alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 100 (Thursday, May 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 29137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2597]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Sub Committee Meeting of the President's Commission on Care for 
America's Returning Wounded Warriors

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Federal Advisory Committee Sub Committee Meeting Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 
U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 
1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) 102-3.140 through 160, the Department of Defense announces the 
forthcoming sub committee meeting:
    Subcommittees of the Commission will conduct preparatory work 
meetings in the New Jersey area June 15th to gather information, 
conduct research and analyze relevant issues and facts in preparation 
for a meeting of the Commission. Pursuant to section 102-3.160(a) of 41 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), these subcommittee meetings are not 
open to the public, and the subcommittees are required to report their 
findings to the Commission for further deliberation. Locations include 
the East Orange VA Health Center. Additionally, the Sub Committees may 
visit public and private hospitals in the area for investigation of 
Centers of Excellence that apply to the Commission's Charter.

    Dated: May 18, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 07-2597 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
§ 221.87 Records. ( a ) A verbatim transcript of a hearing will not normally be prepared. The Hearing Officer will prepare notes on material and points raised by the Party in sufficient detail to permit a full and fair review of the case.
( b ) A Party may, at its own expense, cause a verbatim transcript to be made, in which event the Party shall submit, without charge, two copies to the Hearing Officer within 30 days of the close of the hearing.
<PAGE>



                                   EXHIBIT 3.1(ii)

                                    AMENDMENT


                          TO ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                              PREMIER BRANDS, INC.



         In accordance with Sections 16-10a-1003 and 16-10a-1006 of the Utah
Revised Business Corporation Act, Premier Brands, Inc., a Utah Corporation (the
"Corporation"), does hereby adopt the following amendment (the "Amendment") to
the Articles of Incorporation.

1.       The Corporation's Articles of incorporation are hereby amended to add a
         new Article XIII, which shall be and read as follows:


                                  ARTICLE XIII

                      SHAREHOLDER ACTION WITHOUT A MEETING

                  Pursuant to Sections 16-10a-704 and 16-10a-1704(4) of the Utah
         Revised Business Corporation Act, any action which may be taken at any
         annual or special meeting of shareholders may be taken without a
         meeting and without prior notice, if one or more consents in writing,
         setting forth the action so taken, shall be signed by the holders of
         outstanding shares having not less than the minimum number of votes
         that would be necessary to authorize or take action at a meeting at
         which all shares entitled to vote thereon were present and voted.

2.       Except as specifically provided herein, the provisions of the
         Corporation's Articles of Incorporation shall remain unamended and
         shall continue in full force and effect.

3.       By execution of this Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation, the
         President and Secretary of the Corporation do hereby certify that the
         foregoing Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation was adopted as an
         Amendment to the original Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation
         by the shareholders of the Corporation at a Special Meeting of the
         shareholders held on September 16, 1998, pursuant to proper notice. As
         of August 26,1998, the record date for the Shareholder action, there
         were 1,641,254 shares of the Corporation's Common Stock issued and
         outstanding, of which 851,056 shares of the Corporation's Common Stock
         (or, 52%) were present and voted for the adoption of the foregoing
         Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation, and no shares were voted
         against the Amendment.


<PAGE>




DATED: as of the 16th day of September 1998.


                                          PREMIER BRANDS, INC.


                                          /s/ Igor Fruman
                                          -----------------
                                          Igor Fruman
                                          President

ATTEST:


/s/ Vyacheslav Fruman
-----------------------
Vyacheslav Fruman
Secretary








                                       2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-10300

Summary Calendar

_____________________

GLENN G. LATHAM,

Plaintiff,

STEVE L. HURT,

Movant-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:93-CV-112

_________________________________________________________________ October 23, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Steve L. Hurt, counsel for Glenn G. Latham, argues that the

district court erred in determining that it did not have

jurisdiction to determine and allow him reasonable attorney’s fees

under the Social Security Act for his representation of Latham

before the courts. The Commissioner agrees that the district court

had jurisdiction to determine the attorney’s fees due and does not2

object to the amount of fees requested by Hurt. Latham does not

deny that Hurt is entitled to the fees requested.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and

find that the district court erred in refusing to determine and

allow Hurt attorney’s fees in accordance wi th 42 U.S.C.

