alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 44272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18833]


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

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 September 18, 2018.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior 
Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Karl E. Hill and the Hill S-Corporation Family Exempt Trust, 
both of Columbus, Texas; to retain shares of Columbus Bancorp, Inc., 
and thereby retain shares of The First State Bank, both located in 
Columbus, Texas. In addition, Notificants have applied to join the Hill 
Group, as a group acting in concert, to own shares of Columbus Bancorp, 
Inc.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 27, 
2018.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-18833 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
#### Carol Ann JACOBS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Woodrow Bernard Jacobs, Appellant, v. SIMS CRANE SERVICE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-348.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 13, 1973.

Rehearings Denied May 14, 1973.

W. Ford Duane, of Robertson, Williams & Duane, P. A., Orlando, for appellant.

John W. Bussey, III, of Sands, Smal-bein, Eubank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Miami Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Kindt, Fla.1950, 48 So.2d 840; Rainbow Poultry Co. v. Ritter Rental System, Inc., Fla.1962, 140 So.2d 101; Smith v. Poston Equipment Rentals, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 578; Michaels v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 427; Carter v. Sims Crane Service, Inc., Fla.1967, 198 So.2d 25; Kolarik v. Rodgers Bros. Service, Inc., Second District Court of Appeal, 268 So.2d 187, opinion filed November 1, 1972; McCollum v. Smith, 9 Cir. 1964, 339 F.2d 348; New York Central R. Co. v. Northern Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 1966, 140 Ind.App. 79, 221 N.E.2d 442; Nyman v. MacRae Brothers Construction Co., 1966, 69 Wash.2d 285, 418 P.2d 253.

REED, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 20, 2018

No. 04-16-00589-CR

Anthony George NELSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR2179

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant has filed a motion to vacate, challenging, again, his conviction. However, our 

opinion and judgment in this appeal issued on June 11, 2017. A motion for rehearing was 

therefore due fifteen days later, and a motion for extension of time to file the motion for 

rehearing was due within fifteen days of the deadline for filing the motion for rehearing. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1, 49.8. Because no timely motion for rehearing was filed, our plenary power 

to change or modify our opinion and judgment expired sixty days after we issued our opinion 

and judgment. See id. R. 19.1(a), 19.3. The motion for rehearing was not filed until June 14, 

2018. We lack jurisdiction to consider the motion for rehearing. Accordingly, the motion for 

rehearing is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Sanchez v. State, 376 S.W.3d 767, 769 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2012) (op. on reh’g) (dismissing out of time motion for rehearing for want of 

jurisdiction).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of June, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3848

To suspend until January 1, 1996, the duty on certain machinery.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 10, 1994

Mr. COBLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend until January 1, 1996, the duty on certain

machinery.

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

3 SECTION 1. DUTY SUSPENSIONS ON CERTAIN MACHINERY.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new headings:

‘‘ 9902.84.52 Roto textile spinning machinery

(provided for in

subheading

8445.20.00) .......... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/95

9902.84.53 Rotary screen print

machinery (provided for in subheading

8443.50.00) .......... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/95
2

•HR 3848 IH

9902.84.54 Airjet weaving machines for weaving

fabrics of a width

exceeding 30 cm

(provided for in

subheading

8446.30.00) .......... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/95

9902.84.55 Projectile looms for

weaving fabrics of

a width exceeding

30 cm (provided

for in subheading

8446.30.00) .......... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/95 ’’.

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by section

3 1 applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from

4 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

5 the date of the enactment of this Act.

6 (b) RETROACTIVE PROVISION.—Notwithstanding sec7 tion 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision

8 of law to the contrary, upon a request filed with the appro9 priate customs officer within 195 days after the date of

10 the enactment of this Act, any entry or withdrawal from

11 warehouse for consumption of goods to which the amend12 ment made by section 1 applies—

13 (1) that was made after December 31, 1992,

14 and before the 15th day after the date of the enact15 ment of this Act; and

16 (2) with respect to which there would have been

17 a lower duty if the amendment made by section 1

18 had applied to such entry or withdrawal;

19 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry

20 or withdrawal had occurred on such 15th day.
3

•HR 3848 IH

Æ
# C_2015246EN.01000302.xml

| 28.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/3

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2015/C 246/04)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 1.1.2015 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 1.1-31.12.2015 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Stock or Group of stocks | BSF/8910 |
| Species | Black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo) |
| Zone | EU and international waters of VIII, IX and X |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 08/DSS |

Date and time of closure

1.1.2015

Duration

1.1-31.12.2015

Member State

Spain

Stock or Group of stocks

BSF/8910

Species

Black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo)

Aphanopus carbo

Zone

EU and international waters of VIII, IX and X

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

08/DSS

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
FY13 Form 10-K Exhibit 10.11




