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: 9Federal Reserve Bank of: MinneapolisFilings received during the week ending May 16, 2015FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFIRST BANCSHARES, INC., OF COLD SPRING                                                                                  CICChristian David Heitzman, Minneapolis, Minnesota, to retain 25 percent or more of the shares of First BancShares, Inc., of Cold Spring, Cold Spring, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly retain control of Granite Community Bank, Cold Spring, Minnesota.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 04/30/2015FIRST INTERSTATE BANK                                                                                                   * 18C
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1853

CHESTER A. YATES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:20-cv-00189-GCM)

Submitted: November 19, 2020 Decided: November 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chester A. Yates, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas William Hanna, GRAEBE HANNA & 

SULLIVAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chester A. Yates seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s 

motion for judgment on the pleadings. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). 

“Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” 

Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the 

claims raised in the complaint. See id. at 696-97. Specifically, the district court failed to

address Yates’ allegations of harassment and intimidation and his allegations regarding 

theft of renewals and clients—allegations that go beyond simple termination of his 

contract. We conclude that the order Yates seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claims. 

Id. at 699.

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.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
OFFICE OF THE A-lTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS **AUSTIN**

lionombloLeo Brady, Comudsslmer D%p;rrtnsntofB~ Austin,Texas A Dear Mr. Dr%dyi

Your request for th r%sp%ctto the

to the Bank00.00 each ye+- the purpose 09 for the pellicd I

fees collectedby the Bmkl.ng #A q&&ion hss been raiee5 as to ;Ph%th%r or not the $5,000,0Oloan prOaded for uzder this paragraphof the r5.W is a loan for the Basing Departmenta% a whole or to some particulardl~ieion of that Department. Until this quet3tlon has been settfied t&3 Comptroller till be unable to set up hi% acaountafor thie Departaant. ~0bvy.ml%ly,it

seem% to me, tb% $8,OOO*OO aavauce 1% mde for the purposeef %?Uabling theaon. Lee Brady - Page 8

Doprtmeut to operateduring the oarlpmonths of the flsoal year before fees ham been collected in subetautlalsums. In the light of tho above, I respectfullysubndt the following questlonl "1s the $ti,ctoo.oo adtanoe provMed for 1indteain its use to any partioular dl.tislon of tbo Bauld.qg

Department,or may it be uoml In such amounts as may be neoessaryfor the maintenanceand operationof the Department as a rholet" Your interpretation of the dot, as dlsolosed by your letter, Is, in the opinion of this department, the proper one.

It follors that your bqulry shouldbe answered to the e&feat that the item thus adtanaedmay be used In such amountsas may be neoeeaary for the tmintenfmce' and op%ratlonof the deprtsmnt 8% a whole. Very truly yours ATTOBIIBI

QEIIKRAL

OF TBXAS,,j
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie Gaines, Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 748]

Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Harvey, J.), entered April 25, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, forgery in the second degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On a prior appeal, we reversed the judgment of conviction, vacated defendant’s plea, and remitted the matter to Ontario County Court for further proceedings on the indictment *(People v Gaines,*277 AD2d 900). Upon remittal, defendant pleaded guilty to, inter alia, two counts of forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10 [1]). Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea allocution with respect to count four of the indictment was factually insufficient *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665). In any event, that contention lacks merit. Defendant *863also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in imposing a consecutive sentence on the second count of forgery *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]), and we reject defendant’s contention that as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice we should modify the judgment by directing that the sentence shall run concurrently *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [b]).

We further reject defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for recusal. Defendant does not allege a violation of Judiciary Law § 14, nor has he shown that the court’s alleged bias affected the outcome of the matter *(see People v Brown,*270 AD2d 917, 917-918, l*v denied*95 NY2d 851). Thus, “the determination of defendant’s motion for recusal was a matter left to the court’s conscience” *(id.*at 917). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present— Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-5206

_____________________________

WILLIAM THOMAS LANDERS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

William E. Davis, Judge.

March 25, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Laurel Cornell Niles,

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes,

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
16

A.11. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- All Banks, by Risk Rating, February 1-5, 2010Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,507,746 107,906 193,686 508,914 325,659 98,145 33,40Number of loans 24,971 1,685 3,269 10,295 4,397 1,051 25Weighted average maturity (months)1 18.92 12.69 16.44 26.43 18.65 6.08 13.9

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 6.48 6.97 8.25 6.27 5.65 .78 10.9

Weighted average risk rating3 3.09 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n

Weighted average interest rate4 5.21 6.03 5.30 5.37 4.38 4.41 6.2 Standard error5 .18 .28 .22 .26 .47 .59 .4

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 6.24 6.25 6.00 6.54 5.13 4.85 8.0 25th percentile 4.25 5.26 4.86 4.30 3.28 3.56 6.0 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.91 5.89 4.29 4.94 4.88 4.18 4.9 Other livestock 10.37 7.09 6.04 4.22 4.22 n.a. 7.0 Other current operating expenses7 5.67 5.28 5.61 4.80 4.76 6.32 5.9

