alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George J. Blanar et al., Respondents, v Peter C. T. Dickinson, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[745 NYS2d 65]

In an ac*432tion to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Peter C. Taylor Dickinson appeals from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), both dated December 20, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and as a matter of law, are in favor of the plaintiff George J. Blanar and against him in the total sum of $975,490.40, and in favor of the plaintiff Maxine H. Fraade and against him in the total sum of $117,878.96, respectively.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed, with costs.

The jury determined that the appellant departed from good and accepted medical practice by not including endocarditis in his differential diagnosis during the period of time that the plaintiff George C. Blanar (hereinafter the plaintiff) first visited him until the time that he was diagnosed with endocarditis by another physician, and that the departure was a substantial factor in causing injury to the plaintiff. Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to set aside the jury verdict, as a matter of law, since there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead rational people to the conclusion reached by the jury based on the evidence presented at trial *(see Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, 499). Moreover, the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence *(see Bobek v Crystal,*291 AD2d 521; *Brezinski v Island Med. Care,*291 AD2d 366; *Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129, 132).

Any error in allowing a comment made by the plaintiffs’ counsel in the presence of the jury regarding the appellant’s competence as a doctor and certain other derogatory remarks regarding doctors made by counsel during summation was corrected by the court’s curative instructions *(see Bacigalupo v Healthshield,*231 AD2d 538; *Lauter v Village of Great Neck,*231 AD2d 553; *Zipkin v City of New York,*196 AD2d 865; *Kiker v Nassau County,*175 AD2d 99). Furthermore, in light of the strong evidence of the appellant’s negligence, these and other improper remarks made by counsel in summation were harmless *(see Lauter v Village of Great Neck,*supra;*Kavanaugh v Nussbaum,*129 AD2d 559, 561, *mod*71 NY2d 535).

The damages awarded to the plaintiff did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances of this case *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Eliajh E. Gross

v. Civil No. 08-cv-517-JL

Mary Rose

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $9.20 is due no later than

February 5, 2009. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s

income credited to plaintiff’s account is to be remitted by the

NH State Prison for Men when the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 until the sum of $350.00 has been paid. Failure to pay

the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff’s request for in

forma pauperis has been granted. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 5, 2009

cc: Elijah E. Gross

 Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

 NH State Prison for Men, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:08-cv-00517-JL Document 5 Filed 01/05/09 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darnell Baldwin, Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 923]

Appeal from a judgment of Erie County Court (McCarthy, J.), entered March 7, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed (see *People v*
      *861
      *Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737). Present — Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

AWARENESS LETTER 

June 5, 2006 

Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. 

2727 Diehl Road 

Naperville, Illinois 60563 

We have made a review, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (UnitedStates), of the unaudited interim financial information of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary for the three-month periods ended April 29, 2006 and April 30, 2005, as indicated in our report dated June 5, 2006;because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included inyour Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 29, 2006, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-92248, 333-98549, and 333-108222 on Form S-8. 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statementprepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

 

29
#### David Jordan, Appellant, v Blue Circle Atlantic, Inc., Appellant, and J.R. Hall, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And Two Third-Party Actions.)

[745 NYS2d 289]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ferradino, J.), entered November 29, 2001 in Albany County, which, inter alia, denied motions by plaintiff and defendant Blue Circle Atlantic, Inc. to compel discovery.

While working as a mason for LVR, Inc. on premises owned by defendant Blue Circle Atlantic, Inc. (hereinafter Blue Circle), plaintiff was injured when Jeffrey Boehlke, an employee of defendant J.R. Hall, Inc.* (hereinafter Hall), dropped a 25 to 30-pound brick on plaintiffs right hand. Blue Circle and Hall were among the defendants named by plaintiff in the ensuing action. During disclosure, plaintiff sent a letter to Hall demanding a copy of Boehlke’s personnel file. Blue Circle served a demand on Hall seeking various payroll records, which it asserted were relevant to Hall’s contention that Boehlke was a “special employee” of Blue Circle. Hall resisted the demands and, when the parties were unable to resolve their dispute, motion practice ensued. Supreme Court denied the motions of plaintiff and Blue Circle to compel disclosure and this appeal ensued.

