alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 0488 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM106AD

A300 -53 - 0321, R02 --- 12/23/04 A300 -53 - 6078, R02 --- 12/23/04 A310 -53 -2095, R02 --- 12/23/04

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** F ederal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60712-60713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29758]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act. Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 5, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Community First Banking Corporation, Carrollton, Georgia; to 
become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting 
shares of Carrollton Federal Bank, FSB,

[[Page 60713]]

Bowden, Georgia, following its conversion to a commercial bank.
    2. Compass Bancshares, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama; Compass Banks of 
Texas, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama; and Compass Bancorporation of Texas, 
Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; to merge with First University Corporation, 
Houston, Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire West University Bank, 
Houston, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 6, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-29758 Filed 11-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
|   | (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   August      5, 2009 | By:    | /s/      Jeffry E.      Sterba                                 |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                       |   | Jeffry      E. Sterba                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|                                       |   | Chairman      and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|                                       |   | PNM      Resources, Inc.                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|                                       |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |

----
256 La. 1156

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ralph A. FRALEY, Jr.

No. 51007.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 25, 1970.

In re: Ralph Fraley applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition and stay order.

Writs refused. The showing made is insufficient to warrant the relief sought.
•1111111111111 INZIR 4E1611 

State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

41, 

Gibbons 

Saitta 

J. 

J. 

J. 

cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge 

Washoe County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 02-553V

Filed: October 10, 2014

Not for Publication

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

LINDSEY CUNNINGHAM, a Minor, *

by her Parents and Natural Guardians, *

BOB CUNNINGHAM and LISA *

KAPLAN, *

*

 Petitioners, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision based on

 * stipulation of fact

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

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

Clifford J. Shoemaker, Vienna, VA, for petitioners.

Michael P. Milmoe, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On October 10, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.
2

Petitioners filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs on July 18, 2014. During 

informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain items in petitioners’ application. 

Based on these objections, petitioners amend their application for attorneys’ fees and costs to 

$37,561.16, consisting of $37,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs and $561.16 in petitioners’ costs. 

Respondent does not object to this amount. The undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. 

Accordingly, the court awards:

a. $37,000.00, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award 

shall be in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioners and Shoemaker, 

Gentry, and Knickelbein in the amount of $37,000.00; and

b. $561.16, representing reimbursement for petitioners’ costs. The award shall be in 

the form of a check payable to petitioners in the amount of $561.16.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
EXHIBIT 32.1

     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18
  U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
              SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
The undersigned, Michael G. Mitchell, the Chief Executive
Officer of Cognitronics Corporation (the "Company"), has
executed this certification in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2006  (the "Report").  The undersigned hereby certifies 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.

DATED this 14th day of November, 2006


						/s/ Michael G. Mitchell
						Michael G. Mitchell
						Chief Executive Officer


                                           A signed original of this
                                           written statement required by
                                           Section 906 has been provided
                                           to the Company and will be
                                           retained by the Company and
                                           furnished to the Securities and
                                           Exchange Commission or its
                                           staff upon request.
#### J. J. Phillips, Respondent, *vs.*James M. Franciscus, *et. al.,*Appellants.

1. *Trusts and trust funds*— Batik *deposits*— Consent *of*— cestui *que trust*— Trans*fer of certificates of deposit.*— A. owing B. money on collections, made a special deposit of that amount in a bank, subject to his own order which he intended for B. *Seld,*by the consent of B. to this action, the money became his, and after the indorsement of the certificate of deposit to-him, his title thereto became complete at law.

*Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.*

*Krum Sf Patrick,*for Appellants.

*Lee and Adams,*for Respondent.

*371Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Ira Stansberry, Sen., collected for plaintiff some bills of exchange, and after payment of certain amounts, out of the proceeds, there was left in his hands a balance of $388, to the credit of plaintiff. Stansberry took of his own money consisting of United States Treasury notes, the sum of $388, and put the same in an envelope, and had it sealed up with his name indorsed thereon, and made a special deposit of this package with the defendants, who were bankers, and who received this package on special deposit, and gave Stansberry a certificate of deposit, which specified that it was to be delivered to Stansberry or to his order on demand.

The said Stansberry indorsed the certificate, ordering the package to be delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded the package, and the defendants refused to deliver it to him, and he brought this action for the recovery of the same, or its value.

On the trial, Stansberry testified to the effect, that he made the special deposit as a trust fund for the plaintiff, and transferred it to him as, and for the balance of the money he had collected for him.

