.P.
Calcap X, Inc.                         Talpro 33, L.P.
Calcap XV, Inc.                        Talpro 34, L.P.
Calcap XXXI, Inc.                      Talpro 48, L.P.

All subsidiaries are incorporated or organized under the laws of the State of
New Jersey, except those marked with a (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), which are
incorporated under the laws of Florida, Pennsylvania, California, Delaware
and Illinois, respectively.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          40,130
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,165
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,783
<PP&E>                                           3,591
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,510)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,670
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           134
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,864
<SALES>                                          5,159
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,159
<CGS>                                            1,031
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,031
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,592
<INCOME-TAX>                                       105
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,487
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,487
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        

</TABLE>
Motion Granted; Order filed February 11, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00352-CR

____________

ELIC MILTON LYMAN, SR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 83696-CR

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant has filed a motion to delay 

filing his pro se response until after he has had the opportunity to review the 

record. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gainous v. State, 436 

S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). The motion is granted.
Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 239th District Court to afford 

appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local 

procedure; that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant on or before

February 21, 2020; that the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on 

which delivery of the record to appellant is made; and that appellant file his pro se 

brief with this court within thirty days of that date.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Spain.
B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by the Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming

Percent

Less than 20.0 percent

2.0 2.0-4.9 5.0-9.9 10.0-14.9 15.0-19.9 and

Period Total percent percent percent percent percent over

1995...... 100.0 83.4 14.0 2.1 .3 .1 .1

1996...... 100.0 81.9 15.4 2.3 .2 .1 .1

1997...... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998...... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999...... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000...... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001...... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002...... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

2003...... 100.0 81.2 15.0 3.3 .4 .1 .0

2004...... 100.0 85.3 12.7 1.7 .2 .1 ...

2005...... 100.0 87.2 10.7 1.9 .2 ... ...

2006...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

 Q3... 100.0 81.8 15.2 2.7 .2 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998: Q1... 100.0 80.6 16.3 2.8 .1 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 80.8 15.9 2.9 .3 .1 .0

 Q3... 100.0 80.3 16.2 3.1 .3 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999: Q1... 100.0 77.2 17.8 4.5 .5 .0 .0

 Q2... 100.0 78.7 16.9 3.8 .6 ... ...

 Q3... 100.0 80.4 15.9 3.4 .3 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000: Q1... 100.0 81.8 14.8 2.9 .5 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 82.2 15.1 2.4 .3 .0 .0

 Q3... 100.0 83.0 14.9 1.7 .4 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001: Q1... 100.0 80.3 16.9 2.6 .2 .1 ...

 Q2... 100.0 80.2 16.6 3.0 .2 .1 ...

 Q3... 100.0 78.7 17.8 3.2 .3 ... ...

 Q4... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002: Q1... 100.0 76.8 19.3 3.7 .2 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 76.8 19.6 3.1 .4 .0 ...

 Q3... 100.0 77.8 18.8 3.2 .2 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

2003: Q1... 100.0 75.4 19.9 4.1 .3 .2 .0

 Q2... 100.0 76.2 19.2 4.0 .4 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 77.7 18.3 3.6 .3 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 81.2 15.0 3.3 .4 .1 .0

2004: Q1... 100.0 79.2 17.2 3.2 .2 .1 .0

 Q2... 100.0 81.3 15.1 3.2 .3 .0 .1

 Q3... 100.0 82.1 15.1 2.4 .2 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 85.3 12.7 1.7 .2 .1 ...

2005: Q1... 100.0 84.4 13.3 2.0 .2 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 85.7 12.0 2.0 .3 .0 ...

 Q3... 100.0 85.7 12.4 1.8 .1 ... ...

 Q4... 100.0 87.2 10.7 1.9 .2 ... ...

2006: Q1... 100.0 85.6 12.6 1.7 .1 ... ...

 Q2... 100.0 85.8 12.5 1.5 .1 .0 ...

 Q3... 100.0 85.9 12.5 1.5 .0 ... ...

 Note. Nonperforming loans are loans in nonaccruing status or past due 90 days or more. Renegotiated or restructured

loans in compliance with the modified terms are not included. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section B.

Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 ... Not applicable.

26
#### Rosario TAMAYO, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 02-3324.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Feb. 26, 2003.

