alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.18

 

AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO 
 BYLAWS
 OF
  HEAD DISTRIBUTING CO.

 

Dated August 23, 2004

 

Section 3.2 of Article III of the Bylaws of Head Distributing Co. is hereby amended to read as follows:

 

3.2          Number, Election and Term of Office.  The number of directors of the Corporation constituting the entire Board of Directors shall be two, or such other number as may be fixed by resolutions of the Board of Directors or of the shareholders from time to time and, until otherwise determined, shall not be less than one (1) nor more than six (6).  No decrease in the number of directors shall have the effect of shortening the term of an incumbent director.  Except as provided elsewhere in this Section 3.2 and in Section 3.4, the directors shall be elected at each annual meeting of shareholders, or at a special meeting of shareholders called for purposes that include the election of directors, by a plurality of the votes cast by the shares entitled to vote and present at the meeting.  Except in case of death, resignation, disqualification, or removal, the term of each of director shall expire at the next succeeding annual meeting of shareholders.  Despite the expiration of a director’s term, he or she shall continue to serve until his or her successor, if there is to be any, has been elected and has qualified.
Submitted on record and briefs July 28, 1995,

affirmed April 17, 1996

#### In the Matter of the Marriage of Nikki J. BLAKER, *Respondent, and*Kenneth R. BLAKER, *Appellant.*

(C92-1986DR; CA A81403)

914 P2d 716

Kenneth R. Blaker filed the briefs *pro se.*

Jacqueline L. Koch .and Findling & Johnson filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and De Muniz and Haselton, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*449PER CURIAM

Father appeals from a judgment awarding mother custody of the couple’s young son. Based on our *de novo*review of the record, we find that both father and mother are good, devoted, and loving parents. We further conclude, after independently considering the criteria enumerated in ORS 107.137(1),1 that the trial court did not err in awarding custody to mother. *See generally Boldt and Boldt,*104 Or App 379, 801 P2d 874 (1990).

Affirmed. Costs to mother.

1

 ORS 107.137(1) provides:

> “In determining custody of a minor child pursuant to ORS 107.105 or 107.135, the court shall give primary consideration to the best interests and welfare of the child. In determining the best interests and welfare of the child, the court may consider the following relevant factors:

> “(a) The emotional ties between the child and other family members;

> “(b) The interest of the parties in and attitude toward the child;

> “(c) The desirability of continuing an existing relationship; and

> “(d) The abuse of one parent by the other.”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEVE MCMAHON, 

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO: 14-CV-13892-DT

v.

LIFE TECHNOLOGIES 

CORPORATION,

Defendants.

_______________________________ /

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court having been advised by counsel that the above-entitled action has

been settled, therefore; based upon the representation of counsel;

IT IS ORDERED that the above-entitled action be, and the same hereby is,

DISMISSED without costs and without prejudice to the right of either party to move within

sixty (60) days to vacate this Order if settlement is not consummated. After 60 days from

this date, this dismissal is with prejudice.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 29, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on

this date, October 29, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:14-cv-13892-RHC-MJH Doc # 44 Filed 10/29/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 1133
§ 73a.735-502 Employees in regulatory activities. ( a ) An employee in regulatory activities (“control activity” employee) may hold financial interests in an FDA-regulated organization only if either of the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The regulated activities of the organization are an “insignificant” part of its total business operations, or
( 2 ) Written approval for an individual exception is granted by the Commissioner in accordance with § 73a.735-504; however, such approval will not be considered unless all of the following conditions are met: ( i ) Retention of the financial interest does not give rise to an actual conflict of interest;
( ii ) Acquisition of the financial interest occurred by marriage or inheritance, or the interest was held prior to an FDA reorganization, change in regulations, or similar circumstances beyond the control of the employee that resulted in the interest becoming prohibited;
( iii ) No direct relationship exists between the employee's official duties and the regulated activities of the organization in which the financial interest is held;
( iv ) The employee occupies a position below that of Bureau/Deputy Bureau Director (or Assistant/Deputy General Counsel, Food and Drug Division, Office of the General Counsel); and
( v ) The employee agrees to refrain from engaging, either directly or indirectly, in transactions that are designed to increase the value of his “excepted” financial interest.
( b ) To administer provisions within this part, the following interpretations apply: ( 1 ) A “control activity” employee (“control activity” positions are identified in appendix C to part 73 of this chapter), means one who: ( i ) Occupies an FDA position classified at GS-11 or above, or PHS Commissioned Officer 0-3 or above, or equivalent;
( ii ) Occupies an FDA position below GS-11 with duties of a nature that the employee could in the discharge of his official duties and responsibilities cause an economic advantage for or impose a handicap on a non-Federal enterprise (includes investigators, inspectors, regulatory analysts);
( iii ) Occupies a position at GS-11 or above in the Office of the Assistant General Counsel, Food and Drug Division.
( 2 ) “Insignificant” (part of an organization's total business operations) means that the FDA-regulated products constitute no more than 10 percent of the organization's annual gross sales.
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 the Treasury

