alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 68930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26127]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than December 9, 2004.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. John Wynn, BMTW LLC, SouthGate Leigh Wynne Trust, 1650 Partners, 
Catherine Wynne, and Hunter Leigh Wynne, as a group acting in concert 
to acquire voting shares of Community First Financial Corporation, 
Lynchburg, Virginia, and thereby indirectly acquire Community First 
Bank, Lynchburg, Virginia.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Sue Costello, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. Leamon Buchanan, Albertville, Alabama; to acquire additional 
voting shares of Peoples Independent Bancshares, Inc., Boaz, Alabama, 
and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Peoples Independent 
Bank, Boaz, Alabama, and First Bank, Wadley, Alabama.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 19, 
2004.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 04-26127 Filed 11-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §
1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the Form 10-Q) of
Surrey Bancorp (the Company), we, Edward C. Ashby, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mark H. Towe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

(a) the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.



|    |  |                          |  |                   
|--- |  | ------------------------ |  | ------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Edward C. Ashby, III |  | Date: May 13, 2008
|    |  | Edward C. Ashby, III.    |  |                   
|    |  | President and            |  |                   
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer  |  |                   
|    |  |                         
|By: |  | /s/ Mark H. Towe         |  | Date: May 13, 2008
|    |  | Mark H. Towe             |  |                   
|    |  | Sr. Vice-President and   |  |                   
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer  |  |
### SUBCHAPTER IX—DEFINITIONS
§ 3.14 Intervention. ( a ) Any individual, partnership, unincorporated association, or corporation desiring to intervene in an adjudicative proceeding shall make written application in the form of a motion setting forth the basis therefor. Such application shall be served upon each party to the proceeding in accordance with the provisions of § 4.4(b) of this chapter. The answer filed by any party shall be served upon the applicant in accordance with the provisions of § 4.4(b). The Administrative Law Judge or the Commission may by order permit the intervention to such extent and upon such terms as are provided by law or as otherwise may be deemed proper.
( b ) In an adjudicative proceeding where the complaint states that divestiture relief is contemplated, the labor organization[s] representing employees of the respondent[s] may intervene as a matter of right. Applications for such intervention are to be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraph (a) of this section and must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the complaint. Intervention as a matter of right shall be limited to the issue of the effect, if any, of proposed remedies on employment, with full rights of participation in the proceeding concerning this issue. This paragraph does not affect a labor organization's ability to petition for leave to intervene pursuant to § 3.14(a).
[32 FR 8449, June 13, 1967, as amended at 46 FR 20979, Apr. 8, 1981; 80 FR 25941, May 12, 2015]
ELECTRONIC RECORD

*50-/¥

COA# 01-12-01174-CR OFFENSE: 3.03 (Delivery of Cocaine)

Oscar Gerardo Davila v. The State

STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Harris

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 263rd District Court

DATE: 07/22/2014 Publish: YES TC CASE #: 1322703

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Oscar Gerardo Davila v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

APPBLL^A/T^ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

ft fu3 *c/

DATE: P«o. /7, 3&/y

JUDGE: PCCCA#:

CCA Disposition:

iso-m

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
#### Ackerman Mechanical Services, Inc., Appellant, v Michael K. Hayes, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[822 NYS2d 208]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph R. Glownia, J.), entered November 10, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon reargument, adhered to the court’s prior determination granting in part defendant’s motion to compel discovery and denied that part of plaintiffs motion seeking leave to renew.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying that part of defendant’s motion with respect to projects that are not the subject of this litigation and vacating the second ordering paragraph of the order entered May 10, 2005 and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that defendant, who performed construction-related work for plaintiff, converted payments owed to plaintiff from a client. In his answer defendant asserted as a first counterclaim the breach of contract by plaintiff with respect to seven projects on which he worked for plaintiff, seeking specified damages with respect to each of those projects. It is undisputed that defendant worked for plaintiff on projects other than the seven identified in the first counterclaim and that the parties had an agreement that included both salary and profit sharing components. By or*1308der to show cause, defendant sought, inter alia, to compel plaintiff to respond to discovery requests, including requests for financial information for “each job” on which defendant worked for plaintiff. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion in part, directing plaintiff to provide “all records kept by [plaintiff] pursuant to . . . Lien Law § 75,” including records for projects on which defendant worked for plaintiff “during a reasonable period of time prior to the jobs that are the issue of the litigation at bar.” Upon the motion of plaintiff seeking, inter aha, reargument of its opposition to that part of defendant’s motion to compel discovery of records for projects that are not the subject of this litigation, the court adhered to its prior determination.