Before MICHEL, RADER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

MICHEL, Circuit Judge.

Rosario Tamayo responds to the issue of whether her petition for review should be dismissed.

Tamayo petitions this court for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board decision denying her request for a survivor annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) based on the service of her late husband. In the initial decision, the administrative judge determined that Ta-mayo was not entitled to a CSRS survivor annuity because her late husband’s service was pursuant to a series of excepted indefinite appointments. *See Casilang v. Office of Personnel Management,*248 F.3d 1381 (Fed.Cir.2001) (Executive Order 10,530 kept in place exclusion of nonpermanent employees from CSRA until new regulations promulgated in 1956); *Rosete v. Office of Personnel Management,*48 F.3d 514 (Fed.Cir.1995) (upholding OPM’s statutory interpretation that indefinite appointments are excluded from Civil Service Reform Act coverage as reasonable and consistent with the governing statute, 5 U.S.C. § 8347(g)).

Tamayo argues in her response that her case differs from *Rósete*because her late husband’s employment was “converted” into covered service by the 1956 CSRA. We conclude that this and Tamayo’s remaining arguments fall within the holdings of *Rósete*and *Casilang.*

Tamayo’s petition seeks review of issues that were conclusively decided in *Rósete.*This court has denied suggestions for rehearing en banc in *Rósete*and in dozens of other cases that argued that *Rósete*was wrongly decided. Thus, any further attempts to argue the merits of *Rósete*are deemed frivolous and an abuse of the judi*477cial process. Furthermore, if Tamayo files another document with this court and, upon review, it is determined that the arguments are frivolous, this court will consider the imposition of monetary sanctions. *See In re Solerwitz,*848 F.2d 1573, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1988) (counsel sanctioned for filing and maintaining frivolous appeals in air traffic controller cases that presented legal issues and fact patterns indistinguishable from those presented and decided in the precedents represented by the lead cases); *see also Pillay v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv.,*45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir.1995) (appellate court has inherent authority to dismiss appeal as frivolous when appeal presents no arguably meritorious issue for consideration).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Tamayo’s petition for review is dismissed.

(2) Tamayo’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(4) If Tamayo files another document with this court and, upon review, it is determined that the arguments are frivolous, this court will consider the imposition of monetary sanctions.
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                 TRANSCRYPT INTERNATIONAL, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
          (in thousands, except share and per share data) (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Three Months Ended
                                                          ----------------------------------
                                                          March 31, 1998      March 31, 1997
                                                          ----------------    --------------
                                                                                 (restated)
<S>                                                         <C>                 <C>        
Net Income                                                  $     1,316         $       142
                                                            ===========         ===========
                                                                             
                                                             NET INCOME PER SHARE - BASIC

Weighted average common shares  - Basic                      12,946,624           8,699,745
                                                            ===========         ===========
                                                                            
Net income per share - Basic                                $      0.10         $      0.02
                                                            ===========         ===========
                                                                            
                                                            NET INCOME PER SHARE - DILUTED
Shares used in this computation:
   Weighted average common shares  - Basic                   12,946,624           8,699,745
  Dilutive effect of shares under employee stock plans          674,525             582,104
                                                            -----------         -----------
  Weighted average common shares - Diluted                   13,621,149           9,281,849
                                                            ===========         ===========
                                                                            
Net income per share - Diluted                              $      0.10         $      0.02
                                                            ===========         ===========
</TABLE>



                                                                         Page 20
Case 1:08-cv-00169-MML   Document 8   Filed 05/20/08   Page 1 of 1
14

A.9. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan, November 2-6Percent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,999 $24,999 $49,999 $99,999 $249,999 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,230,938 30,562 75,977 89,965 136,342 217,7Number of loans 17,408 5,537 4,975 2,618 2,012 1,4Weighted average maturity (months)1 13.24 7.24 8.29 9.38 12.37 12.0

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 2.76 1.94 2.63 2.87 5.12 3.4

Weighted average risk rating3 3.33 3.13 3.13 3.23 3.22 3.

Weighted average interest rate4 4.19 5.39 5.23 5.07 4.96 4. Standard error5 .32 .11 .16 .19 .21 .

