alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31390-31391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14431]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than July 19, 2018.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Tyler J. Bachman, Shawnee, Kansas; to acquire voting shares of 
First Centralia Bancshares, Inc., and to become a member of the Bachman 
family group which controls First Centralia Bancshares, Inc., and 
thereby indirectly controls First Heritage Bank, both in Centralia, 
Kansas.


[[Page 31391]]


    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 29, 2018.
Yao-Chin Chao,
Assistant Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-14431 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
#### Fortuna INTERIAN, Appellant, v. Edna M. PATTERSON, Appellee.

No. 71-1064.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 11, 1972.

A. N. Spence, Miami, for appellant.

Matthew M. Slepin, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ., and NATHAN, RAYMOND G., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Amott v. Ney, Fla.App. 1966, 189 So.2d 379; cf. Quest v. Barge, Fla.1949, 41 So.2d 158.
# C_2021382EN.01003701.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/37

---

Order of the General Court of 13 July 2021– PZ v Commission.

(Case T-49/21) (1)

(2021/C 382/50)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JULY 2, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-03-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-02-1997
<CASH>                                          58,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,200)
<INVENTORY>                                    208,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               367,100
<PP&E>                                       1,301,800
<DEPRECIATION>                               (219,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,694,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          270,300
<BONDS>                                        838,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           99,200
<PREFERRED>                                     54,900
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                     293,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,694,900
<SALES>                                      1,009,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,009,300
<CGS>                                          819,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  920,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              77,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.43)
        


</TABLE>
#### M. E. NORMAN, d/b/a Import Motors, Appellant, v. Paul A. MULLIN and Lena Mae Mullin, Appellees.

No. 70-543.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 23, 1971.

*734John T. Allen, Jr. and Harrison, Greene, Mann, Davenport, Rowe & Stanton, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Edward D. Carlson, Jr. and Tanney & Forde, Clearwater, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In this negligence action plaintiff-appel-lees were awarded a judgment against appellant which included *future*loss of wages, earning capacity and medical and hospitalization expenses. Although requested, the trial judge failed to charge the jury on their duty to reduce such future damages to present value.1 This was reversible error.2

As to liability, no meritorious question is raised that the jury verdict was improper, and the verdict thereto appertaining is amply supported by the evidence. The new trial awarded herein should therefore be only as to damages, and the judgment is affirmed as to liability. All other points raised on appeal, including the one on cross-appeal, are without merit or are rendered moot.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed as to liability but reversed, and a new trial awarded, as to damages alone.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.

1

*. Instruction 6.10,*Florida Standard Jury Instructions.

2

. See, e. g., Dupuis v. Heider (1934), 113 Fla. 079, 152 So. 659; Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Young (1932), 104 Fla. 541, 140 So. 407; and Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Lassiter (1909), 58 Fla. 234, 50 So. 428.
# C_2022138EN.01001502.xml

| 28.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 December 2021 — Vinal AD v Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

(Case C-820/21)

(2022/C 138/17)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vinal AD

Defendant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Questions referred

How is Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/118/ЕC (1) to be interpreted in so far as it provides that authorisation to open and operate a tax warehouse is subject to conditions that the authorities are entitled to lay down for the purpose of preventing any possible evasion or abuse; what content must those conditions have in order to achieve the objectives of preventing evasion or abuse?

How is the principle of non-discrimination for the purposes of recital 10 of Directive 2008/118/ЕC to be interpreted?

How are those provisions to be interpreted, and are they to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that in Article 53(1)(3) of the ZADS, in conjunction with Article 47(1)(5) thereof, in so far as the latter provisions provide for the unconditional withdrawal of authorisation for the future, which takes place indefinitely and without any restriction as to time, in addition to a penalty already imposed for the same act?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).

---
Exhibit 31.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I,
James A. Simms, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No.1, of Vicor Corporation;
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: June 3, 2014



/s/ James A. SimmsJames A. SimmsVice President, Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1019 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1019

     To require prior notification of the Congress of anticipated 
   commitments of United States funds to United Nations peacekeeping 
           activities in excess of available appropriations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 25 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

 Mr. Pressler introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require prior notification of the Congress of anticipated 
   commitments of United States funds to United Nations peacekeeping 
           activities in excess of available appropriations.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the United States 
Permanent Representative to the United Nations shall, wherever 
practicable, notify the Congress in advance of any meeting of the 
United Nations Security Council held to decide whether to call upon the 
member countries of the United Nations to participate in international 
peacekeeping activities, if participation by the United States in such 
activities would require an obligation of funds in excess of amounts 
made available to the United Nations for that fiscal year.