We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in ordering it to provide records for projects that are not the subject of this litigation, and we therefore modify the order in appeal No. 2 accordingly. Defendant holds trust claims only on the projects that are the subject of this litigation, and the remedies available pursuant to Lien Law § 76 (1) are not the equivalent of discovery and inspection pursuant to CPLR 3120 (see *International Assn. of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers Local No. 26 Welfare Fund, Pension Fund & Annuity Fund v Hebert Indus. Insulation,*234 AD2d 930 [1996]).

With respect to the order in appeal No. 3, we conclude that the court erred in denying plaintiffs motion for a protective order to the extent that the court granted defendant leave to serve a subpoena duces tecum seeking certain bank records, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski and Green, JJ.
**ORDER**

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21

- 0307 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. TERRY RAY BLANTON ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension

o f t ime to and including May 20 , 2022 , within which to prepare, file, and serve his opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 12 2022

04/12/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0307
### Part F—Energy Conservation Program for Buildings Owned by Units of Local Government and Public Care Institutions

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This part was, in the original, designated part H and has been changed to part F for purposes of codification.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3637 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3637

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 401 Old Dixie Highway in Jupiter, Florida, as the ``Roy Schallern 
                      Rood Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ROY SCHALLERN ROOD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 401 Old Dixie Highway in Jupiter, Florida, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Roy Schallern Rood Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Roy 
Schallern Rood Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3637

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 401 Old Dixie Highway in Jupiter, Florida, as the ``Roy Schallern 
                      Rood Post Office Building''.
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-53,950] 

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on December 31, 2003 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of F/V Lisa Lynn, Anchorage, Alaska. 

The investigation revealed that the subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a significant number or proportion of workers as required by section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Significant number or proportion of the workers means that at least three workers in a firm with a workforce of fewer than 50 workers would have to be affected. Separations by the subject firm did not meet this threshold level; consequently the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 12th day of January 2004. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 04-2610 Filed 2-5-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
#### § 1701.3 Applicability of special packaging requirements to hazardous substances in large size containers.

The special packaging requirements of the PPPA apply to “household substances” for which the Commission has determined there is a need for special packaging, as provided in section 3 of the act (15 U.S.C. 1472). At section 2(2) of the act (15 U.S.C. 1471) (restated at 16 CFR 1700.1(b)(2)), the term *household substance* is defined as “any substance which is customarily produced or distributed for sale for consumption or use, or customarily stored, by individuals in or about the household * * *.” The Commission has issued requirements for special packaging for certain hazardous substances at 16 CFR 1700.14(a). Unless otherwise indicated in the requirements for specific hazardous substances, the Commission interprets the term “household substance” as only applying to these hazardous substances when packaged in containers with a capacity of less than 5 gallons. As a result, unless otherwise specified, the hazardous substances at 16 CFR 1700.14(a) are not required to be in special packaging when packaged in containers of 5 gallons or more.

(Secs. 2, 5, 7, 9, Pub. L. 91-601; 94 Stat. 1670-1674 (15 U.S.C. 1471, 1474, 1476, 1478); sec. 30(a), Pub. L. 92-573, 86 Stat. 1231 (15 U.S.C. 2079(a))

[43 FR 53712, Nov. 17, 1978]
#### § 285.3 Referencing NVLAP accreditation.

The term *NVLAP* (represented by the NVLAP logo) is a federally registered certification mark of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the federal government, who retain exclusive rights to control the use thereof. Permission to use the term and/or logo is granted to NVLAP-accredited laboratories for the limited purposes of announcing their accredited status, and for use on reports that describe only testing and calibration within the scope of accreditation. NIST reserves the right to control the quality of the use of the term *NVLAP* and of the logo itself.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Robert A. Morrison IV, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           the annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of id-Confirm, Inc. for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 (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 id-Confirm, Inc.

