alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34849-34850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15613]


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

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 August 7, 2018.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice 
President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#53111c007d0001107d1223233f3a3032273a3c3d207d103c3e3e363d272013313c207d3521317d3c2134"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d2f223e433e3f2e432c1d1d01040e0c190402031e432e0200000803191e2d0f021e430b1f0f43021f0a">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Dimitri J. Nionakis, Milton, Massachusetts; to acquire shares of 
Federal One Holdings, LLC, Milton, Massachusetts; and thereby 
indirectly acquire Admirals Bank, Boston, Massachusetts.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior 
Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can 
also be sent electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c586aaa8a8a0abb1b6eba4b5b5a9aca6a4b1acaaabb685b6b1a9b6eba3b7a7ebaab7a2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f4c6062626a617b7c216e7f7f63666c6e7b6660617c4f7c7b637c21697d6d21607d68">[email protected]</span></a>.
    1. Kenneth Edward Poteet, Huntleigh, Missouri; Corey Kenneth 
Poteet, Brentwood, Missouri; and McLane Ray Poteet, St. Louis, 
Missouri; as members of a family control group; to acquire voting 
shares of M1 Bancshares, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, and thereby 
indirectly

[[Page 34850]]

acquire shares of M1 Bank, Macks Creek, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 17, 2018.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-15613 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 D0 34 2

. J EAN J OCELYN MERI L I E N v

. W ENDY L. SHOOB, J U DGE et

a l

.

On M ay 1

, 2 0 1 7

, t he t ri al co u rt en t ered an o rd er d en y i n g p ri s o n er J ean J o cel y n

M eri l i en ’ s req u es t to p ro ceed i n fo rm a p au p eri s i n a p ro p o sed m an d am u s p et i t i o n

ag ai n s t J u d g e W en d y L. Sh o o b

. M eri l ien fi l ed a m o t i on fo r reco n si d erat io n , wh i ch

t h e t ri al co u rt d en ied

. O n Feb ru ary 2 0, 2 0 1 8

, M eri l i en fi l ed t h i s ap p l icat io n s eek i n g

d i s cret i o n ary

rev i ew o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n fo r reco n s i d erat i o n

.

To b e t i m el y , a d i s cret io n ary ap p l i cat i o n m u s t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f en t ry

o f t h e o rd er t o b e ap p eal ed

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ); Hi l l v. S t a t e , 2 0 4 Ga. Ap p. 5 8 2 (4 2 0

SE2 d 3 9 3 ) (1 9 9 2). T h i s st at u t o ry d ead l in e i s ju ri s d i ct i o n al

, an d we can n o t accep t an

ap p l i cat i o n fo r ap p eal n o t m ad e i n co m p l i an ce wi t h OCGA § 5-6 -3 4 (d ). Bo yl e v.

S t a t e , 19 0 G a. Ap p

. 7 3 4 (3 8 0 SE2 d 5 7 ) (1 9 89 ). Here, M eri l i en fi l ed h i s ap p l i cat i o n

n i n e m on t hs aft er en t ry of t h e o rd er d en y i n g fi l i n g o f t h e m an dam u s p et i t i o n.

Al t h o u g h M eri li en fi l e d a m o t i o n fo r reco n s i d erat i o n , t h e d en i al of a m o t i o n fo r

reco n s i d erat i on of an ap p eal ab l e ord er o r ju d g m en t i s n o t i t s el f ap p eal ab l e an d d o es

n o t ex t en d t h e t i m e fo r fi li n g a n o t i ce of ap p eal o r an ap pl i cat io n fo r ap p eal

. See

Ca mp b el l v. S t a t e , 1 9 2 Ga. Ap p

. 3 1 6 (3 8 5 SE2 d 1 4 ) (1 9 8 9 ); S a va g e v. News o me , 1 7 3

Ga. A p p. 2 71 (3 2 6 SE2 d 5 ) (1 9 8 5 ). Th us , t h i s ap p l i cat i o n is u nt i m el y as t o t h e o rd er March 16, 2018d en y i n g fi l i n g an d in val i d as to t h e o rd er d en y i n g reco n s i d erat i o n. Acco rd i n g l y , t h e

ap p li cat io n i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y th a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

.

