alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 35 (Thursday, February 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 7991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2970]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


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

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than March 8, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (David Tatum, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. William R. Blanton, Alpharetta, Georgia; to acquire voting 
shares of NBOG Bancorporation, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire 
voting shares of National Bank of Gainesville, both of Gainesville, 
Georgia.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Donna J. Ward, Assistant 
Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Pella Fingersh Hillcrest Stock Trust and Trust Number 2 for 
Julie Fingersh, Pella Fingersh, Naples, Florida, trustee; Julie 
Fingersh Hillcrest Stock Trust, Julie Fingersh, San Rafael, California, 
trustee; Paul Fingersh Hillcrest Stock Trust, Paul Fingersh, Kansas 
City, Missouri, trustee; and Jack N. Fingersh Family Trust and 
Indenture of Trust of Jack Fingersh, dated 8-21-92, Jack Fingersh, 
Naples, Florida, trustee; and JPJ Investments, and FT Partners, LP, 
both in Kansas City, Missouri, and controlled by Jack Fingersh; to 
retain control of Hillcrest Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly 
retain control of Hillcrest Bank, both in Overland Park, Kansas.
    C. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Harry Lynn Williams, Plano, Texas; to acquire additional voting 
shares of Snook Bancshares, Inc., Snook, Texas, and indirectly acquire 
additional voting shares of First Bank of Snook, Snook, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 16, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-2970 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<PAGE>
                                                                    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




The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of
American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. (the "Company"), that the Quarterly Report
of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company for
the period covered by the Report.




                                        By: /s/ Alan Goldstein
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Alan Goldstein
                                        Chief Financial Officer and
                                        Chief Accounting Officer

Date: August 13, 2002
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0878 GEB DAD P

vs.

C/O KISSINGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On January 26, 2009, plaintiff filed a second motion for summary judgment in this

action. On January 28, 2009, defendants moved to strike the motion as untimely. On February 9,

2009, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to strike.

Plaintiff is advised that this court’s March 3, 2008 scheduling order required that

all pretrial motions be filed on or before July 25, 2008. Accordingly, plaintiff’s second motion

for summary judgment is untimely and will be stricken.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ January 28, 2009 motion to strike plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment (Doc. No. 158) is granted; and

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 172 Filed 03/11/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

2. Plaintiff’s January 26, 2009 motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 154) is

stricken as untimely.

DATED: March 10, 2009.

DAD:9

davi0878.oot

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 172 Filed 03/11/09 Page 2 of 2
No. 58002.

protests 188399-K, etc. (Boston).

#### Francis Willey & Co., Division of Winslow Bros. *&*Smith Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for dufy purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content under T. D. 53159” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

D. DUSTIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0672 GEB JFM P

vs.

R. TOWNSEND, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed October 24, 2005, plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed and

thirty days leave to file a third amended complaint was granted. On January 30, 2006 plaintiff

was granted an additional thirty days to file a second amended complaint. That period has now

expired, and plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint or otherwise responded to the

court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Case 2:04-cv-00672-GEB -JFM Document 37 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 7, 2006.

/001; dust0672.fta2

Case 2:04-cv-00672-GEB -JFM Document 37 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1



                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 Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Saucony,  Inc. (the
"Company")  for the period ended January 2, 2004,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned John
H. Fisher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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  the
          operations of the Company.



Dated:  March 30, 2004                  /s/ John H. Fisher
                                        -----------------------------
                                        John H. Fisher
                                        Chief Executive Officer
No. 64118.

protests 182383-K, etc. (New York).

#### Electrolux Corporation *v.*United States,

*437Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of electrical floor polishers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Electrolux Corporation*(46 C.C.P.A. 143, C.A.D. 718), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . A P
- 7 6 , 9 3 2

E X P A R T E J O S E C A R L O S B E L M O N T , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . 2 0 0 8 C R 4 3 9 7 I N T H E 3 9 9 C R I M I N A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T T H F R O M B E X A R C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte
Y o u n g , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two co u n t s o f capital murder and sentenc ed to two life s en t en ces, running concur rently

. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that his conviction s violate the Double J eopar dy Clause of the US Constit ution. Applicant was indicted for killing two individuals during the same criminal episode. Under Section 19.03 of the Texas Penal Code, killing more than one person during the same criminaltransac tion is capital murder. This is one offe n s e o f capital murder under Tex. Penal Code Sec.

19.03 (a) (7)( A). Saenz v. State , 166 S.W .3d 270, 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Applicant is entitled to relief. Relief is g rante d. The judgme nt in count two of Cause No. 2008CR4397 in the 399 J udicial t h
District Court of Be x ar County is vacated and set aside. All challeng es to the judgme nt in count one

are denied. Applicant’s claims of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel and involuntary plea are denied. Copies of this o p in ion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional
I nstitut ions Division and Parole Division.

Deliver ed: Dec ember

19, 2012 Do Not Publish
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN B. JOHNSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0892 DFL DAD P

vs.

JIM HAMLET, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in this case with appointed counsel. The

matter came before the court on March 24, 2006, for hearing of petitioner’s motion for leave to

amend. Victor Haltom appeared for petitioner, and Judy Kaida appeared for respondents.

Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments in open court and the entire record,

and for the reasons stated during the hearing, the undersigned denied the motion with leave to file

a renewed motion.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s February 6, 2006 motion for leave to amend is denied without

prejudice;

2. On or before March 31, 2006, petitioner shall file and serve a renewed motion

for leave to amend, with a complete proposed amended petition attached to the motion as an

Case 2:04-cv-00892-MCE -DAD Document 44 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

exhibit; the motion shall be noticed for hearing before the undersigned on June 9, 2006, at 10:00

a.m. in Courtroom #27;

3. Respondents’ opposition or statement of non-opposition to petitioner’s

renewed motion shall be filed and served on or before May 19, 2006, and any reply shall be filed

and served by petitioner on or before June 2, 2006; if respondents’ opposition or statement of

non-opposition is filed prior to May 19, 2006, either party may contact Pete Buzo, courtroom

deputy to the undersigned, at (916) 930-4128 to request that the hearing date be advanced; 

4. Any party may appear at the hearing of petitioner’s renewed motion

telephonically upon making proper arrangements; to arrange telephonic appearance, a party shall

contact Pete Buzo at (916) 930-4128 no later than 48 hours prior to the hearing date.

DATED: March 24, 2006.

DAD:13

john0892.mtaden

Case 2:04-cv-00892-MCE -DAD Document 44 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Aim Smart Corporation (the Company) certify that: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:  May 15, 2008 By: /s/ Mingli Yao  Mingli Yao, Chief Executive Officer  By: /s/ Yuan Yao  Yuan Yao, Chief Financial Officer
II 

Calendar No. 242 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1584 

[Report No. 115–172] 

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to reauthorize the Judicial 

Conference of the United States to redact sensitive information contained 

in financial disclosure reports of judicial officers and employees, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 19, 2017 

Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mrs. MCCASKILL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

OCTOBER 16, 2017 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to reauthorize the Judicial Conference of the United States to 

redact sensitive information contained in financial disclosure reports of judicial officers and employees, and for 

other purposes. 

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


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1584 RS

1 SECTION 1. REDACTION AUTHORITY CONCERNING SEN2 SITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics 

4 in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended 

5 by striking subparagraph (E). 

6 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—Section 105(b)(1) 

7 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) 

8 is amended— 

9 (1) in the first sentence, by striking the second 

10 comma after ‘‘as the case may be’’; and 

11 (2) in the third sentence, by inserting a comma 

12 after ‘‘as the case may be’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS

dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 242 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1584 

[Report No. 115–172] 

A BILL 

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 

poses. cial officers and employees, and for other purcontained in financial disclosure reports of judiUnited States to redact sensitive information to reauthorize the Judicial Conference of the 

OCTOBER 16, 2017 

Reported without amendment 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
No. 54013.

#### McKesson & Robbins, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 136730-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 10.1


 


SECOND
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Second Amendment (the “Second Amendment”), dated July 10, 2008,
is to that certain Employment Agreement (the “Initial Agreement”), dated as of February 23,
2004, between Shuffle Master, Inc. (“the Company”) and Mark L. Yoseloff (“Employee”), as amended by the First Amendment
(the “First Amendment”), dated June 5, 2007, to the Initial Agreement.  All references to the “Agreement” shall mean
the Initial Agreement, the First Amendment and this Second Amendment.  All capitalized terms used in this Second
Amendment and not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as in
the Initial Agreement.


 


For
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Company and Employee hereby agree as follows:


 


1.         The date of “October 31,
2008”, which now appears in paragraph 1 of the First Amendment, is hereby
replaced with the date “October 31, 2009”. 
Thus, the term of the Agreement now expires on October 31, 2009,
unless otherwise terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of the
Agreement.


 


2.         Except as
expressly amended hereby, the Agreement, as amended hereby, remains and is hereby
confirmed and ratified by the parties as being and remaining in full force and
effect, according and subject to its terms, conditions and provisions, and no
other terms, conditions or provisions thereof are hereby modified, changed or
implied.


 


 


	
  EMPLOYER

  	
   

  	
  EMPLOYEE

  	
   

  
	
  SHUFFLE
  MASTER, INC.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
    /s/
  PAUL C. MEYER

  	
   

  	
    /s/
  MARK L. YOSELOFF

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
    Paul
  C. Meyer

  	
   

  	
    Mark
  L. Yoseloff

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
    President
  and Chief

    Operating Officer

  	
   

  	
    Chairman
  and Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  SHUFFLE MASTER, INC.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ JOHN R. BAILEY

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  John R. Bailey on behalf
  of Louis Castle for the Compensation Committee
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN LEE WILSON,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-0478-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On January 10, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The magistrate judge recommended that defendants’s summary judgment be

denied but that defendant be granted summary judgment sua sponte on an alternative ground

raised by the court. In particular, the magistrate judge recommended that defendant Bueno be

granted summary judgment sua sponte on grounds that plaintiff had presented no evidence that

Case 2:04-cv-00478-GEB-GGH Document 39 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

she acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The magistrate judge found

that plaintiff had presented no evidence that defendant Bueno knew that he was suffering from a

serious medical problem related to heat exposure.

In his objections, plaintiff states that he asked defendant Bueno more than ten

times to be taken in from the heat. Plaintiff also states that he told defendant Bueno that he had a

serious life threatening condition that was exacerbated by heat exposure.

Based on the information contained in plaintiff’s objections, the court finds that

defendant Bueno is not entitled to summary judgment sua sponte for the reasons stated in the

findings and recommendations. Whether defendant Bueno acted with deliberate indifference to

plaintiff’s serious medical needs is a disputed material fact.

The recommendation that defendant’s summary judgment motion be denied is

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

Lastly, Plaintiff has not shown he is entitled to an injunction.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 10, 2006, are adopted in part,

as stated above; 

2. Defendant’s October 7, 2005, summary judgment motion is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s October 5, 2005, motion for injunctive relief is denied.

Dated: September 12, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00478-GEB-GGH Document 39 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 2