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

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32121-32122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14846]

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

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

[[Page 32122]]

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 26, 2018.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Robert Claypool, Maysville, Missouri, and Mary Claypool, Pella, 
Iowa; to acquire voting shares of Fairport Bancshares, Inc., Maysville, 
Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire The Bank of Fairport, 
Maysville, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 6, 2018.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-14846 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
```
Exhibit
23.1








Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-64149, 33-61587, 33-61589, 333-147170 and 333-147171 and 333-48507 on Form
S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-18023 on Form S-3 of Habersham Bancorp of
our report, dated March 6, 2007 appearing in this Amendment to No.1 to the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Habersham Bancorp for the year ended December 31,
2006.








\s\Porter
Keadle Moore, LLP





Atlanta,
Georgia


March 6,
2008
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

Nos. 99-20454 & 99-20563

Conference Calendar

 

PHILLIP CHARLES MELONCON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JEROME GODINICH, JR.,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CV-2755

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

February 16, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Phillip Charles Meloncon (#702760), a state prisoner, filed

a civil rights action alleging that his appointed attorney,

Jerome Godinich, Jr., had conspired with the prosecutor to secure

the conviction for which he is incarcerated by advising him to

waive his right to grand jury indictment and to consent to the

filing of a felony information. The district court did not err

in dismissing the complaint as frivolous under the rule in Heck 
O R D E R

Nos. 99-20454 & 99-20563

- 2 -

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Because these appeals are

frivolous, they are DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Meloncon’s pending motions are DENIED.

The dismissal of these appeals as frivolous counts as two

strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because of the

strike for the district court’s dismissal of the underlying

judgment as frivolous, see Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387

(5th Cir. 1996), Meloncon has accumulated three strikes in this

case alone. Meloncon has at least one other strike related to

his prior civil rights case. See Meloncon v. Nuchia, No. 97-

20659 (5th Cir. July 7, 1998). Because Meloncon has accumulated

at least four strikes, he is BARRED from proceeding in forma

pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

Jerome Godinich, Jr.’s motion for an award of attorney’s

fees and costs is DENIED. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.
# C_2023216EN.01000801.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 — European Central Bank v Crédit lyonnais

(Case C-389/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - Exposure measure - Article 429(14) - Exclusion of exposures meeting certain conditions - Partial refusal of authorisation - Discretion of the European Central Bank (ECB) - Action for annulment - Manifest error of assessment - Judicial review)

(2023/C 216/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Bonnard, M. Ioannidis, R. Ugena and C. Zilioli, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Crédit lyonnais (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, avocates)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 April 2021, Crédit lyonnais v ECB (T-504/19, EU:T:2021:185), in so far as it upholds the first part of the third plea in law and, in part, the third part of the first plea in law relied on at first instance and annuls Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-39 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 3 May 2019, in so far as that decision refused to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio of Crédit lyonnais 34 % of its exposures on the Caisse des dépôts et consignations; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 April 2021, Crédit lyonnais v ECB (T-504/19, EU:T:2021:185), in so far as it upholds the first part of the third plea in law and, in part, the third part of the first plea in law relied on at first instance and annuls Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-39 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 3 May 2019, in so far as that decision refused to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio of Crédit lyonnais 34 % of its exposures on the Caisse des dépôts et consignations;

| 2. | Dismisses the action brought in Case T-504/19 by Crédit lyonnais at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action brought in Case T-504/19 by Crédit lyonnais at first instance;

| 3. | Orders Crédit lyonnais to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Crédit lyonnais to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 23

- 1002

___________________________ In re: Bryan S. Reichel, as surety for Rudy, Inc., as surety for Pure Choice, Inc., formerly doing business as America’s Team Properties

lllllllllllllllllllll Debtor

------------------------------
Bryan S. Reichel

lllllllllllllllllllll Appellant

v.

Mary Jo Anne Jensen

- Carter, U.S. Trustee

lllllllllllllllllllll Appell ee

____________ Appeal from United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit

____________

Submitted: June 12, 2023 Filed: June 23, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and STRAS , Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.-2- Bryan Reichel accuses the former United States Trustee of improperly seizing assets and allowing fraudulent claims in his now

- closed bankruptcy case

. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court ’s 1 denial of various