The defendants set up as a defense, that Stansberry after making this special deposit, and before the same was assigned to plaintiff, had made a general assignment of all his property for the benefit of his creditors, and that this package passed to the assignee, by virtue of the assignment. The assignment was read in evidence, and this package was not referred to in terms, or by implication. His stock of goods, &c., in a certain store was covered by the assignment, but not the package in question.

The facts of this 'case clearly indicated, that the plaintiff was the real owner of the package, and that the special deposit was made for him as a trust fund by Stansberry.

Affter giving his assent to this disposition of a debt that was due him, the money so deposited in trust became his property, and the transfer of the certificate of deposit to him, made his title complete at law.

*372The defendants had no right to detain this deposit. The only question in the case was, whether the plaintiff was the owner of the package, and all the instructions asked by the defendants raising other questions, were properly refused. I see no error in the records.

Let the judgment be affirmed,

Judge Wagner absent. The other Judges concur.
|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   November 2, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Patricia K. Collawn               |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                                         |   | Patricia K. Collawn                   |
|                                         |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                         |   | Texas-New Mexico Power Company        |

----
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 15815 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11

- cv - 02799

- TWT

SANDRA GRAY, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus THE CITY OF ROSWELL, et al., Defendants, PATRICK C. FERDARKO, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (May 7, 2014) Case: 13-15815 Date Filed: 05/07/2014 Page: 1 of 32 Before HULL, MARCUS , and WILSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Patrick C. Ferdarko, a City of Roswell, Georgia police officer, appeals from the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment

. P laintiff, Sandra Gray, move s to dismiss the appeal for lack o f jurisdiction. Gray’s claim arises from her arrest for criminal damage to the property of Gregory Pompelia, her tenant, during her attempt to remove him from her home without seeking a writ of dispossession. The district court’s summary judgment order denying qualified immunity to Ferdarko is immediately appealable as a collateral order because Ferdarko’s challenge is based in part on a question of law. In his brief, Ferdarko challenges the district court’s legal analysis of Georgia criminal t respass statutes , O.C.G.A. §
16

- 7

- 21 and § 16

- 7

- 23, to consider whether those statutes provide arguable probable cause to arr est Gray , and whether the district court used an improper standard to determine whether the law clearly proscribed the conduct complained

o f. Thus, Ferdarko’s appeal presents questions of law which are properly before this Court on interlocutory review. See Cottrell v. Caldwell , 85 F.3d 1480 , 148 5 (11th Cir. 1996). To the extent that the appeal also implicates the district court’s factual determinations, we may review and resolve such issues in connection with

Case: 13-15815 Date Filed: 05/07/2014 Page: 2 of 33 the immunity question. Id. at 1485

– 86. Therefore, we DENY the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jur isdiction. On review, we agree with the district court that the evidence Gray presents in support of her false arrest claim, when viewed in the light most favorable to her, suggests that there was no basis for believing that she committed a crime and that there was no probable cause , arguable or otherwise, to support her arrest. Therefore, the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to Ferdarko’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity was not in error. MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED. AFFIRMED and R EMANDED for
further proceedings.

Case: 13-15815 Date Filed: 05/07/2014 Page: 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7301
EDDIE JAMES SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ARNOLD SMITH; SHELLY SVEDA; OFFICER LONG; JEFFREY LEIN; CLATTY OFFICER; ANDRE TYSON; WILLIAM R. SHELL, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-97-453-5-H) Submitted: February 27, 1998 Decided: May 27, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie James Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his second 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) petition for failure to obtain authorization pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West Supp. 1997). Initially, this court dismissed the appeal as untimely. We now grant Appellant's petition for rehearing and address the case on the merits. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Smith , No. CA-97-453-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 11, 1997). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 136448 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 136448 COA: 275656 Wayne CC: 06-010957-01 GREGORY JOHN WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 25, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0721 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 29, 2008

Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.1

           CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
                 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 The undersigned, Brian J. Kelley, the Chief Executive Officer of
Cognitronics Corporation (the "Company"), has executed this
certification in connection with the filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies 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.


DATED this 5th day of August 2004.

/s/ Brian J. Kelley
-------------------
Brian J. Kelley

Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### Jerrell CASWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 0-421.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 20, 1971.

Jerrell Caswell, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction in a jury trial on charges of robbery.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs filed herein, and our consideration thereof requires a conclusion that no reversible error was committed in the proceedings below. Accordingly, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.