While disclosure requirements are liberally construed *(see, e.g., Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co.,*21 NY2d 403, 406; *Marten v Eden Park Health Servs.,*250 AD2d 44, 46), there are limits on disclosure framed by a test of “usefulness and reason” *(Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., supra*at 406; *see, Mitchell v Stuart,*293 AD2d 905; *Conrad v Park,*204 AD2d 1011). It is *753well settled that deference is afforded to the trial court’s discretionary determinations regarding disclosure *(see, Saratoga Harness Racing v Roemer,*274 AD2d 887, 888).

Here, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s broad request for Boehlke’s entire personnel file. There is no allegation of negligent hiring and Boehlke’s personnel file is not otherwise relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to evidence relevant to the issue of Hall’s purported negligence *(see, Stevens v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth.,*117 AD2d 733; *see also, Gerardi v Nassau/Suffolk Airport Connection,*288 AD2d 181; *Reynolds v Vin Dac Pham,*212 AD2d 991).

Nor are we persuaded that it rose to the level of an abuse of discretion for Supreme Court to deny production of the documents demanded by Blue Circle. Blue Circle had already obtained disclosure evidence on the special employee issue and it failed to show the relevancy of the demanded documents in determining the issue of whether control of Boehlke had been surrendered by Hall and assumed by Blue Circle *(see generally, Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp.,*78 NY2d 553, 557).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*

 Although named as J.R. Hall, Inc. in the complaint, it appears from the record that the proper defendant is J. Hall, Ltd., doing business as J.R. Hall.
14

A.9. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan, November 7-Percent except as noted

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

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,999 $24,999 $49,999 $99,999 $249,999 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 759,693 26,211 49,600 65,340 95,249 191,96Number of loans 15,403 6,826 3,393 1,947 1,402 1,27Weighted average maturity (months)1 17.81 8.74 10.02 12.30 9.87 21.1

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 4.13 2.87 3.56 3.81 3.68 6.5

Weighted average risk rating3 3.05 3.24 3.10 2.99 2.96 3.0

Weighted average interest rate4 7.25 8.28 7.96 7.73 7.56 7.3

 Standard error5 .20 .17 .04 .11 .16 .2

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 8.00 8.98 8.57 8.49 8.21 8.0 25th percentile 6.43 7.50 7.25 7.19 6.94 6.7 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 7.32 8.01 8.00 7.66 7.65 7.6 Other livestock 7.40 8.01 7.97 8.17 7.12 7.2 Other current operating expenses7 7.41 8.34 8.00 7.79 7.64 7.4

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.48 9.10 7.87 7.97 8.10 7.7 Farm real estate 6.88 7.37 7.14 7.27 7.49 7.1 Other8 6.78 7.94 7.85 6.91 7.09 6.9

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 80.38 77.73 75.26 75.90 75.21 78.1 Under commitment 85.11 90.73 86.81 86.30 90.85 86.3 Callable 22.70 28.51 26.65 32.19 36.54 29.3 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 18.37 5.91 7.46 12.51 15.29 16.8 Other livestock 10.50 6.43 9.74 11.76 12.32 13.5 Other current operating expenses7 40.25 76.82 67.39 53.14 53.99 39.8

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.31 3.57 5.85 9.16 5.80 5.3 Farm real estate 6.65 2.04 2.02 2.59 5.10 9.4 Other8 17.93 5.23 7.53 10.84 7.49 15.0

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 6.75 6.95 5.81 6.14 6.81 12.8 Other 89.14 85.13 87.16 85.69 89.49 84.6 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.
#### Elizabeth Mintz, Appellant, *v.*Nelson E. Mintz, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

October 18, 1956.

