alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 36144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14220]


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

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. 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 June 21, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice 
President), 104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Regions Financial Corporation, Birmingham, Alabama; to acquire 
Heritage Mortgage Company, Hutto, Texas, and thereby engage in making, 
acquiring, brokering, or servicing loans or other extensions of credit, 
pursuant to Sec. 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y. This activity will be 
conducted throughout the State of Texas.
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 1, 2000.

Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-14220 Filed 6-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 USC 1350
                 (Section 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Levi Mochkin, President and Chief Executive Officer of Avenue Group, Inc.
(the "Company"), certify, that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review
of the annual report on Form 10KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 of the
Company (the "Report"):

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: April 30, 2006

                                BY: /s/ Levi Mochkin
                                    --------------------------------------
                                    Levi Mochkin
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                    and Principal Financial Officer
821 P.2d 995

#### Larry ERNST and Lori Ernst, husband and wife, v. HEMENWAY AND MOSER CO., INC., Hemenway and Moser of Boise, Inc., Defendants, and H and M Distributing, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19319.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Dec. 13, 1991.

*941ORDER WITHDRAWING ORDER GRANTING REVIEW AND REMANDING CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Having considered the files and record in this case and argument of counsel, the Court concludes that, under the criteria which guides this Court in the granting of petitions for review set out in I.A.R. 118(b), review was improvidently granted. Therefore, good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order granting Appellant’s petition for review is withdrawn and the cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Court of Appeals with the Remittitur to issue forthwith.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.480 Mermentau River.

The draw of the S82 bridge, mile 7.1 at Grand Chenier, shall open on signal; except that, from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. the draw shall open on signal if at least 4 hours notice is given. During the advance notice period, the draw will open on less than 4 hours notice for an emergency and will open on demand should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur.

[CGD8-94-027, 60 FR 14221, Mar. 16, 1995]
###### Editorial Note on Part 149

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 149 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

#### § 149.135 What should be marked on the cargo transfer system alarm switch?

Each switch for activating an alarm, and each audio or visual device for signaling an alarm, must be identified by the words “Oil Transfer Alarm” or “Natural Gas Transfer Alarm” in red letters at least 1 inch high on a yellow background.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2015

a1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2015

151365

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151365

COA: 318592 

Wayne CC: 12-004304-FC

JOSEPH LEE GILMORE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 10, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10771

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DARWYN DEMOND LEWIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CR-351-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Darwyn Demond

Lewis has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lewis has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Lewis’s

response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 19, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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: 12-10771 Document: 00512146473 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2013
No. 12-10771

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Lewis’s motion

to relieve counsel and appoint substitute counsel is DENIED.

2

 Case: 12-10771 Document: 00512146473 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2013
Three Safe Ways to Defrost Food

Refrigerator 

• Plan ahead! 5 lbs of weight = 24 hours to defrost. 

• Some areas of the refrigerator may keep food colder than other areas. 

• After thawing, items should remain safe and of good quality for an additional 

day or two before cooking. 

• Follow safe storage practices while defrosting items in the refrigerator.

Cold Water

• Faster but requires more attention.

• Product should be completely submerged in cold, running tap water. Water 

pressure must be strong enough to float off loose food bits in an overflow. 

Water temperature should be 70° F (21° C) or lower. 

• The amount of time to thaw is based on the food temperature (food must 

remain below 41° F (5° C)). The time should not exceed 4 hours from beginning 

of thawing to cooking. Staff must monitor food temperature routinely.

• Food must be cooked before refreezing.

Microwave 

• Quickest defrosting method.

• Food should be cooked immediately after thawing.

• Food must be cooked before refreezing.

Remember: NEVER thaw food on the counter and/or at room temperature! 

Sources: US FDA, 2022 Food Code; US Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service 

This project was supported in part by grant number 90PPNU0002 from the Administration for Community Living, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. 20201. Grantees undertaking projects with government 

sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their findings and conclusions. Points of view or opinions do not, 

therefore, necessarily represent official ACL policy. 

Created in partnership with the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs. For more information 

on NANASP, visit nanasp.org.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6965

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMMANUEL OLAMINDE OSHO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00223-TSE; 1:06-cv-00893-TSE) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 11, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmanuel Olaminde Osho, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Everett Lelling, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Emmanuel Olaminde Osho seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Osho has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Editorial Note on Part 150
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 150.626 What is the hazard communication program used for? ( a ) The hazard communication program must ensure that all deepwater port employees, when required by their duties, work safely and responsibly with hazardous materials.
( b ) The person in charge for safety must ensure that, before a person is allowed to work at the deepwater port: ( 1 ) A copy of the hazard communication program is made available to the person; and
( 2 ) The person is trained in the information contained in the program.
( c ) The training must be supplemented to address each hazardous material newly introduced on the deepwater port.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.482 Nezpique Bayou.

The draw of the S97 bridge, mile 7.0 near Jennings, shall open on signal if at least 48 hours notice is given.

