alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41097-41098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16711]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

[OJP (OJJDP)-1285]
RIN 1121-ZB90


Fiscal Year 2000 Missing and Exploited Children's Program Plan

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention, Justice.

ACTION: Announcement of Fiscal Year 2000 Missing and Exploited 
Children's Program Plan.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is issuing its Missing and Exploited 
Children's Program Final Program Plan for Fiscal Year 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald C. Laney, Director, Child 
Protection Division, 202-616-3637. [This is not a toll-free number.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 7, 2000, OJJDP published the 
Fiscal Year 2000 Missing and Exploited Children's Program Proposed 
Program

[[Page 41098]]

Plan in the Federal Register at 65 FR 1175 and requested public 
comments on the plan. No comments were received.
    OJJDP has determined that the Proposed Program Plan does not need 
to be modified in any way. Accordingly, the Proposed Plan as published 
in the January 7, 2000, Federal Register is now the Final Missing and 
Exploited Children's Program Plan for Fiscal Year 2000.

    Dated: June 27, 2000.
John J. Wilson,
Acting Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 00-16711 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bank of Florida Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael L. McMullan, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  |                            
|----- |  | ---------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: |  | November 5, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael L. McMullan    
|      |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  | Michael L. McMullan,       
|      |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  | Principal Executive Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1904 Conformance to law and regulations.

The requirements of applicable law (31 U.S.C. 3701-3719, as amended by Public Law 97-365, 96 Stat. 1749 and Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1358) have been implemented in government-wide standards which include the Regulations of the Office of Personnel Management (5 CFR part 550) and the Federal Claims Collection Standards issued jointly by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General of the United States (31 CFR parts 900-904). Not every item in the previous sentence described standards has been incorporated or referenced in this regulation. To the extent, however, that circumstances arise which are not covered by the terms stated in these regulations, the Commission will proceed in any actions taken in accordance with applicable requirements found in the standards referred to in this section.
§ 101.1319 Competitive bidding provisions. For the purpose of establishing eligibility requirements and bidding credits for competitive bidding for MAS licenses, pursuant to § 1.2110 of this chapter, the following definitions apply: ( a ) *Eligibility for small business provisions.* ( 1 ) A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such entity and their affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million, as determined pursuant to § 1.2110 of this chapter.
( 2 ) A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such entity and their affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million, as determined pursuant to § 1.2110 of this chapter.
( b ) *Bidding credits.* A winning bidder that qualifies as a small business, as defined in this section, or a consortium of small businesses, may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter. A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business, as defined in this section, or a consortium of very small businesses, may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(i) of this chapter.
[65 FR 17450, Apr. 3, 2000, as amended at 67 FR 46380, July 9, 2002]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1426: LOPEZ v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"upGQnfo8kZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-14-2022-22-1426-lopez-v-us-order-22-1426-order-12-14-2022_2047786\/\">22-1426: LOPEZ v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-14-2022-22-1426-lopez-v-us-order-22-1426-order-12-14-2022_2047786\/embed\/#?secret=upGQnfo8kZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1426: LOPEZ v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"upGQnfo8kZ\" 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","description":"ORDER Posted: LOPEZ v. US [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1426 Origin: CFC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 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 offices 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 February 7, 2000. 

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Phillip Jackson, Applications Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                 

*1. Edwin Henry Eichler,*                     Pigeon, Michigan; to acquire additional voting shares of Bay Port Financial Corporation, Bay Port, Michigan, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares                     Start Printed Page 3963                    of Bay Port State Bank, Bay Port, Michigan.                

**B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City**                     (D. Michael Manies, Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                 

*1. Dan Howard Galbraith,*                     Lawrence, Kansas, and Jan Louise Galbraith, Tulsa, Oklahoma; to acquire voting shares of Second Century Financial Corporation, Perry, Kansas, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of The Bank of Perry, Perry, Kansas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 19, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-1694 Filed 1-24-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP






                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT



The Board of Directors
Citizens Loan and Savings Company:

We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Citizens Loan and Savings
Company as of September 30, 1995, and the related statements of income, retained
earnings, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended
September 30, 1995. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of Citizens Loan and Savings
Company as of September 30, 1995, and the results of its operations and its cash
flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended September 30, 1995, in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

As discussed in note A (2) to the financial statements, the Company changed its
method of accounting for investments in 1995 to adopt the provisions of the
Financial Accounting Standard Board's Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity
Securities.


                                               KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

October 27, 1995
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 17-3516

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Juan Delacruz Albarran lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison

____________ Submitted: August 29, 2018

Filed: September 4, 2018 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Juan Albarran directly appeals the c onsecutive Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug and financial crime charges.

