alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16255]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. [thinsp]225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board 
has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and 
permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than July 24, 2009.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, 
Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:

    1. Norlo Inc., Prior Lake, Minnesota, to engage, de novo, in 
lending activities, pursuant to section 225.28 (b)(1) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 06, 2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-16255 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<PAGE>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.5

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                        GREATER ATLANTIC CAPITAL TRUST I


        THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF GREATER ATLANTIC CAPITAL TRUST I (the
"Trust"), is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustees, to
form a business trust under the Delaware Business Trust Act (12 Del. C. Section
3801 et seq.) (the "Act").

1.      NAME. The name of the business trust formed hereby is GREATER ATLANTIC
        CAPITAL TRUST I.

2.      DELAWARE TRUSTEE. The name and business address of the trustee of the
        Trust in the State of Delaware is Wilmington Trust Company, Rodney
        Square North, 1100 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19890-0001,
        Attention: Corporate Trust Administration.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate of
Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of the Act.

                                          WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY,
                                          as trustee

                                          By: /s/ ANITA DALLAGO
                                             ----------------------------
                                          Name: Anita Dallago
                                          Title: Financial Services Officer

                                          /s/ CHARLES W. CALOMIRIS
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          Name: Charles W. Calomiris, as Trustee



                                          /s/ CARROLL E. AMOS
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          Name: Carroll E. Amos, as Trustee



                                          /s/ DAVID E. RITTER
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          Name: David E. Ritter, as Trustee
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201700337

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

MARKUS K. THOMAS

Boatswain’s Mate Seaman Recruit (E-1), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Commander Jason Jones, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, USS THE SULLIVANS 

(DDG 68).

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Commander 

Philip W. Rohlfing, JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Captain Kimberly D. Hinson, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 28 February 2018

_________________________

Before HUTCHISON, FULTON, and FOIL, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
ACU	ACURA
AUD	AUDI 
BMW	BMW 
BUI	BUICK 
CAD	CADILLAC 
CHE	CHEVROLET 
CHR	CHRYSLER 
DAW	DAEWOO
DOD	DODGE 
EAG	EAGLE 
FOR	FORD 
GEO	GEO
GMC	GMC 
HON	HONDA 
HUM	HUMMER
HYU	HYUNDAI
INF	INFINITI
ISU	ISUZU 
JAG	JAGUAR 
JEE	JEEP 
KIA	KIA 
LAN	LAND ROVER
LEX	LEXUS 
LIN	LINCOLN 
MAS	MASERATI
MAY	MAYBACH
MAZ	MAZDA
MRB	MERCEDES-BENZ 
MEC	MERCURY 
MEK	MERKUR
MIN	MINI
MIT	MITSUBISHI 
NIS	NISSAN 
OLD	OLDSMOBILE 
PLY	PLYMOUTH 
PON	PONTIAC 
POR	PORSCHE 
SAA	SAAB 
SAT	SATURN 
SCI	SCION
SMA	SMART
SUB	SUBARU 
SUZ	SUZUKI
TOY	TOYOTA 
VOK	VOLKSWAGEN 
VOV	VOLVO 
ZEN	ZENN
XXX	Unspecified Make/Model
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wayne Gaskin, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 798]

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Key Features of E-diary

for the Expenditure Survey in Korea

Yeonok Choi

Statistics Korea

7/17/2018
Background of the E-diary

HIES (until 2016)

• Conducted monthly : keep a diary on a daily basis

• Quarterly release of data

• Diary-keeping method is used 

• Sample Size : 8,700 households

• A sample was asked to keep the diary for 3 years
Introduction of the E-diary

• Developed the E-diary system in 2005

• Applied to the survey from 2006

• About 50% of the respondents used it in 2016
http://www.nso.go.kr

Main features of E-diary

[1] Conducted on the computer and the Internet

 Download E-diary Program & update it on a daily basis

 Transfer the data to NSO DB online every month

 Enumerators had reduced work to collect diaries 

Transferring online

Keeping e-diary NSO DB Editing
Main features of E-diary(2)

[2] Screen import solution

 Access bank or credit card accounts, import data to the 

respondent’s diary

 Easy to update the diary 

 Reduce missing data 

Screen import solution

Bank & credit card accounts One-stop access & import
[3] Code search engine

 Data is classified by respondents using the code search 

engine

 Reduces coding error 

 Saves time for enumerators

Main features of E-diary(3)