                                 <all>
```
TRAVEL;^ LEADERS 

SI 0-100129-009 

The Honorable Ray li. LaMood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Open Skies between the United States and Japan 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

1 want to commend the U.S. and Japan on reaching an Open Skies Agreement. If fully 

implemented, we anticipate that this historic agreement would increase competition, enhance 

choice for consumers, and potentially lead to more service for communities in both the U.S. and 

Japan. 

Likewise, we are also supportive of airline antitrust immunity applications envisioned under the 

Open Skies Agreement, provided that the applications ultimately filed and approved ensure 

healthy and robust competition between the competing carriers and their respective alliances. In 

particular, we would be especially supportive of an .American Airlines and Japan Airlines 

antitrust immunity application because it represents the best opportunity to ensure healthy 

competition and long-temi growth in the U.S.-Japan marketplace. 

Today, three alliances compete with essentially equivalent market shares. This competitive 

balance should be maintained if the benefits envisioned under the Open Skies Agreement are to 

be fully and ultimately realized. 

In conclusion, we strongly urge you to ensure that this long-awaited and eagerly anticipated 

agreement is actually consummated and the consumer benefits ultimately realized. 

Warwick Garner 

Vice President of Operations 

Travel Leaders 

Memphis, TN 

4f>2 Perkins E.xK-nded JJCT* , .10^ USA Drhv, Suite 408 

Memphis. Tc-niH-ssi-e 38117 ^ !5V^!!! Nasliville. rfniie.ssco 37217 

(i)01) 7B1-17{IS . (800) rt2-1.657<) • Fax (901) 76\--\4i,H ^J^S^;^' (fU:^) :{(5f)-1822 • (800) 825-3247 • Fax (615) m-m 2
First Department;

March, 1997

(March 4, 1997)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aaron Williams, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 343]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman,' J.), rendered November 17, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence to .establish that the defendant used force in an effort to prevent or to overcome one complainant’s resistance to defendant’s retention of the stolen property and that defendant caused physical injury *(People v Thomas,*226 AD2d 120, *lv denied*88 NY2d 887). We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations concerning the manner in which the complainant was injured.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.
#### BENJAMIN GROVES *vs.*CHARLES HICKMAN.

A constable’s return of “served by copy” is not sufficient.

Certiorari. This was a judgment by default. The constable returns, “Feb. 17th, 1829, served by copy. H. Bruner.”

The court reversed the judgment on the ground, that this return did not specify whether the service was on the deft, personally or by leaving a copy at his house.

Judgment reversed.
# C_2022138EN.01001501.xml

| 28.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland zittingsplaats Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 21 December 2021 — Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

(Case C-809/21)

(2022/C 138/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland zittingsplaats Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy

Respondent: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

Question referred

Is there an infringement of EU law — which is a condition for entitlement to interest under EU law as developed by the Court of Justice — where a Member State authority, on the basis of a post-importation control of a customs declaration submitted after 1 May 2016, imposes a duty in breach of legally valid provisions of EU law and a Member State court makes a finding of that infringement of EU law?

---
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                           Three months ended
                                                                                                March 31,
                                                                                    ----------------------------------
                                                                                          1999             1998
                                                                                    ----------------- ----------------
<S>                                                                                 <C>               <C>
Numerator:

   Numerator for basic and diluted income (loss) per share - net income (loss)         $ (1,369,196)      $1,157,504
                                                                                    ----------------- ----------------

Denominator:
   Denominator for basic income (loss) per share - weighted average 
     common shares                                                                       12,328,754       12,682,012

   Effect of dilutive securities:
     Stock options, net                                                                       --              326,682
                                                                                    ----------------- ----------------

   Denominator for diluted income (loss) per share                                       12,328,754       13,008,694
                                                                                    ----------------- ----------------

Basic income (loss) per share                                                             $   (0.11)        $   0.09
                                                                                    ----------------- ----------------
                                                                                    ----------------- ----------------

Diluted income (loss) per share                                                           $   (0.11)        $   0.09
                                                                                    ----------------- ----------------
                                                                                    ----------------- ----------------
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1174 Referred in House (RFH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1174

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 1993

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                For the relief of Olga D. Zhondetskaya.

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

SECTION 1. GRANT OF NATURALIZATION TO OLGA D. ZHONDETSKAYA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Olga 
D. Zhondetskaya shall be naturalized as a citizen of the United States 
upon the filing of the appropriate application and upon being 
administered the oath of renunciation and allegiance in an appropriate 
ceremony pursuant to section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act.
    (b) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) 
shall apply only if the application for naturalization is filed with 
appropriate fees within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

            Passed the Senate July 15 (legislative day, June 30), 1993.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
```
# C_2022463EN.01003601.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Copal Tree Brands v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (COPAL TREE)

(Case T-572/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark COPAL TREE - Earlier national figurative mark COMPAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Copal Tree Brands, Inc. (Oakland, California, United States) (represented by: B. Niemann Fadani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: A. de Sampaio, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 July 2021 (Case R 1580/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Copal Tree Brands, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Copal Tree Brands, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---
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 Annual  Report of Sierra Health  Services,  Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Paul H.
Palmer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Paul H. Palmer
Paul H. Palmer
March 24, 2003

---
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EL18-182-000]

                    On July 2, 2018, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL18-182-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether ISO New England Inc.'s Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff is unjust and unreasonable.                     *ISO New England Inc.,*                     164 FERC ¶ 61,003 (2018).                

                    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL18-182-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

                    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL18-182-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR                           ( print page 32107)                        385.214, within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.                

Dated: July 2, 2018.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-14773 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P