1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.His counsel has filed a brie f under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. We conclude that the district court di d not abuse its discretion in imposing a fully consecutive sentence. See United States v. Winston , 456 F.3d 861, 867 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). The court exp licitly stated that it was considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (factors to beconsidered in imposing sentence), and there is no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or co mmitted a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)-(b) (imposition of concurrent or consecutive prison terms; district court shall consider § 3553(a) factors in making determination); United States v. Rutherford , 599 F.3d 817, 820-22 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review; affirming where court discussed § 3553( a) factors and imposed consecutive sentences). We have independently reviewed th e record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.763 Construction, extension, acquisition or operation of lines. ( a ) Applications under section 214 of the Communications Act for authority to construct a new line, extend any line, acquire or operate any line or extension thereof, or to engage in transmission over or by means of such additional or extended line, to furnish temporary or emergency service, or to supplement existing facilities shall be made in the form and manner, with the number of copies and accompanied by the fees specified in part 63 of this chapter.
( b ) In cases under this section requiring a certificate, notice is given to and a copy of the application is filed with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State (with respect to such applications involving service to foreign points), and the Governor of each State involved. Hearing is held if any of these persons desires to be heard or if the Commission determines that a hearing should be held. Copies of applications for certificates are filed with the regulatory agencies of the States involved.
[28 FR 12450, Nov. 22, 1963, as amended at 64 FR 39939, July 23, 1999]
dvn-ex1033_1988.htm



Exhibit 10.33

Amendment 2016-3

to the

devon energy corporation

incentive savings plan

The Devon Energy Corporation Incentive Savings Plan (the "Plan") is amended, effective as of the execution date of this amendment, as follows:

1.A new Paragraph (e) ("Venue") is added to Section 13.02 of the Plan ("Claims Procedures") before the current Paragraph (e) ("Reliance on Records"), and immediately after Paragraph (d) ("Exhaustion of Claims Procedures"), and subsequent sections and cross-references are amended accordingly, such new Paragraph to read as follows:

"(e)Venue.  The courts of competent jurisdiction in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma shall have exclusive jurisdiction for all claims, actions and other proceedings involving or relating to the Plan, a Plan fiduciary or a party in interest, including, by way of example and not limitation, claim or action (1) to recover benefits allegedly due under the Plan or by reason of any law; (2) to enforce rights under the Plan; (3) to clarify rights to future benefits under the Plan; or (4) that relates to the Plan and seeks a remedy, ruling or judgment of any kind against the Plan or a plan fiduciary or a party in interest."

[remainder of page intentionally blank]

 

1



DB1/ 89100305.1

 

 

 
 


 

In witness whereof, Devon Energy Corporation (acting through its authorized delegate) has caused this Amendment 2016-3 to the Devon Energy Corporation Incentive Savings Plan to be executed this 20th day of October, 2016.

DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION

 

By:  /s/ Tana K. Cashion____________________

Name:  Tana K. Cashion

Title:  Senior Vice President, Human Resources

[Signature Page to Amendment 2016-3 

to the Devon Energy Corporation Incentive Savings Plan]
No. 11-6205.

No. 11-8740.

#### Ortiz-Alvear *v.*Wells, Warden, In re Crawford,

565 U. S. 1229; and

565 U. S. 1259. Petitions for rehearing denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.
#### § 302-6.16 May the period for which I am authorized to claim TQSE reimbursement for myself be different from that of my immediate family?

No, the eligibility period for which you are authorized to claim TQSE reimbursement for yourself and for each member of your immediate family must run concurrently.
Order entered September 29, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00709-CR

WENDELL LAMONT PERVIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F94-41885-T

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s September 23, 2020 motion for extension of

time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the State’s brief due on 

October 26, 2020.

On September 29, 2020, the Texarkana Court of Appeals emailed the 

reporter’s record from the underlying appeal. We ORDER the reporter’s record 

filed in as of the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 31.2

I, Matthew Roberts, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of E-LOAN, Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this 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; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

March 25, 2005

/s/ Matthew Roberts 		  Matthew Roberts
     Chief Financial Officer

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.339 Witness fees.

Witnesses who are subpenaed and respond thereto are entitled to the same fees, including mileage, as are paid for like service in the courts of the United States. Fees shall be paid by the party at whose instance the testimony is taken.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2017-2502: United Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Company - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"QPsvp80bQ0\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-2017-2502-united-technologies-corp-v-general-electric-company-audio-uploaded\/\">2017-2502: United Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Company<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-2017-2502-united-technologies-corp-v-general-electric-company-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=QPsvp80bQ0\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2017-2502: United Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Company” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"QPsvp80bQ0\" 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","description":"Oral argument audio posted: United Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Company (mp3) Appeal Number: 2017-2502 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}