###### Office of Thrift Supervision

          - [AC-07: OTS Nos. 17968, H4021, H4099, and H4345]

                    Notice is hereby given that on November 8, 2006, the Assistant Managing Director, Examinations and Supervision—Operations, Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), or her designee, acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the application of Westfield Mutual Holding Company and Westfield Bank, Westfield, Massachusetts, to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection by appointment (phone number: 202-906-5922 or e-mail:                     *Public.Info@OTS.Treas.gov*) at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, and OTS Northeast Regional Office, Harborside Financial Center Plaza Five, Suite 1600, Jersey City, NJ 07311.                

Dated: December 22, 2006.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Sandra E. Evans

Legal Information Assistant.

[FR Doc. 06-9915 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00608-CR

Brandon Ray Trevino, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. A-06-0411-S, HONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137

(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right

to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
2

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Counsel’s motion to

withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

___________________________________________

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: November 14, 2008

Do Not Publish
§ 260.59 What penalty relief is available to a State that failed to comply with the five-year limit on Federal assistance because it provided federally recognized good cause domestic violence waivers? ( a ) ( 1 ) We will determine that a State has reasonable cause if it failed to comply with the five-year limit on Federal assistance because of federally recognized good cause domestic violence waivers granted to victims of domestic violence.
( 2 ) More specifically, to receive reasonable cause under the provisions at § 264.3(b) of this chapter, a State must demonstrate that: ( i ) It granted federally recognized good cause domestic violence waivers to extend time limits based on the need for continued assistance due to current or past domestic violence or the risk of further domestic violence; and
( ii ) When individuals and their families are excluded from the calculation, the percentage of families receiving federally funded assistance for more than 60 months did not exceed 20 percent of the total.
( b ) We may take federally recognized good cause domestic violence waivers to extend time limits into consideration in deciding whether a State has achieved compliance or made significant progress towards achieving compliance in meeting the five-year limit on Federal assistance during a corrective compliance period.
( c ) To receive the penalty relief specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the State must submit the information specified at § 265.9(b)(5) of this chapter.
[64 FR 17878, Apr. 12, 1999]
From: Wayland, Robertj

To: Frey, Nathan J.

Cc: Higgins, Cortney; Culligan, Kevin; Maxwell, Bill; Tsirigotis, Peter

Subject: FW: Current versions

Date: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:18:19 PM

Attachments: EO12866_MATS_Reconsideration_2060-AR62_Final_20130321.docx

031913 vs 032113_redline.docx

MATS reconsideration NESHAP RTC_draft_031913.docx

MATS reconsideration NESHAP RTC_031513 vs 031913_redline.docx

Importance: High

Nathan –

Attached below are the revised MATS Reconsideration documents. The preamble is in final form,

but OGC is still making editorial edits to the RTC document; however, we should have a final

version later today if you would like to see that. Please let me or Kevin know if you need anything

further to move this towards conclusion.

Thanx!

bob

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D.

Leader, Energy Strategies Group

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Mail Code D243-01

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Office: (919) 541-1045

Cell: (919) 306-2290

Fax: (919) 541-5450

Email: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

*************************************

 DRAFT/Deliberative Document - FOIA Exempt

*************************************

From: Maxwell, Bill 

Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:14 PM

To: Wayland, Robertj

Subject: Current versions

Bob –

Here is –
The final version of the preamble with OMB’s edits

A redline of the final vs. what went over on Tuesday

The current version of the RTC as of Tuesday but with OMB’s edit incorporated

A redline of that version of the RTC vs. what OMB received on March 15.