*Jerome S. Zurkow*for appellant.

*Francis Kneitel*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

In addition to the reasons given below for denial of the motion, it should be pointed out that this is an opposite sort of situation from that involved in *Nichols*v. *Nichols*(306 N. Y. 490) where the support provisions for the wife and children were ‘ ‘ unitary and unallocated ’ ’ and the court refused “ to do what the parties had failed to do, that is, apportion the total sum” (p. 497). Here the agreement explicitly provides one amount for the wife’s support and another for the children’s support. Defendant is accordingly entitled to show at a trial that it was he who has expended directly the sum specified therein for the children’s support and therefore may limit his payments to plaintiff to the sum allocated for her support.

The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Ebeb, Heoht and Tilzeb, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, etc.
#### J. Cheever COWDIN, Appellant, v. Katherine COWDIN, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

March 9, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**





*Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to*


*Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002*





In
      connection with the Annual Report of ZAP (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the
      quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Steven M. Schneider, as Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      to
      the best of his knowledge, 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/ 
                  STEVEN M. SCHNEIDER
                Steven
                  M. SchneiderTitle:
                  Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)Date:
                  May 12, 2006





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          48,246
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  791,825
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    953,125
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,093,399
<PP&E>                                       2,575,705
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,136,205
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,837,601
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,538,796
<BONDS>                                         20,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       124,071
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,100,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,837,601
<SALES>                                      7,371,281
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,371,281
<CGS>                                        4,138,774
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,138,774
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,154,513
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87,696
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,591
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,577
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,591
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,591
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

Certificate Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Access Anytime Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Norman R. Corzine, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of 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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| Date:  April 29, 2003 | /s/ Norman  R. Corzine                                                                              |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Norman R.  Corzine, Chairman of the Board,  Chief Executive Officer*(Principal  Executive Officer)* |
|                            |                                                                                                     |  |

 

----
Opinion issued April 16, 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 23
- 00483
- CV

——————————— IN RE MICHAEL B. MARTIN AND MARTIN WALTON LAW FIRM , Relat or s

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

ME M ORA NDUM OPINION Relators, Michael B. Martin and Martin Wa lton Law Firm, filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court ’ s June 2, 2023 order granting the request of real part y in interest 3 M Company to take pre - suit deposition s and to ob t ain document s from Martin and the law firm pursuant to Texas Rule of Ci vil2

Procedure 202

. 1 Relators ’ petition sought “ a stay and reversal of [the June 2, 2023 order] authorizing 3M Co mp any to conduct Rule 202 P r e - Suit Depositions of Michael B. Martin, ind i vid ually , and as a corporate representative of M artin
W alton Law Firm . . . and to produce records [.] ” Our review of relators ’ mandamus petition re flects that relators have failed to establish that they are entitled to mand amus relief. Accordingly, we den y

re lator s ’ petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.8(a). We lift our stay order of June 30, 2023 . All pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURI AM Panel consists of Justice s Goodman, Landau, and Hightower.
Ju st ice Goodman, concurring in t he r esult.

1 The underlying case is 3M Compan y v. Michael B. Martin and Martin W al ton Law Firm , cause number 23

- CV

- 0488 , pending in the 10th District Court of Galveston County, Texas, the Hon. Kerry L. Neves , presiding.
IN THE SUPREME C OURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court Cause No. DA 22

- 0 659

STATE OF MO NTANA

,

Plaintiff and Appellee

,

v.

MICHAEL JOE PAINTER

,

Defendant and Appellant

.