Date: January 19, 2006

/s/ Robert A. Morrison IV                

Robert A. Morrison IV

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transporation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of lottery and allocation procedures for slots at Washington Reagan National Airport; extension of submission deadline. 

# SUMMARY:

On November 17, 2004, the FAA announced that a lottery will be held on December 3, 2004, to allocate six available commuter slots at Washington's Reagan National Airport (DCA). (69 FR 67382; November 17, 2004). The closing date for carriers to submit requests to participate in the lottery is November 18, 2004. The FAA is extending that date for submissions to November 29, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lorelei Peter, Operations and Air Traffic Law Branch, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone number (202) 267-3134.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 

## Background

On November 10, 2004, the FAA issued a notice announcing a lottery to allocate six commuter slots at DCA (69 FR 67382; November 17, 2004). According to the provisions of the notice, carriers seeking to participate in the lottery must notify the FAA in writing no later than 5 p.m. e.d.t. on November 18, 2004. The FAA is extending this submission deadline to 5 p.m. e.s.t on November 29, 2004. This extension will allow adequate time for carriers to respond to the lottery notice in view of the original publication date and the Thanksgiving holiday.

Issued on November 17, 2004 in Washington, DC.

James Whitlow,

Deputy Chief Counsel.

[FR Doc. 04-25880  Filed 11-17-04; 2:52 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b)  AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DTS, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Melvin L. Flanigan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date:
May 10, 2010

By:

/s/ MELVIN L. FLANIGAN Melvin L. Flanigan Chief Financial Officer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to DTS, Inc. and will be retained by
DTS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

---



QuickLinks
§ 1061.7 Documentation of the State or local requirement. An application for an exemption from preemption shall contain the following information: ( a ) A copy of the State or local requirement that is the subject of the application. Where available, the application shall also include copies of any legislative history or background materials used in issuing the requirement, including hearing reports or studies concerning the development or consideration of the requirement.
( b ) A written explanation of why compliance with the State or local requirement would not cause the product to be in violation of the applicable Commission statute, standard, or regulation.
No. 03-834 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2005 MT 131N JAMES HOUGHTALING, Petitioner and Appellant,
v. STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DV 03-395, The Honorable Mike Salvagni, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Mariah Eastman and Casey Moore, Gallatin C ounty Public Defenders, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Pamela P. Collins, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Marty Lambert, Gallatin County Attorney; Ashley Harrington, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: May 3, 2005 Decided: May 26, 2005 Filed:

__________________________________________ Clerk2 Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited as precedent. Its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of nonciteable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 James Houghtaling (Houghtaling) appeals from the denial of his third petition for postconviction relief by the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County. We affirm. ¶3 Houghtaling began filing serial motions after the District Court sentenced him to a four year commitment with the Department of Corrections for fourth offense DUI, a felony. The District Court and this Court reviewed and rejected each of Houghtaling’s motions and appeals. Houghtaling filed his latest attempt to obtain collateral relief from his conviction and sentence as an Application for Habeas Corpus (Application). We previously held that Houghtaling’s Application was, in reality, a petition for postconviction relief and remanded it to the District Court for consideration as such. The District Court determined Houghtaling’s effort to constitute his third postconviction relief petit ion. We agree and conclude that § 46-21-105(1)(b), MCA, bars Houghtaling’s latest attempt to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence. ¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum opinions. Houghtaling’s issues are clearly barred from review under settled Montana law.3 Houghtaling’s third postconviction petition attempt is time-barred by § 46-21-105(1)(b), MCA. ¶5 Affirmed.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We Concur: /S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ JOHN WARNER /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ JIM RICE
| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                |   |                                 |
|---------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|                |   |                                 |   |
| March      31, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Andrew      G. Sculley      |   |
|                |   | Andrew      G. Sculley               |   |
|                |   | Interim      Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                |   |                                 |   |