alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIALS STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              46
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    46
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      46
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,380
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                    (89,384)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        46
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,995
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,043
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,063)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,063)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-3821

___________ Claude E. Parnell, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Pat Smith, Asst. Supt.; Fred Johnson, * FUM; Dr. Steven Crawford; Unknown * [UNPUBLISHED] Montgomery, C.O.I.; Unknown * Rhodes, C.O.I.; Unknown Barnouse, * (All being sued in both their individual * and official capacities); Unknown * Nixson, Disciplinary Hearing Official, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 1, 2003 Filed: August 5, 2003

___________ Before BOWMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Missouri inmate Claude Parnell appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendant corrections-2- officials and officers. Having carefully reviewed the record de novo, we conclude the district court properly granted summary judgment, and did not abuse its discretion in its rulings on discovery and Parnell’s motion for appointed counsel. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Lauro AGUIRRE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 04-60469.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided March 11, 2005.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner.

Pamela A. Posch, U.S. Parole Commission, Chevy Chase, MD, for Respondent.

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Parole Commission did not clearly err in its factual determinations that this homicide was intentional and not committed in the heat of passion. Under these facts the commission did not err in concluding that the most analogous United States crime to the Mexican crime of simple murder was second degree murder. The findings of the Commission which were in turn gleaned from the record of the Mexican trial that particularly supported its factual determinations were: l)a considerable delay ensued from the time of the physical encounter between the defendant and the bartenders in the “Peanuts and Beer” bar; 2)uncontradicted evidence that the defendant executed a u-turn with his automobile, turned his headlights on, crossed over into the opposing lane of travel at a high rate of speed and struck the victim.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Case 2:15-mj-01669-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01669-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01669-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 3
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  B ERNARD T ITTI S AMBA , Petitioner,

v. No. 03-1267



#  J OHN A SHCROFT , United States Attorney General, Respondent. 

# 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A78-353-376) Submitted: December 10, 2003 Decided: December 23, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELRandall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mark C. Walters,Assistant Director, James E. Grimes, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Bernard Titti Samba, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review. In his petition, Samba first challenges the immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien "must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Samba fails to show the evidence compels a contrary result. Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Samba’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, both of which require the applicant to make a more stringent showing to qualify for relief. To qualify forwithholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate "a clear probability of persecution." INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430- 31 (1987). To obtain relief under the Convention Against Torture, an applicant must establish that "it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2003). Because Samba fails to show he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standards for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Finally, Samba contends he was denied due process because the Board failed to consider on appeal new evidence not raised before the immigration judge. We find this claim is without merit. 2 S AMBA v. A SHCROFTAccordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.
PETITION DENIED 3 S AMBA v. A SHCROFT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1998 AND THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          36,163
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,234
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (3,125)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,070
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,964
<PP&E>                                          75,874
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (22,955)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 491,646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,396
<BONDS>                                         72,014
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           299
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   491,646
<SALES>                                         48,126
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,126
<CGS>                                           13,909
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                48,528
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   412
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (768)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,783)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       712
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,071)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (830)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,901)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona

WALLACE H. KLEINDIENST

MARY SUE FELDMEIER

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

United States Courthouse

405 W. Congress Street, Suite 4800 Tucson, Arizona 85701

Telephone: 520-620-7300

wallace.kleindienst@usdoj.gov

mary.sue.feldmeier@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Lonnie Ray Swartz,

 Defendant.

CR-15-01723-TUC-RCC (DTF)

GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE

REGARDING VERDICT

AND 

REQUEST TO VACATE HEARING

The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorneys, states as 

follows:

On November 21, 2018, the jury returned a blank form of verdict on the charge of 

voluntary manslaughter and a finding of not guilty on the lesser included charge of 

involuntary manslaughter.

The government hereby gives notice that retrial on the voluntary manslaughter count 

is barred under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution based on the jury’s verdict 

of acquittal on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter. See Price v. 

Georgia, 398 U.S. 323, 331 (1970).

Wherefore, the United States of America respectfully submits that the prosecution 

in this matter has been terminated by the jury’s finding of not guilty on the lesser included 

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 657 Filed 12/06/18 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

charge of involuntary manslaughter and requests that this Court vacate the status hearing 

currently set for December 13, 2018. 

The defense has been informed of this notice and request to vacate hearing and has 

no objection.

Respectfully submitted this 6th day of December, 2018.

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona

s/Mary Sue Feldmeier

MARY SUE FELDMEIER

WALLACE H. KLEINDIENST

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

Copy of the foregoing served electronically or by other means this 6th day of December, 2018, to:

Sean C. Chapman, Esq.

Jim Calle, Esq.

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 657 Filed 12/06/18 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:15-mj-01704-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01704-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01704-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/24/15 Page 3 of 3
Administrator A 

Daniel S. Goldin 

Deputy Administrator 

John R. Dailey (Acting) 

Associate Deputy Administrator 

John R. Dailey 

Assoc. Dep. Administrator (Tech) 

Michael I. Mott 

Chief Engineer 

Daniel R. Mulville 

Chief Information Officer 

Lee 8. Holcomb 

Chief Scientist 

(Vacant) 

Chief Technologist 

Samuel L. Venneri 

Council 

I 

I I I 

Roberta L Gross 

Chief Financial 

Counsel 

Arnold Holz Edward A. Frankle George E. Reese 

I I I 

Procurement Public Affairs 

Deidre A. Lee Peggy Wilhide Alan M. Ladwig 

Disadvantaged 

Business 

Utilization 

Ralph C. Thomas /TI Mission to Planet Space 

I 

William F. Townsend 

Fliaht Center 

Joseph Rothenberg 

Space Center 

Space Center 

I ' RovD.Bridaes ' h-1 

Space Flight Center II I 

Space Center I I Roy S. Estess 

Relations 

John D. Schumacher Ed Heffernan (Acting) 