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 5.32 6.16 6.10 5.88 5.95 5. 25th percentile 3.09 4.85 4.59 4.27 4.00 3. Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.03 5.58 5.25 5.58 5.28 4. Other livestock 3.95 5.32 4.63 5.10 4.64 3. Other current operating expenses7 4.66 5.48 5.43 5.25 5.24 4.

 Farm machinery and equipment 4.13 6.04 5.23 5.05 4.93 3. Farm real estate 6.04 5.79 6.28 5.23 6.55 5. Other8 3.33 4.20 4.05 3.79 3.85 3.4

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 87.08 85.31 86.14 79.26 80.57 84. Under commitment 82.83 88.41 84.95 79.13 80.78 87. Callable 13.12 22.45 20.36 22.55 22.83 15.7 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 13.94 3.91 6.72 12.90 9.11 11.0 Other livestock 5.87 4.57 3.76 8.78 6.94 8. Other current operating expenses7 44.04 75.84 66.54 57.69 52.42 40. Farm machinery and equipment 9.10 5.71 10.26 6.63 9.68 11. Farm real estate 2.45 .56 1.55 .72 3.24 4.0 Other8 24.59 9.43 11.17 13.29 18.60 24.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 10.66 7.66 7.61 7.41 11.42 12. Other 85.87 90.14 90.28 91.49 85.86 85.0 Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 188 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22709]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Justice Programs

[OJP (OJP) Docket No. 1488]


Meeting of the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Justice.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This is an announcement of a meeting of the Public Safety 
Officer Medal of Valor Review Board to review applications for the 
2007-2008 Medal of Valor Awards and to discuss upcoming activities. The 
meeting time and location are located below.

DATES: October 30, 2008, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Office of Justice 
Programs, 810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Joy, Policy Advisor, Bureau of 
Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20531, by telephone at (202) 514-1369, toll free (866) 
859-2687, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91f6e3f4f6fee3e8bffbfee8d1e4e2f5fefbbff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="62051007050d101b4c080d1b221711060d084c050d14">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor 
Review Board carries out those advisory functions specified in 42 
U.S.C. 15202. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 15201, the President of the United 
States is authorized to award the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor, 
the highest national award for valor by a public safety officer. The 
purpose of this meeting is to review applications for the 2007-2008 
Medal of Valor Awards and to discuss upcoming activities related 
thereto.
    This meeting will be open to the public. For security purposes, 
members of the public who wish to attend must register at least five 
(5) days in advance of the meeting by contacting Mr. Joy. All attendees 
will be required to sign in at the front desk. Note: Photo 
identification will be required for admission. Additional 
identification documents may be required.
    Access to the meeting will not be allowed without prior 
registration. Anyone requiring special accommodations should contact 
Mr. Joy at least five (5) days in advance of the meeting.

Eric Holland,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs.
 [FR Doc. E8-22709 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 07-cr-250-01-SM

Bradley Demps

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 14) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the November 2008 trial period. Defendant shall file a

Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than September 8, 2008. On the filing of such

waiver, his continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account

the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: October 24, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Case 1:07-cr-00250-SM Document 15 Filed 09/02/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Jury Selection: November 4, 2008 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

September 2, 2008 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Debra Walsh, Esq.

 Bjorn Lange, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00250-SM Document 15 Filed 09/02/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 09-cr-9-SM

Joseph Delgado

O R D E R

Defendant's assented to motion to continue the trial for thirty days (document

no. 25) is granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the October trial period. Defendant

shall file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than September 21, 2009. On the

filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny

the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into

account the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:09-cr-00009-PB Document 26 Filed 09/09/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: October 13, 2009 at 3:30 PM 

Jury Selection: October 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

September 9, 2009 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:09-cr-00009-PB Document 26 Filed 09/09/09 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6483

WILLIAM ALVA HEMMING,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

C.O. B. HAWERD; C.O. J. KISH; C.O. C. BENETTE; HAZELTON FCI; DR. 

MYERS, Psychology,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00071-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: July 31, 2023 Decided: November 9, 2023

Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Alva Hemming, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6483 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/09/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

William Alva Hemming appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 

complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm. Hemming v. Hawerd, No. 5:21-cv-00071-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. 

Mar. 10, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6483 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/09/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KEITH JOHNSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 242 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of November, 2016

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.