ORDER FOR E XTENSION OF TIME

Upon co n sideration of Appellant ’ s second motion for extension of time to

file his opening brief, an d good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of

time to and including May 1

, 2023 withi n which to file his o p en i ng brief

.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 3 2023

04/03/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0659
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01966-LTB

JOSE ROJAS TAPIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAIL ROOM FLORENCE, CO MAX,

OIC FRISK,

OIC EVANS, and

COUNSELOR HANSEN,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY SENIOR JUDGE LEWIS T. BABCOCK

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend” (Doc. #14) and “Motion for Appointment [of]

Counsel” (Doc. #15) filed in this action on October 11, 2011, are DENIED as moot

because this action was dismissed by order filed on September 14, 2011. Plaintiff again

is reminded that the instant action was dismissed without prejudice and that, if he

wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a new action.

Dated: October 12, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-01966-LTB Document 17 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
17

A.12. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, February 6-10, 2Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,029,892 30,046 121,990 532,889 220,499 80,323 5,20Number of loans 19,076 706 2,134 10,397 3,608 966 54Weighted average maturity (months)1 16.87 8.12 11.35 18.51 18.25 13.78 13.7

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 4.81 7.39 3.61 5.58 3.82 4.03 5.

Weighted average risk rating3 3.20 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n

Weighted average interest rate 4 7.86 7.56 7.87 7.80 7.93 8.47 7.

 Standard error5 .09 .24 .19 .21 .19 .21 .2

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 8.53 8.33 8.33 8.53 8.51 8.68 8.2 25th percentile 7.35 6.72 7.64 7.23 7.29 7.79 7.2 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 7.86 8.07 8.15 7.68 7.80 9.16 n Other livestock 7.80 6.75 7.74 7.84 7.99 7.64 7.7 Other current operating expenses7 8.08 7.66 7.85 8.07 8.16 8.48 7.5

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.94 6.82 8.68 7.87 8.51 7.69 8.9 Farm real estate 7.82 7.70 7.04 8.17 6.86 n.a. 8. Other8 7.29 9.12 7.89 6.92 7.57 8.54 8.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 78.97 8.81 64.32 83.48 90.26 63.32 20.2 Under commitment 83.70 79.40 82.17 83.42 91.55 63.69 87.4 Callable 27.49 56.29 33.67 28.27 13.17 36.49 87.7 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 7.22 31.96 14.82 7.14 3.75 .30 n Other livestock 8.34 29.91 2.46 5.56 19.70 .21 12.5 Other current operating expenses7 54.06 25.87 70.43 53.30 44.57 85.51 61. Farm machinery and equipment 6.63 1.32 1.09 10.88 2.75 1.85 10.7 Farm real estate 3.87 7.60 3.92 4.84 2.34 n.a. 8. Other8 19.88 3.34 7.27 18.29 26.89 12.14 6.9

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 8.58 13.94 7.40 10.37 6.39 3.00 11. Other 86.81 83.85 90.74 84.09 88.56 94.91 84.2 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. n.a. Not available.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-28983, 33-60077, 33-60073, 33-10796, and 33-6075 of HPSC, Inc. on Form S-8
of our report dated March 6, 1998 and incorporated by reference in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of HPSC, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997.

                                      /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

                                      Deloitte & Touche LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 1998
Case 1:11-cv-02211-LTB Document 2 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02211-LTB Document 2 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02211-LTB Document 2 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02211-LTB Document 2 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23402]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice of Agency Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:16 a.m. on 
Friday, September 26, 2008, the Board of Directors of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters 
relating to the Corporation's supervisory and resolution activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice 
Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, seconded by Mr. Scott Polakoff, acting in 
the place and stead of Director John M. Reich (Director, Office of 
Thrift Supervision), concurred in by Director Thomas J. Curry 
(Appointive), Julie L. Williams, acting in the place and stead of 
Director John C. Dugan (Comptroller of the Currency), and Chairman 
Sheila C. Bair, that Corporation business required its consideration of 
the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than 
seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting 
was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration 
of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the 
matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of 
subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii) and (c)(9)(B) of the 
``Government in the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), 
(c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550--17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

    Dated: September 26, 2008.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Valerie J. Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-23402 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P