1 Human Resource 

and Education 

Spence M. Armstrong 

Management 

Systems and Facilities 

Jeffrey E. Sutton (Acting) 

Safety and 

Mission 

Assurance 

Frederick Gregory 

Headquarters 

Operations 

Michael D. Christensen 

Microgravity 

Sciences and 

Arnauld E. Nicogossian 

R S Aeronauticsand I I 

Center 

I. H Langley Research 

Center IF I 

Center 

Donald J. Campbell 

Space Science 

Laboratorv I I 

Edward Stone 

as of December 1997 

*JPL is a contractor-operated facility.
#### Ethel M. DAVISON and David Davison, Appellants, v. SINAI HOSPITAL OF BALTIMORE, INC., a Body Corporate, and Lionel Glassman, M.D. and Lionel Glassman & Associates, P.A. and Zoena A. Yanna-kakis, M.D., Appellees.

No. 79-1100.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Dec. 5, 1979.

Decided March 27, 1980.

*362Donald F. Oakley, Baltimore, Md. (Marvin Ellin, Jonathan Schochor, Ellin & Baker, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellants.

Angus R. Everton, Baltimore, Md. (E. Dale Adkins, III, Anderson, Coe & King, Alva P. Weaver, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellees.

Before WINTER, RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The appellants appeal from the order of the district court dismissing, without prejudice, their medical malpractice diversity suit against the defendants. The district court held that the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act1 precludes the bringing of this suit without first complying with the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, which provides that the claim must first be presented to arbitration, and that compliance with this statute is a condition precedent to the bringing of the action. The appellants contend that the federal courts should not adopt a Maryland procedural rule which thwarts significant federal policies as a choice of law in diversity actions, and that the arbitration requirement of Maryland’s Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, as a condition precedent to suit in federal court, unconstitutionally defeats diversity jurisdiction in medical malpractice litigation.

We agree with the resolution of these issues by the district court and affirm its dismissal of the action, without prejudice, on the well-reasoned opinion of the district court, *Davison v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc.,*462 F.Supp. 778 (D.Md.1978).2 Judgment of the district court is accordingly

*AFFIRMED.*

1

. Md. Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Ann. §§ 3-2A-01 *et seq.*(Supp.1978).

2

. See *also Woods v. Holy Cross Hospital,*591 F.2d 1164 (5th Cir. 1979); *Edelson v. Soricelli,*610 F.2d 131 (3d Cir. 1979); *Seoane v. Ortho Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*472 F.Supp. 468 (E.D.La. 1979).
Exhibit 32


                             BLUE MOON INVESTMENTS
                              A Nevada Corporation

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Blue Moon Investments (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, David Ward, President, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 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.


Dated December 18, 2003                     /s/ David Ward
                                            ---------------------------
                                            David Ward,
                                            President, C.E.O. and C.F.O.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Ana Guzman","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/ana-d-guzmannasa-gov\/","title":"Benefits for Humanity: Seeing Our Home in a New Light","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0ekMVxzbgs\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/humans-in-space\/benefits-seeing-our-home-new-light\/\">Benefits for Humanity: Seeing Our Home in a New Light<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/humans-in-space\/benefits-seeing-our-home-new-light\/embed\/#?secret=0ekMVxzbgs\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Benefits for Humanity: Seeing Our Home in a New Light” — NASA\" data-secret=\"0ekMVxzbgs\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/iss058e003901-david-saint-jacques-in-cupola.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2780 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to stabilize the amount 

of the medicare part B premium. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. DAYTON, 

Mrs. BOXER, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. REID, 

and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to stabilize 

the amount of the medicare part B premium. 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keep the Promise of 

3 Medicare Act of 2004’’. 

4 SEC. 2. STABILIZATION OF MEDICARE PART B PREMIUM. 

5 Section 1839(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 1395r(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following new sentence: ‘‘Notwithstanding the preceding 

8 sentences, the monthly premium rate determined under 

9 this paragraph for each month in 2005 may not exceed 
2 

•S 2780 IS 

1 an amount equal to the monthly premium rate determined 

2 under this paragraph for each month in 2004 adjusted 

3 by the percentage change in the average Consumer Price 

4 Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 

5 (CPI–W) for the third quarter of 2003 to the third quar6 ter of 2004.’’. 

Æ
WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CR 98-0400-PHX-ROS

)

Adan Aranda-Martinez, ) DETENTION ORDER

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________)

On December 4, 2007, defendant, Adan Aranda-Martinez, appeared before this Court

on a petition for revocation of supervised release. The Court considered the information

provided to the Court, and the arguments of counsel in determining whether the defendant

should be released on conditions set by the Court.

The Court finds that the defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that

he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant

to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C.

§3143.

Case 2:98-cr-00400-ROS Document 48 Filed 12/05/07 Page 1 of 2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings. 

DATED this 5th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:98-cr-00400-ROS Document 48 Filed 12/05/07 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 62444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24713]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan 
Holding Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2014-24235) published on 
page 61308 of the issue for Friday, October 10, 2014.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of New York heading, the entry for 
Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking 
Corporation, both in Tokyo, Japan, is revised to read as follows:
    1. Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc., and Sumitomo Mitsui 
Banking Corporation, both of Tokyo, Japan; to acquire at least an 
additional 10 percent, for a total of 19.9 percent of the voting shares 
of The Bank of East Asia, Limited, Hong Kong S.A.R., Peoples Republic 
of China, and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of 
The Industrial and Commercial Bank Of China (USA), N.A., New York, New 
York.
    Comments on this application must be received by November 6, 2014.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 14, 
2014.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-24713 Filed 10-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P