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.49 6.26 4.99 4.68 8.06 n.a. 6. Farm real estate 6.56 6.44 6.88 5.03 n.a. 8.38 6.4 Other8 5.81 3.44 3.43 3.72 3.91 2.38 4.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 69.14 46.04 53.96 74.50 85.45 89.47 13.7 Under commitment 60.12 38.47 48.21 73.24 69.59 92.41 11. Callable 17.24 10.10 20.81 24.76 12.07 .77 60.2 Subject to prepayment penalty 15.67 4.02 7.86 15.43 24.08 60.64 n Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 7.21 12.49 10.62 5.03 2.92 1.98 n Other livestock 5.24 4.66 2.83 3.31 3.72 38.28 n Other current operating expenses7 57.66 69.05 75.65 60.61 38.92 34.42 93.5 Farm machinery and equipment 5.72 4.68 2.47 6.69 8.05 2.02 n Farm real estate 7.67 2.20 6.87 10.05 8.51 n.a. 3. Other8 16.51 6.94 1.56 14.31 37.88 23.31 3.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 16.47 7.21 11.17 21.18 12.87 1.50 51.5 Other 81.26 89.77 84.55 75.33 86.71 98.50 46. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of US Unwired Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 (the Report), I, Jerry E. Vaughn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 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 Company.



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jerry E. Vaughn                                    
|Jerry E. Vaughn Chief Financial Officer  April 29, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02293-PAB-KLM

KEVIN JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, and

DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Amend

Scheduling Order [Docket No. 14; Filed August 24, 2012] (the “Motion”).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#14] is GRANTED. The Scheduling

Order entered on February 15, 2012 [#13] is modified to extend the following deadlines:

• Discovery Deadline September 28, 2012

• Dispositive Motions Deadline October 31, 2012

Dated: August 29, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02293-PAB-KLM Document 16 Filed 08/29/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-79,118-05

IN RE KENNETH WAYNE JEROME, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 1233728 IN THE 263 DISTRICT COURT rd

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus pursuant

to the original jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus in the 263 District Court of Harris County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and rd

that the application has not yet been forwarded to this Court. Relator contends that the district court

entered an order designating issues on April 3, 2013.

Respondent, the Judge of the 263 District Court of Harris County, shall file a response with rd

this Court by having the District Clerk submit the record on such habeas corpus application. In the

alternative, Respondent may resolve the issues set out in the order designating issues and then have
2

the District Clerk submit the record on such application. In either case, Respondent’s answer shall

be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order. This application for leave to file a writ of

mandamus will be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted his response.

Filed: July 29, 2015

Do not publish
|   | 1) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                             |                                                                   |                               |
|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Date:              July 20, 2007 | By:                                                          | /s/              Mitchell E. Appel |
|                             | Mitchell                E. AppelChief                Financial Officer |

----
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 FranciscoDistrict: 6Federal Reserve Bank of: AtlantaFilings received during the week ending April 20, 2013FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment Period1ST UNITED BANCORP, INC.                                                                                                * 3A5
COSMO COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
106 FERRIER STREET, MARKHAM
ONTARIO, CANADA




Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, __Carol Atkinson______________________, principal
Financial Officer of Cosmo Communications Corporation
(the "Registrant"), certifies that to the best of my
knowledge, based upon a review of the annual report on
10KSB for the period ended March 31, 2002 of the Registrant
(the "Report"):

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of the
Section 13(a) [15(d)] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.