motions and its decision not to reopen the case. Having carefully reviewed the record and the arguments on appeal, we affirm the judgmen t. 2 See, e.g. , 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A) (providing that a “right to payment” need not be “reduced to judgment” or “undisputed” to count as a “claim”); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(c)(2)(D)(ii) (authorizing the bankruptcy court to determine “appropriate relief” when a proof of claim lacks supporting information).

______________________________

1 The Honorable Katherine A. Constantine, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota.

2 We also deny the pending motion for oral argument.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40002 Summary Calendar

HENRY CHEATHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

C.G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas (G-97-CV-171)

June 9, 1998
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Henry Cheatham, a Texas state prisoner, appeals t he dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, contending that the defendants instituted a false

disciplinary proceeding against him and tha t the proceeding was retaliatory in

nature. The district court dismissed the retaliation claim, invoking 28 U.S.C.1 117 S.Ct. 1584 (1997).

2 Allison v. Kyle , 66 F.3d 71 (5th Cir. 1995).

3 Bickford v. International Speedway Corp.

, 654 F.2d 10 28 (5th Cir. 1981) (judgment may be affirmed on alternative grounds).

2 § 1915(e)(2). Our review of the record and Cheatham’s brief persuades that we

should affirm for essentially the reasons adopted by the district court in its order of

November 28, 1997, accepting the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate

judge signed on November 13, 1997.

The district court dismissed Cheatham’s unjust disci plinary hearing claim for

fai lure to comply with E dwards v. Balisok

. 1 Civil rights relief may not be had

absent the allegation by the plaintiff that he has been deprived of a constitutional

rig ht. 2 The district court’s dismissal of Cheatham’s unjust disciplinary hearing

claim pursuant to Edwards implies tha t Cheatham alleged an underlying

constitutional violation. Cheatham failed to do so and that reliance, therefore, was

in error. Notwithstanding, on the alternative basis that Cheatham failed to allege

an underlying constitutional violation in the disciplinary proceeding, we must

affirm. 3

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
#### DICKENS *v.*DETROIT ESTATES CORPORATION.

Cancellation op Instruments — Equity—Relief—Mortgage Bonds.

Bondholder whose bonds on apartment house have been called and he offered all relief to which he is entitled under his contract on purchasing said bonds, is not entitled to maintain suit to set aside transactions involving exchange of bonds for stock in company taking over building, and execution of mortgages by latter which made possible completion of said building.

Appeal from Wayne; McMahon (Maurice H.), J.

Submitted October 7, 1931.

(Docket No. 25, Calendar No. 34,979.)

Decided December 8, 1931.

Bill by Lewis M. Dickens individually and as representing others against Detroit Estates Corporation and others to set aside certain conveyances and for other relief. Bill dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Walter M. Nelson,*for plaintiff.

*Sempliner, Dewey, Stanton & Bushnell,*for defendants Milton Strauss Corporation, Empire Construction Company, C. M. H. Holding Corporation, and Milton Strauss.

*Bulkley, Ledyard, Dickinson & Wright,*for defendant Union Guardian Trust Company.

*Warren, Hill & Hamblen,*for defendant National Bank of Commerce of Detroit.

*Yerkes, Goddard, McClintock & Shreve,*for defendants Fidelity Bank & Trust Company and Andrew C. Sisman Company.

*128Fead, J.

This is a companion case to *Pittelkow Heating & Engineering Co.*v. *Detroit Estates Corporation, ante,*116, and *Hall*v. *Detroit Estates Corporation, ante,*121, in which the essential facts are stated. The relief here sought by plaintiff is, in general, the setting aside of the present situation and the reinstatement of the former condition, including revival of the original trust mortgage, that the Sisman stockholders be declared bondholders, and defendants be required to pay the money and do the acts necessary to reproduce the situation contemplated and represented at the time plaintiff became a bondholder. The bill recites the call of his bonds, and, as he is thereby offered all the relief to which he is entitled, and the relief is in accordance with his contract on purchasing the bonds, he has not alleged a cause for further remedy.

Decree dismissing bill is affirmed, with costs.

Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, and North, JJ., concurred. Butzel, C. J., did not sit.
[No. 1130-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

April 10, 1972.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Russell L. Bradley, *Appellant.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6046

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KENNETH WAYNE MCLEOD, a/k/a Killer,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-98-306, CA-00-1215-1)

Submitted: May 21, 2002 Decided: June 10, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Wayne McLeod, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Wayne McLeod seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. McLeod, Nos. CR-98-306; CA00-1215-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 29, 2001). We dispense with oral 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
#### C. H. McWILLIAMS, as Curator of the Estate of Dmatro Ciupalo a/k/a Mike Ciupalo, Deceased, Appellant, v. Peter J. MARKO and Mary Nell Marko, Appellees.

No. 73-862.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 10, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
AUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         443,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,977,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 14,703,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,710,000
<PP&E>                                      16,759,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,101,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,449,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,058,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,072,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,449,000