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell

Energy Strategies Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01

109 T.W. Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone: 919-541-5430

FAX: 919-541-5450
#### § 15.410 Credentialed individuals for assistance towing vessels.

Every assistance towing vessel must be under the direction and control of an individual holding a license or MMC authorizing him or her to engage in assistance towing under the provisions of § 11.482 of this subchapter.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

STOP RECKLESS ECONOMIC INSTABILITY

CAUSED BY DEMOCRATS, et aL,

Plaintiffs,

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant.

Case No. l:14-cv-397(AJT/IDD)

ORDER

Upon considerationofplaintiffs' Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) to

Voluntarily DismissPlaintiffsNiger Innis and Niger Innis for Congress[Doc. No. 35], the

memoranda in support thereofand opposition thereto, and for good cause shown, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs' MotionPursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) to Voluntarily

Dismiss Plaintiffs Niger Innisand Niger Innisfor Congress [Doc. No. 35] be, and the same

hereby is, GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the claims of plaintiffs Niger InnisandNigerInnis forCongress be, and

the same hereby are, DISMISSED; and it is further

The Clerk is directed to forward copies ofthisOider to all counsel ofrecord.

Alexandria, Virginia

July 23, 2014

AnthonyJ.r uenga

Unitedfetates DistrictJudge

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 46 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID# 474
No. 6268.

#### John O’Brien *v.*The State.

Burglary to Commit Theft.—Indictment for burglary charged that the house was entered with the intent to commit theft, but fails to charge that the entry was made with the fraudulent intent to take the property from the possession of the owner; and the allegation of theft fails to charge that the property was taken from the *possession*of the owner. *Held,*insufficient to charge the offense.

*449Opinion delivered April 10, 1889.

Appeal from the District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. E. E. Burke.

The conviction was for burglary, and the penalty assessed was a term of three years in the penitentiary.

The sufficiency of the indictment is the only question determined on the appeal.

Ho brief on file for the appellant.

*W. L.*Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Hurt, Judge.

This is a conviction for burglary. The entry into the house is alleged to have been made with intent to commit theft.

The indictment fails to allege that the appellant entered the house with the fraudulent intent to take the property from the possession of the owner, etc., and that part of the indictment charging the theft fails to allege that the property was taken from the *possession*of the owner.

Theft, as are all other offenses in this State, is a crime by statute, and the rules of pleading applicable to such offenses must prevail. The language of the statute must be followed, or language of equal or greater import must be used.

How, there is no term used in the indictment which is sufficient to convey the same meaning as that used in the statute. The property may have been taken from the owners, and yet not taken from his possession.

We are of the opinion that the indictment is not sufficient» The judgment is reversed and the prosecution dismissed.

*Reversed and*dismissed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 151.03-45 Rivers.

A designation for all vessels whose navigation is restricted to rivers and/or canals, exclusively.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1922 

To require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to hold at least 1 

public hearing before issuance of a permit affecting public or private 

land use in a locality. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 2, 2009 

Mr. GERLACH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 

hold at least 1 public hearing before issuance of a permit 

affecting public or private land use in a locality. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE ISSUANCE OF PER4 MITS AFFECTING PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND 

5 USE IN LOCALITIES. 

6 (a) ELECTRICITY.—Section 216(c) of the Federal 

7 Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824p(c)) is amended by adding at 

8 the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(3) PUBLIC HEARINGS.— 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1922 IH

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subpara2 graph (B), before issuing a permit or other au3 thorization for any action that may affect pub4 lic or private land use (other than Federal land) 

5 in a locality, the Commission shall hold at least 

6 1 public hearing in each county and locality af7 fected. 

8 ‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING.—If 

9 the government of a county or locality described 

10 in subparagraph (A) requests that the Commis11 sion hold an additional public hearing, the pur12 pose of which is to address an issue that was 

13 not addressed at an initial public hearing held 

14 under that subparagraph, the Commission shall 

15 hold 1 additional public hearing on a date that 

16 is not earlier than 30 days, nor later than 60 

17 days, after the date on which the initial public 

18 hearing was held.’’. 