§ 406(b)(1). The determination of the amount of the fees must be

made prior to Hurt taking any action to collect the sums due to

him. See § 406(b)(2).

The district court’s denial without prejudice of Hurt’s motion

for a determination and allowance of attorney’s fees under the

Social Security Act i s VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the

district court for a determination of the attorney’s fees due to

Hurt under § 406(b)(1).

VACATED and REMANDED.
§ 167.45-15 Capacity of pipes and hose. The capacity of the pipes and hose leading from the pumps shall in no case be less than that of the discharge opening of the pump: *Provided, however,* That the pipe and hose shall in no instance be less than 11 ⁄ 2 inches in internal diameter.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2559 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a national media 

campaign directed at homeless veterans and veterans at risk for becoming 

homeless. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2009 

Mr. HARE (for himself, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. FILNER, Mr. HALL of New York, 

Mrs. HALVORSON, Mr. NYE, Mr. TEAGUE, and Mr. ROONEY) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out 

a national media campaign directed at homeless veterans 

and veterans at risk for becoming homeless. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Help Our Homeless 

5 Veterans Act’’. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2559 IH

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN DIRECTED AT HOME2 LESS VETERANS. 

3 (a) NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN.—Under the au4 thority of section 532 of title 38, United States Code, the 

5 Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall carry out a national 

6 media campaign targeted at veterans who are homeless or 

7 who are at risk of becoming homeless, with special empha8 sis on such veterans who are women. Through the media 

9 campaign, the Secretary shall seek to inform such veterans 

10 of— 

11 (1) their rights and benefits under the laws ad12 ministered by the Secretary; and 

13 (2) where to turn for help if they are already 

14 homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless. 

15 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

16 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 

17 necessary to carry out this section. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending June 10, 2006

|Filer              | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                              
|------------------ | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|PLAINSCAPITAL BANK | * Branch       | PlainsCapital Bank, Lubbock, Texas, to establish a branch to be located at 1001 Santa Fe Drive, Weatherford, Texas 76086. | Newspaper:06/16/2006Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:         | 06/16/2006    
|Federal Register:  | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Exhibit 3.1


                       ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                  OF
                           HUMBOLDT BANCORP



     ONE:   NAME

     The name of the corporation is:

           Humboldt Bancorp

     TWO:  PURPOSE

     The purpose of this corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity
for which a corporation may be organized under the General Corporations Law of
California other than the banking business, the trust company business or the
practice of a profession permitted to be incorporated by the California
Corporations Code.

     THREE:  AUTHORIZED STOCK

     The corporation is authorized to issue only one class of shares of stock,
designated "Common Stock," and the total number of shares which the corporation
is authorized to issue is 20,000,000.

     FOUR:  DIRECTOR LIABILITY

     The liability of the directors of the corporation for monetary damages
shall be eliminated to the fullest extent permissible under California law.

     FIVE:  INDEMNIFICATION

     The corporation is authorized to indemnify its agents (as defined from
time to time in Section 317 of the California Corporations Code) to the fullest
extent permissible under California law.  Any amendment, repeal or modification
of the provisions of this Article shall not adversely affect any right or
protection of an agent of the corporation existing at the time of such
amendment, repeal or modification.

     SIX:  AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS

     The name and address in this State of this corporation's initial agent for
service of process is:

                Gary Steven Findley
                1470 North Hundley Street
                Anaheim, California 92806


<PAGE>2

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, for the purpose of forming this corporation under the
laws of the State of California, the undersigned, constituting the incorporator
of this corporation, has executed these Articles of Incorporation.


Dated:  January 23, 1995




                                      ___________________________
                                         Gary Steven Findley



     I hereby declare that I am the person who executed the foregoing Articles
of Incorporation, which execution is my act and deed.






                                      __________________________
                                         Gary Steven Findley
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**Certification Pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Universal Access GlobalHoldings Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:    August 14, 2003 |   | /S/ Brian W. Coderre                          |
|------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                     |   | Name: Brian W. Coderre                        |
|                                     |   | Title: Chief Financial  Officer and Treasurer |

 

 

 

----
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.