<SALES>                                     40,372,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,372,000
<CGS>                                       30,569,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,411,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             750,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,211,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,271,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,271,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

This certification is providedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies theannual report on Form 10-K (the “Form 10-K”) for the year ended December 31,2003 of American Insured Mortgage Investors – Series 85, L.P. (the “Issuer”).

 

I, Barry S. Blattman, Chairmanof the Board and Chief Executive Officer, certify that to the best of myknowledge:

 

(i)                                     the Form 10-Kfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

(ii)                                  the informationcontained in the Form 10-K fairly represents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

 

|            |   | AMERICAN  INSURED MORTGAGE   |
|-----------------|--------|------------------------------|
|            |   | INVESTORS -  SERIES 85, L.P. |
|            |   | (Registrant)                 |
|            |   |                         |
|            |   | By:                          | CRIIMI, Inc. |
|            |   |                         | General  Partner |
|            |   |                         |   |
|            |   |                         |   |
| March 19,  2004 |   | /s/ Barry S.  Blattman       |   |
| Date            |   | Barry S.  Blattman           |
|            |   | Chairman of  the Board and   |
|            |   | Chief  Executive Officer     |
|                 |        |                              |  |  |  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the GeneralPartner and will be retained by the General Partner and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### SNEAD *v.*STATE

[No. *97,*

September Term, 1961.]

*Decided December 7, 1961.*

The cause was argued before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott and SybErt, JJ.

*Morris Dee Kaplan,*with whom were *Nathan Stern*and *Frank J. McCourt*on the brief, for appellant.

*Robert F. Sweeney, Assistant Attorney General,*with whom were *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Saul A. Harris*and *Dene D. Busby, State’s Attorney*and *Assistant State’s Attorney,*respectively, of Baltimore City, on the brief, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appellant was indicted for assault with intent to murder one Doris Dixon, with whom he was living, and his illegitimate son, Reginald. He was tried by the court without a jury, found guilty generally, and given concurrent sentences of five years on each indictment. This appeal challenges the *181convictions on the grounds that they are against the evidence and that the sentences are cruel and unusual. There is no merit in either contention.

According to Miss Dixon, Snead came home rather drunk. He lived with his consort and eight children, six of whom were his own. He ate his supper and later got into an argument over a pair of pants she was supposed to have redeemed for him from a pawnshop. He twisted her arm and then declared that he would shoot her. He sent the oldest boy upstairs for his single-barrelled shotgun, then sent him back for a shell loaded with buckshot. He made the children kiss her good-bye as she sat on the sofa, pointed and fired the gun. She was painfully injured in the body and limbs. One of the children was also wounded.

Snead admitted sending the boy for the gun and “messing with” it. He testified that he did not intend to shoot or injure her. But the evidence supports a finding of intent. Cf. *Beall v. State,*203 Md. 380. The verdict was not clearly erroneous under Rule 741 c, nor were the sentences cruel or unusual under the circumstances. Cf. *Heath v. State,*198 Md. 455, and *Webb v. State,*201 Md. 158, 163.

*Judgments affirmed.*
SERVED JANUARY 26,2010 


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


OFFICE OF HEARINGS 


WASHINGTON, DC 


IN THE MAITER OF 

MESA AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP09ALOOll 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0972 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 

This matter currently is scheduled to be heard on January 29,2010. Complainant 

Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") on January 26,2010, filed a Motion 

for Continuance (,'Motion"). Respondent Mesa Airlines, Inc. ("Respondent") petitioned 

for bankruptcy on January 5,2010, the Motion recites, and the parties, who are in the 

process of settling the case, need to obtain the approval of the bankruptcy trustee for a 

valid settlement. In these unusual circumstances, the Motion continues, a continuance 

would be in the best interests of both parties. Respondent does not oppose the Motion. 

For good cause shown, Complainant's Motion is hereby GRANTED. 

The hearing in this matter is hereby continued; it will be rescheduled by 

subsequent order. f2:LJ) C, C~~ 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09ALOOll 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration· 


800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 


Washington, DC 20591 


Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 


Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

ONE COpy 

Christopher Pappaioanou, Respondent's Counsel 

Director, Legal Affairs 

Mesa Air Group, Respondent 

410 N. 44th Street, Suite 100 

Phoenix, AZ 85008 

TEL: 602-685-4000 

Laura E. Jennings, Complainant's Counsel 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office ofthe Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington,DC 20591 . 

TEL: 202-267-3452 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor: 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant: 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

I Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal . 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WlOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.