2 03/16/2018
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 23, 2013

h1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2013

147562 & (15)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147562

COA: 310854

Huron CC: 10

- 004880

- FC

KEITH WALTER BULLARD,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add issue is GRANTED. T he application for

leave to appeal the April 26, 2013 o rder of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed

by this Court.
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 Pak Mail Centers of America, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending November 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, P.
Evan Lasky, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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

/s/ P. Evan Lasky
-----------------
P. Evan Lasky
Accounting Supervisor
March 18, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                            3393
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       10
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3638
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              139
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        3499
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3638
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   253
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   695
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (442)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (442)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (442)
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)
        

</TABLE>
#### Stephen Aloysius BATEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. GG — 284.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 16, 1978.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted for the offenses of burglary and grand larceny. Appellant *1272urges that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on flight, over his objection. Further, appellant contends reversal is required because of certain allegedly improper and prejudicial comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments.

We find no reversible error and thus affirm the judgment and sentence.

The facts presented at trial were sufficient to find the existence of flight and other circumstances indicating appellant’s guilt. Therefore, the flight may be considered as a circumstance of guilt under an appropriate instruction. *Proffitt v. State,*315 So.2d 461 (Fla.1975); *Martinez v. State,*346 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); *Palmer v. State,*323 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and cases cited therein. Such instruction is not improper as a judicial comment upon the evidence.

We have considered the comments by the prosecutor in his closing argument and do not find that they require reversal.

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  Robert R. Galvin,  Chief  Financial  Officer of NuCO2 Inc., a
Florida  corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby certify,  to his knowledge,
that:

The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal  quarter  ended  September 30,
2005 of the Company (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/ Robert R. Galvin
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                 Robert R. Galvin
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 November 9, 2005
```
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392]
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 22, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 22, 2018.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R. In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 5, 2018, Fisher Clinical Services, 700A-C Nestle Way, Breinigsville, PA 18031-1522 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class of controlled substance: Controlled substance
Drug code
SchedulePsilocybin
7437
I
 The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for clinical trials. Dated: July 12, 2018. John J. Martin, Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2018-15667 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6055

RONALD DE’RAY SKIPPER,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:14-cv-04061-TLW)

Submitted: April 18, 2016 Decided: April 29, 2016

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald De’Ray Skipper, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Ronald De’Ray Skipper seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Skipper has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
4

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350),
the undersigned, Michael E. DeDomenico, Chief Executive Officer of NuCO2 Inc., a
Florida  corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby certify,  to his knowledge,
that:

The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal  quarter  ended  September 30,
2004 of the Company (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/ Michael E. DeDomenico
                                                  -------------------------
                                                  Michael E. DeDomenico
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  November 9, 2004
```
#### Frank POTTER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-39.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 15, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
To whom it may concern,

I Michael O’Connor would like and exemption for the ability to use and fly small unmanned aircraft 

(commonly referred to as a drone but specifically a DJI Phantom quadcopter) for the sole purpose of 

video production. I will follow all FAA guidelines and rules to include current statutes and/or any 

updated new rulings. 

I am a reasonable and responsible operator and do not exceed height or distance limits. I also am very 

considerate and cautious of the general public as not to endanger anyone. 

The use would include real estate listings, weddings, graduations, and contracted need.

My utmost concern has been and will always be public safety.

I do not anticipate a large presents in the industry as this is just a part time endeavor.

Cordially, 

Michael J O’Connor

michaelnstaci@gmail.com

505-401-6307
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM THE SEPTEMBER 30,
1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EAGLE CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL,LTD. AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                   0000947431
<NAME>                                  Eagle Capital International, Ltd.


<S>                              <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                 221,100
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                0
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       221,100
<PP&E>                                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       5,664,314
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  432,921
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                              2,533
<COMMON>                                 2,642
<OTHER-SE>                           5,231,393
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         5,664,314
<SALES>                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             0
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        93,864
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              0
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                           (93,864)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (.01)



</TABLE>
#### Roosevelt HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-210.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 29, 1971.

Roosevelt Hayes, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the orders of the lower court are affirmed. Sec Hayes v. State, 212 So.2d 400 (Fla.App. 1968).

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
#### Leo DRISCOLL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-953.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 15, 1972.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Sutton v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1967, 202 So.2d 589.

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.