________Carol Atkinson_______________________

Name: _Carol Atkinson_______________

Date:  __September 10___, 2002
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 FranciscoDistrict: 7Federal Reserve Bank of: ChicagoFilings received during the week ending February 25, 2012FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFARMERS AND MECHANICS BANK, THE                                                                                         * 18C
|What's New · 
   What's Next · 
   Site Map · 
   A-Z Index ·
   Careers ·
   RSS ·
   All Videos ·
   Current FAQs ·
   Contact Us |  | Search  Advanced Search | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization - G.17 Current Release
  Release Dates
  Monthly Supplement
  Annual Revision
  Data Download
  About
  Announcements
  Technical Q&As
 Current Release  (272 KB PDF)
(ASCII)  Table 9 Gross Value of Final Products and Nonindustrial Supplies  Item
2009
2015
2015Q4
2016
2016Q1[r]
Q2[p]
Jan.[r]
Feb.[r]
Mar.[r]
Apr.[r]
May[r]
June[p]Final products and nonindustrialsupplies
3,234.7
3,633.2
3,627.0
3,631.5
3,632.0
3,641.1
3,645.9
3,607.4
3,635.3
3,609.3
3,651.3Final products
2,407.9
2,701.2
2,686.7
2,694.5
2,700.5
2,699.5
2,707.3
2,676.7
2,702.2
2,678.2
2,721.1Consumer goods
1,790.5
1,939.2
1,937.9
1,950.5
1,955.4
1,954.6
1,960.7
1,936.2
1,956.2
1,937.2
1,972.8Durable
351.6
500.2
509.8
517.3
516.4
517.4
520.6
514.0
519.1
503.0
527.1Automotive products
197.7
334.0
341.9
349.9
348.8
349.1
353.4
347.3
351.6
335.5
359.3Other durable goods
153.9
166.7
168.5
168.2
168.4
169.1
168.1
167.4
168.3
167.9
168.8Nondurable
1,438.9
1,454.2
1,444.0
1,449.3
1,455.1
1,453.3
1,456.3
1,438.2
1,453.2
1,450.2
1,461.8Equipment, total
617.4
769.0
755.6
751.0
752.2
752.0
753.7
747.4
753.1
747.9
755.6Business and defense
600.0
756.1
745.9
743.3
746.7
742.9
746.4
740.6
747.3
742.6
750.3Business
483.3
646.5
637.3
635.1
638.3
634.7
637.8
632.8
639.6
633.6
641.6Defense and space
116.8
110.3
109.3
108.9
109.1
108.9
109.3
108.6
108.4
109.6
109.4Nonindustrial supplies
826.8
933.1
942.1
938.4
932.5
943.1
940.0
932.1
934.2
932.5
930.9Construction supplies
232.1
278.5
282.1
282.5
281.0
283.5
282.4
281.7
282.8
280.9
279.3Business supplies
594.7
654.8
660.1
655.9
651.5
659.7
657.7
650.3
651.2
651.6
651.7Commercial energy products
218.5
232.1
233.5
231.7
232.3
233.8
232.2
229.2
231.0
232.4
233.7     Return to top
   Home Economic research and data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer  Linking Policy FOIA
 PDF Reader
[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: E8-22696]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on August 28, 2008, Mallinckrodt 
Inc., 3600 North Second Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63147, made 
application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a 
bulk manufacturer of Oripavine (9330), a basic class of controlled 
substance listed in schedule II.
    The company plans to use the above listed controlled substance as 
an intermediate in the manufacture of a non-controlled product.
    Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently 
registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments 
or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 
21 CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no 
later than November 25, 2008.

    Dated: September 18, 2008.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
 [FR Doc. E8-22696 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-002238-PAB-KLM

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENNIS GLENN COEN,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Motion for Entry of Voluntary Dismissal

Without Prejudice of Complaint Against Defendant Dennis Coen [Docket No. 138]. It is

ORDERED as follows:

1. The Motion for Entry of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of

Complaint Against Defendant Dennis Coen [Docket No. 138] is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Coen as set forth in its complaint are

dismissed without prejudice.

3. Plaintiff’s dismissal without prejudice against defendant Coen shall not

affect plaintiff’s claims in its complaint against the other defendants. It is further

ORDERED that this case is closed.

DATED July 30, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM Document 139 Filed 07/30/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: City of Houston v. Kimberley R. Trimmer

- Davis

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00088

- CV

Trial court case number: 2010

- 11410

Trial court: 295th District C o urt of Harris County

The unop posed motion to res et oral argument is granted. Oral argument in this case will

be res et from September 25, 2019 to October 2, 2019. Please refer to the court ’ s amended notice

of submission for further details.

It is so ORDER ED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Peter Kelley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: September 10, 2 019
Exhibit 23.1



                         CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP


 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements
 (Forms S-8 Nos.  33-64403, 33-64405, and  33-55920) pertaining  to the  1995
 Management Compensation  Plan of  Carrington  Laboratories, Inc.,  the  1995
 Stock Option Plan of Carrington Laboratories,  Inc., and the Employee  Stock
 Purchase Plan (as  amended September 14,  2001) of Carrington  Laboratories,
 Inc., respectively, of our report dated  February 19, 2002, with respect  to
 the  consolidated   financial   statements  and   schedule   of   Carrington
 Laboratories, Inc. and  subsidiaries included in  their Annual Report  (Form
 10-K) for the  year ended December  31, 2001 filed  with the Securities  and
 Exchange Commission.


 Dallas, Texas
 March 25, 2002                         /s/  Ernst & Young LLP
#### Gilman *&*Ciocia, Inc., Respondent, v Lewis Pasquin et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[745 NYS2d 463]

In an action, inter alia, for replevin, the defendants Lewis Pasquín and Nikolaos Stavrianopoulos appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered January 28, 2002, as, in effect, denied that branch of their motion which was for a protective order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed *(see Kaplan v Herbstein,*175 AD2d 200). In this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion.

Moreover, the Supreme Court correctly found that service of the nonparty subpoenas was proper, as they were served in a manner which, when objectively viewed, was calculated to give, and did give, the subject corporation fair notice *(see Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co.,*50 NY2d 265; *Belluardo v Nationwide Ins. Co.,*231 AD2d 661).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.