Search box and result 
[4] Automated editing system

 Editing system is applied to the E-diary

 Data checking & correcting occurs when respondents 

enter the data

 Reduces response error & Saves time for enumerators

Main features of E-diary(4)

Response Error message 
http://www.nso.go.kr

[5] Diverse economic data for the respondents

 Table & graphic analysis reports for the respondent 

households expenditures 

 Sample households can assess the level, structure & 

trend of their own economic well-being

Main features of E-diary(5)

Table report Graphic report Trend report by item
[6] Online & mobile contact point

 Mobile message service & online notice board

 Respondents & enumerators are able to contact each 

other freely 

Mobile message service Notice & message board

Main features of E-diary(6)
Advantages and Limitations

 Advantages

• Increased convenience of records keeping 

• Reduced non-sampling error

• Better tool for households hard to reach in the daytime

 Limitations

• Some age groups are not used to electronic system

• Less detailed classifications and higher minimum unit value by 

respondents in comparison to paper-diary by interviewers
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Gonzalez, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 721]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated October 30, 2000 *(People v Gonzalez,*276 AD2d 803 [2000]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 7, 1999.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see *Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, PJ., Florio, Schmidt and Luciano, JJ., concur.
April 14, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CARLOS ALBERTO BUSTOS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00872

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_____ ___________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indic ates that the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. We further order appellan t pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
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 Waterpure International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Paul S. Lipschutz, Chief Executive Officer and President 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 to my knowledge:





1)           The
      Report fully complies with the requirement 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 result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
      expressed in the Report.





Date: February
                  19,
                  2008
              By:
              /s/ Paul
                S. LipschutzPaul
                S. LipschutzChief Executive
                  Officer and President
                (Principal
                  Executive Officer)
#### In re VIOXX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Jamal Ali Bilal, formerly known as John L. Burton, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Merck and Company, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-30347

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 4, 2012.

Jamal Ali Bilal, Arcadia, FL, pro se.

Dorothy Hudson Wimberly, Phillip A. Wittmann, Stone Pigman Walther Witt-mann, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jamaal Bilal appeals a judgment. dismissing his products-liability action for failure to comply with pretrial obligations — specifically, his failure to comply with a *Lone Pine*order directing him to provide information regarding the nature of his injuries and their relationship to the product in question. Bilal lists four issues in his opening brief. There is no error, so we affirm.

Bilal claims he was denied due process when, he says, “Vioxx Pro Se Curator failed to assist him in producing a proper doctor’s report need [sic ] to comply with [Pretrial Order] 28.” But it was Bilal’s obligation to produce evidence supporting his claim, and he did not.

Bilal complains that he was not allowed to testify at a fairness hearing. He was heard through his briefs, however. He is civilly committed, and the district court was not obliged to require his release to testify or appear in person.

Bilal says he should have been appointed a guardian *ad litem.*Such appointments are required, however, only for incompe*363tent persons, and Bilal does not aver that he is incompetent.

Bilal asserts he should have been appointed counsel. This is not the sort of extraordinary circumstance that compels appointed counsel in a civil case.

The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED. The motion to supplement the record is DENIED.

*

 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.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Healthcare Trust of America, Inc., or the Company, for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, or the Report, I, Scott D. Peters, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman 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:


(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


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





By:/s/ Scott D. PetersScott D. PetersChief Executive Officer, President and Chairman


Date: August 2, 2016








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. and will be retained by Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2  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 Quarterly Report of RathGibson, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Barry C. Nuss, 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 to my knowledge:  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:  June 11, 2007/s/ Barry C. NussBarry C. NussChief Financial Officer
1 .VINCENT YOUNG, SBI#:88334 is now confined to New Jersey Prison.

2MiNNTYOUJG SBI#: 8833488 will be required at the United States Court House in wark. New Jery before the pn. Stanley R. Chesler, U.S. District Judge,on Tuesday, August 9, 2011, at 12:00 pm, for a plea hearing, in the above-captioned case. A Writ of Habeas Corpus should be issued for that purpose. )

DATED: August 3, 2011

Newark. NJ Melissa Jampol ss’ tant U.S. Attorney

Petitioner

ORDE

Let the Writ issue.

DATED:

QtanIChesler, US.DJ.