 March 29, 2016

a0321

Order 

Clerk

March 29, 2016

151402

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151402

COA: 324521

Wayne CC: 08-004732-FH

PHILLIP L. HOGANS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2015 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

reconsideration of the defendant’s November 7, 2014 delayed application for leave to 

appeal under the standard applicable to direct appeals. Counsel was timely requested and 

appointed on direct review, but waited until only two months remained before expiration 

of the time for seeking leave to appeal, MCR 7.205(F), before moving to withdraw for 

lack of appealable issues, without following the proper procedure under Anders v 

California, 386 US 738; 87 S Ct 1396; 18 L Ed 2d 493 (1967). Counsel was permitted to 

withdraw with approximately one month left in the direct review period. New counsel 

did raise issues on the defendant’s behalf; however, new counsel was not appointed until 

after the deadline. Accordingly, whether from ineffective assistance of counsel or delays 

in the trial court, the defendant was deprived of his direct appeal. See Roe v FloresOrtega, 528 US 470 477; 120 S Ct 1029; 145 L Ed 2d 985 (2000); Peguero v United 

States, 526 US 23, 28; 119 S Ct 961; 143 L Ed 2d 18 (1999).

We do not retain jurisdiction.
| **Exhibit 99.2** |
|------------------|

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

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

 

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofSanders Morris Harris Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended September 30, 2002 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rick Berry, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

2.     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

 
| /s/  RICK BERRY     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Rick Berry               |
| Chief  Financial Officer |

 

 

November 11, 2002

 

 

26

----
EXHIBIT 32
                           JACKSONVILLE BANCORP, INC.

                Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                       as Enacted Pursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to 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)  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:  August 8, 2006                      /s/Gilbert J. Pomar, III
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Gilbert J. Pomar, III
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  August 8, 2006                      /s/Valerie A. Kendall
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Valerie A. Kendall
                                           Executive Vice President
                                           and Chief Financial Officer
§ 401.700 Operating requirements for U.S. registered pilots. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76353 , Sept. 17, 2024.
Each U.S. registered pilot shall— ( a ) Provide pilotage service when dispatched by his pool; and
( b ) Comply with the dispatching orders of the Director under § 401.720 (b).
[CGD 74-233, 40 FR 41527, Sept. 8, 1975. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 32655, June 25, 1996, and further redesignated and amended by USCG-1998-3976, 63 FR 35139, 35140, June 29, 1998]
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NOS.  2-09-353-CR

	         2-09-354-CR

DANIEL LEE KNOD	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The trial court sentenced appellant in two separate cases on August 27, 2009 after appellant pled true to the State’s motions to revoke pursuant to plea bargains.  Appellant signed waivers of his right to appeal the convictions and sentences that same day.  The trial court’s certifications of appellant’s right to appeal state that appellant has waived the right to appeal in each case.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a).

	On October 16, 2009, we notified appellant of our concern that the trial court’s certifications did not show that he had a right of appeal because of the waivers; we informed appellant that the appeals were subject to dismissal unless he filed a response on or before October 26, 2009 showing grounds for continuing the appeals.  See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3.  Appellant has not filed a response.

	Because the trial court’s certifications show that appellant waived his right to appeal and because appellant has not shown grounds for continuing the appeals, we dismiss the appeals.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f); Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  November 19, 2009
# C_2014009EN.01001102.xml

| 11.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — Environmental Manufacturing LLP v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Société Elmar Wolf

(Case C-383/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Figurative mark representing a wolf’s head - Opposition by the proprietor of the national and international figurative marks containing the word elements ‘WOLF Jardin’ and ‘Outils WOLF’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) - Change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer - Burden of proof)

2014/C 9/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (represented by: M. Atkins, Solicitor, K. Shadbolt, Advocate, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Société Elmar Wolf

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 in Case T-570/10 Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the figurative mark representing a wolf’s head, in respect of goods in Class 7, against Decision R 425/2010-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), of 6 October 2010, annulling the decision of the Opposition Division dismissing the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national and international figurative marks containing the word elements ‘WOLF Jardin’ and ‘Outils WOLF’, in respect of goods in Classes 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 31 — Interpretation of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative grounds for refusal — Detriment to the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier mark

Environmental Manufacturing

OHIM — Wolf

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 22 May 2012 in Case T 570/10 Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head) [2012] ECR II 0000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 22 May 2012 in Case T 570/10 Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head) [2012] ECR II 0000;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

1

---