[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984. Redesignated by CGD8-86-04, 51 FR 36224, Oct. 9, 1986]
§ 126.21 Permitted transactions. All permits issued pursuant to § 126.19 are hereby conditioned upon the observance and fulfillment of the following: ( a ) The conditions set forth in § 126.15 shall at all times be strictly observed.
( b ) No amount of designated dangerous cargo, except Class 1 (explosive) materials shipped by or for the Armed Forces of the United States, in excess of the maximum quantity established by local, municipal, territorial, or State authorities shall be present on the waterfront facility and vessels moored thereto.
( c ) Designated dangerous cargo shall not be brought onto the waterfront facility from shore except when laden within a railroad car or highway vehicle and shall remain in such railroad car or highway vehicle except when removed as an incident of its prompt transshipment. Designated dangerous cargo shall not be brought onto the waterfront facility from a vessel except as an incident of its prompt transshipment by railroad car or highway vehicle.
( d ) No other dangerous cargo shall be on the waterfront facility during the period of transactions involving designated dangerous cargo, unless its presence is authorized by the Captain of the Port. This shall not apply to maintenance stores and supplies on the waterfront facility in conformity with § 126.15(b)(5).
[CGFR 53-27, 18 FR 5348, Sept. 3, 1953, as amended by CGD 92-050, 59 FR 39965, Aug. 5, 1994; USCG-2014-0410, 79 FR 38434, July 7, 2014]
§ 780.717 Determining whether there is employment “by” the establishment. ( a ) No single test will determine whether a worker is in fact employed “by” a country elevator establishment. This question must be decided on the basis of the total situation (*Rutherford Food Corp.* v. *McComb,* 331 U.S. 722; *U.S.* v. *Silk,* 331 U.S. 704). Clearly, an employee is so employed where he is hired by the elevator, engages in its work, is paid by the elevator and is under its supervision and control.
( b ) “Employed by” requires that there be an employer-employee relationship between the worker and the employer engaged in operating the elevator. The fact, however, that the employer carries an employee on the payroll of the country elevator establishment which qualifies for exemption does not automatically extend the exemption to that employee. In order to be exempt an employee must actually be “employed by” the exempt establishment. This means that whether the employee is performing his duties inside or outside the establishment, he must be employed in the work of the exempt establishment itself in activities within the scope of its exempt business in order to meet the requirement of actual employment “by” the establishment (see *Walling* v. *Connecticut Co.,* 154 F. 2d 552).
( c ) In the case of employers who operate multiunit enterprises and conduct business operations in more than one establishment (see *Tobin* v. *Flour Mills,* 185 F. 2d 596; *Remington* v. *Shaw* (W.D. Mich.) 2 WH Cases 262), there will be employees of the employer who perform central office or central warehousing activities for the enterprise or for more than one establishment, and there may be other employees who spend time in the various establishments of the enterprise performing duties for the enterprise rather than for the particular establishment in which they are working at the time. Such employees are employed by the enterprise and not by any particular establishment of the employer (*Mitchell* v. *Miller Drugs,* 255 F. 2d 574; *Mitchell* v. *Kroger Co.,* 248 F. 2d 935). Accordingly, so long as they perform such functions for the enterprise they would not be exempt as employees employed by a country elevator establishment operated as part of such an enterprise, even while stationed in it or placed on its payroll.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Centra Financial Holdings, Inc. (the Company);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;4.
    
    The Companys other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over
financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under
our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to
the Company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly
during the period in which this
annual report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control
over financial reporting or cause
such internal control over
financial reporting to be
designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the
preparation of financial
statements for internal purposes
in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of
the Companys disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in
this annual report our
conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures as of the
end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any
change in the Companys internal
control over financial reporting
that occurred during the
Companys most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially
affected or is reasonably likely
to materially affect the
Companys internal control over
financial reporting.
 5.
    
    The Companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors:
  /s/ Kevin D. LemleyKevin D. LemleyChief Financial OfficerApril
10, 2008
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer  Pursuant to Section 302 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Centra Financial Holdings, Inc. (the
Company);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations, and cash flows of Centra as of, and for, the periods
presented in this annual report;4.
    
    Centras other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for Centra and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to Centra, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting or cause such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for internal purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of Centras disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in Centras internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during Centras most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect Centras
internal control over financial reporting.
 5.
    
    Centras other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the auditors and the audit
committee of Centras board of directors:
  /s/ Douglas J. LeechDouglas J. LeechChief Executive Officer
May 8, 2009
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.781 East River. The following requirements apply to the Roosevelt Island bridge, mile 6.4 at New York City, as follows: ( a ) Public vessels of the United States Government, state or local vessels used for public safety, and vessels in distress shall be passed through the draws of each bridge as soon as possible without delay at anytime. The opening signal from these vessels shall be four or more short blasts of a whistle, horn or radio request.
( b ) The owners of each bridge shall provide and keep in good legible condition clearance gauges for each draw with figures not less than 12 inches high designed, installed and maintained according to the provisions of § 118.160 of this chapter.
( c ) The draw of the Roosevelt Island bridge shall open on signal if at least two hour advance notice is given to the drawtender at the Grand Street/Avenue bridge, mile 3.1 across Newtown Creek (East Branch), the New York Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) Radio Hotline or NYCDOT Bridge Operations Office. In the event the drawtender is at Borden Avenue or Hunters Point Avenue bridges mile 1.2 and 1.4, respectively, across Dutch Kills, up to an additional half hour delay may be required.
[CGD1-90-040, 55 FR 37710, Sept. 13, 1990, as amended by USCG-2009-0348, 74 FR 52888, Oct. 15, 2009]