WRITQ,f HABEAS CORPUS

The United States of America to Warden of New Jersey State Prison

WE COMMAND YOU that you have the body of

VINCENT YOUNG, DOB: SBI#:883348B

now confined at the rseSttefsjson, brought before the United States District Court, before the anIeRChesIer, U S District Judge, on ThcaAuus 2011, at 12:00 pm. for a plea hearing,

WITNESS the tanIeRChesler

United States DIstrict Judge

Newark, New Jersey.

DATED: I / WILLIAM T. WALSH /,./ O I Clerk of the U.S. District Court

for the irict of New Jersey

i/ 1/ J /

Deputy Clerk
Case 2:11-cv-00427-JLL-MAH Document 68 Filed 09/24/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 444
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14577]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

June 16, 2009.
    The Department of Treasury will submit the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or 
after the date of publication of this notice. Copies of the 
submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 
Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should 
be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department 
Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before July 22, 2009 
to be assured of consideration.

Financial Management Service (FMS)

    OMB Number: 1510-0067.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Form: FMS 5903, FMS 5902.
    Title: Resolution Authorizing Execution of Depositary, Financial 
Agency and Collateral Agreement, ``and'' Depositary, Financial Agency.
    Description: Financial Institutions are required to complete an 
Agreement and Resolution to become a depositary of the Government. The 
approved application designates the depositary as an authorized 
recipient of deposits of public money and to perform other.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 8 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Wesley Powe, (202) 874-7662, Financial 
Management Service, Room 135, 3700 East West Highway, Hyattsville, MD 
20782.
    OMB Reviewer: Shagufta Ahmed, (202) 395-7873, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.

Celina Elphage,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-14577 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6959

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL WALFORD CLARKE, a/k/a “G”,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CR-92-75)

Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 29, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Walford Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael W. Clarke appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion for modification of his sentence pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(1)(B) (West 1985 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Clarke, No. CR-92-75 (M.D.N.C. June

26, 2000). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### DE MONTIS et al. v. POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER CO.

No. 3876.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Jan. 22, 1940.

*120S. R. Bowen, H. W. Kelly, and R. E. Lee Goff, all of Washington, D. C., for defendants.

The plaintiffs appeared in proper person.

LETTS, Justice.

The defendant in its points and authorities in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to strike answer and for judgment asked leave of the court to have its answer heretofore filed signed by an attorney of record in his individual name in cpmpliance with the rule; at the oral hearing such relief was granted to the defendant; that being done I find no merit in plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s answer and for judgment. Accordingly such motion will be overruled.

I find that the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed on December 29, 1939, and that all notices thereof to the plaintiffs required by the rules were given on that day; the motion was s.et down for oral hearing for January 17, 1940. I find further that the plaintiffs did not avail themselves of the privilege of filing opposing affidavits and did not otherwise file any pleading responsive to the defendant’s motion before the time specified for the hearing thereon, as they were privileged to do under the rule; I find that the pleadings fail to disclose any genuine issue as to any material fact; upon the undisputed facts I find that the defendant is entitled to the relief asked; accordingly defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is sustained.
#### UNITED STATES v. MAZUR et al.

No. 468.

District Court, W. D. New York.

Feb. 27, 1941.

*631George L. Grobe, U. S. Atty., and R. Norman Kirchgraber, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Buffalo, N. Y., for plaintiff.

Edmund P. Radwan, of Buffalo, N. Y., for defendants.

KNIGHT, District Judge.

This is a motion for summary judgment in an action brought by the plaintiff upon a promissory note. The face of the note indicates that it was signed by the defendants by mark. Their signatures were witnessed by their son. The plaintiff sues as an assignee from a holder in due course. The defendants in their answer deny that they executed the note in question. This denial is supported by affidavits of the defendants.

The position of the government seems to be that the defendants are attempting to defend this action by showing that the work for which the note was given was improperly done. The defendants’ answer does not attempt to introduce this which is of course no defense. United States v. Bernstein1 (decided August 5, 1938). The pleadings raise the question whether the defendants did execute the note. This is a question of fact upon which the parties are entitled to a trial. Boerner v. United States, D.C., 26 F.Supp. *769;*American Ins. Co. v. Gentile Bros. Co., 5 Cir., 109 F.2d *732;*Port of Palm Beach Dist. v. Goethals, 5 Cir., 104 F.2d 706.

The motion for summary judgment is denied.

1

 No opinion for publication.