19 (b) NATURAL GAS.—Section 7(e) of the Natural Gas 

20 Act (15 U.S.C. 717f(e)) is amended— 

21 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(e)’’; and 

22 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

23 ‘‘(2) Public hearings.— 

24 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subpara25 graph (B), before issuing a permit or other auVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:58 Apr 07, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1922.IH H1922

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1922 IH

1 thorization for any action that may affect pub2 lic or private land use (other than Federal land) 

3 in a locality, the Commission shall hold at least 

4 1 public hearing in each county and locality af5 fected. 

6 ‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING.—If 

7 the government of a county or locality described 

8 in subparagraph (A) requests that the Commis9 sion hold an additional public hearing, the pur10 pose of which is to address an issue that was 

11 not addressed at an initial public hearing held 

12 under that subparagraph, the Commission shall 

13 hold 1 additional public hearing on a date that 

14 is not earlier than 30 days, nor later than 60 

15 days, after the date on which the initial public 

16 hearing was held.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

DAVID OGBONNA, 

Defendant. 

4:14-CR-20466-TGB

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR RECOMMENDATION TO 

BUREAU OF PRISONS AS 

MOOT 

On October 28, 2014, Defendant David Ogbonna pled guilty to 

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, a 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)–(i). ECF No. 16. On February 26, 

2015, Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of sixty months followed 

by three years of supervised release. ECF No. 20. 

On February 21, 2018, Defendant filed a motion requesting the 

Court issue a recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons that Defendant 

by placed in a halfway house six to nine months before his scheduled 

release date of December 5, 2018. ECF No. 23. 
Bureau of Prisons records indicate that Defendant was released on 

December 4, 2018.1 Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Grant 

Recommendation (ECF No. 23) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk shall 

close the case. 

 DATED this 25th day of October, 2019. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

United States District Judge 

 

1 Federal Bureau of Prisons, Online Inmate Locator (last visited Oct. 25, 2019, 11:23 AM), 

https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (BOP registration number 50322039).
#### Fowler v. Milliman.

*Justice’s court—judgment in not reviewed u/pon ground not specified in notice of appeal*

The review of a judgment rendered hy a justice of the peace should he confined to the grounds particularly taken and specified in the notice of appeal. *Delong*v. *Brainard, 1*N. Y. Sup. 1; *Nolan*v. *Page,*id. Addenda, 2. Accordingly where the county court reversed the judgment of a justice upon grounds not taken at the trial nor specified in the notice of appeal, *held,*error.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Wayne county court reversing a judgment of a justice of the peace in favor of plaintiff upon a question of law„

The action was brought by Jesse Fowler against William 0. Milliman for wrongful injury to personal property of plaintiff.

*Jacob B. Decker,*for appellant.

*William, Roe,*for respondent.

E. Darwin Smith, J.

The head-note states sufficiently the only question passed upon in the opinion. The judgment of the county court was reversed and that of the justice affirmed.

*Ordered accordingly.*
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

INDY AUTO PARTS, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-14093 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (ECF #1-2) 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 On August 13, 2015, this Court issued an Order terminating the appearance 

of Plaintiff Indy Auto Parts’ (“Plaintiff”) counsel and directing Plaintiff to obtain 

new counsel no later than September 15, 2015. (See ECF #27 at 1, Pg. ID 272.) 

The Court instructed Plaintiff that “[i]f new counsel for Plaintiff has not filed an 

Appearance by that time, this action shall be dismissed without prejudice.” (Id.) 

 Plaintiff phoned the Court on or about September 15, 2015, explained that it 

had not yet found replacement counsel, and requested an extension to do so. The 

Court orally granted Plaintiff a 13-day extension and directed Plaintiff to have 

replacement counsel file an Appearance with the Court no later than September 28, 

2015. Plaintiff failed to comply with that extended deadline. 

2:14-cv-14093-MFL-MKM Doc # 29 Filed 10/06/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 275
 2 

 Plaintiff then sent the Court a letter dated September 29, 2015, requesting an 

additional 30 days to find replacement counsel. Despite having ample time to 

comply with the Court’s Order and despite the Court’s warning that failure to 

comply would result in this case’s dismissal, Plaintiff has now missed two 

deadlines to obtain new counsel. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF #1-2) is DISMISSED in its entirety WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 6, 2015 

 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on October 6, 2015, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:14-cv-14093-MFL-MKM Doc # 29 Filed 10/06/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 276