Exhibit 10.11


SECOND AMENDMENT TO
BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED 
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION DEFERRAL PLAN
(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009)
THIS AMENDMENT by Baker Hughes Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Company previously established the Baker Hughes Incorporated Director Compensation Deferral Plan (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, effective January 1, 2012, paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 7.2 of the Plan are hereby amended to provide as follows:
“(a)  Exercise Periods for Stock Options. Each Stock Option shall vest and become exercisable on the earlier of (1) the first anniversary of the date of grant of the Stock Option or (2) the date on which the Director’s directorship terminates. Each Stock Option shall be exercisable from time to time, in whole or in part, at any time during the period that commences on (a) the earlier of (1) the first anniversary of the date of grant of the Stock Option or (2) the date on which the Director’s directorship terminates and ends on (b)(1)  the date that is ten years after the date of grant (the “Option Expiration Date”) or (2) the end of the Stock Option exercise period specified in clause (b) of this Section 7.2, as applicable. 
(b) Exercise Periods in the Event of Directorship Termination.  A Director’s directorship shall terminate at the close of business on the day preceding the day he or she ceases to be a member of the Board for any reason whatsoever. When a Director’s directorship is terminated, each of his or her Stock Options and all rights thereunder shall expire on the earlier of (1) the date that is five years after the Director’s directorship terminates for any reason or (2) the Option Expiration Date.  Any Stock Options unexercised at the time of the Director’s death (including the Director’s death which results in termination of his or her directorship) may be exercised by the Director’s estate or by the Person or Persons who acquire the right to exercise his or her Stock Option by bequest or inheritance.”






Adopted by the Governance Committee of the Board of Directors on July 25, 2013
EXHIBIT 31.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Wayne Allyn Root, certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this annual report of GWIN, Inc.;

     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;

     3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

         (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

         (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and

         (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business
issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small
business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

          (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

          (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 1, 2004

/s/ Wayne Allyn Root
Wayne Allyn Root
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

     These consolidated wholly owned subsidiaries of the registrant carry on the
same line of business and operate in the United States.


                                                 STATE OF INCORPORATION OR
                                                        ORGANIZATION
                                                        ------------

Atlantic-Alabama (1) Incorporated                         Maryland
Atlantic-Alabama (2) Incorporated                         Maryland
Atlantic-Alabama (3) Incorporated                         Delaware
Atlantic-Alabama (4) Incorporated                         Delaware
Atlantic-Alabama (5) Incorporated                         Maryland
Atlantic-Alabama (6) Incorporated                         Maryland
Atlantic Alabama Multifamily Trust                        Alabama
Atlantic-Tennessee Limited Partnership                    Delaware
SCA-Alabama Multifamily Trust                             Alabama
SCA Florida Holdings (1) Incorporated                     Florida
SCA Florida Holdings (2) Incorporated                     Delaware
SCA-Indiana Limited Partnership                           Delaware
SCA-North Carolina (1) Incorporated                       Maryland
SCA-North Carolina (2) Incorporated                       Maryland
SCA North Carolina Limited Partnership                    Delaware
SCA-South Carolina (1) Incorporated                       Maryland
SCA-Tennessee (1) Incorporated                            Maryland
SCA-Tennessee (2) Incorporated                            Maryland
SCA-Tennessee (3) Incorporated                            Maryland
SCA-Tennessee (4) Incorporated                            Maryland
SCA-Tennessee Limited Partnership                         Delaware
Security Capital Alabama Multifamily Trust                Alabama
Security Capital Atlantic Multifamily Incorporated        Delaware


     This consolidated wholly owned subsidiary of the registrant operates in the
United States and provides management services to the registrant and its other
subsidiaries.


                                                 STATE OF INCORPORATION OR
                                                        ORGANIZATION
                                                        ------------

SCG Realty Services Atlantic Incorporated                 Delaware
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3380

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for consideration of the ability of an applicant for a stormwater permit to pay,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 27, 1993

Mr. BONILLA (for himself, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. TEJEDA, Mr.

PETE GEREN of Texas, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. LIGHTFOOT, Mr. ARMEY, Ms.

PRYCE of Ohio, Mrs. FOWLER, Mr. EMERSON, Mr. DELAY, Mr. SMITH

of Texas, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr. BUYER, Mr. POMBO, and Mr. CALVERT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for consideration of the ability of an applicant for

a stormwater permit to pay, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. ABILITY TO PAY LIMITATION.

4 Section 402(p) of the Federal Water Pollution Con5 trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1342 (p)) is amended by adding at

6 the end the following:
2

•HR 3380 IH

1 ‘‘(7) CONSIDERATION OF ABILITY OF PERMIT2 TEE TO PAY.—In issuing a permit for discharges

3 from municipal storm sewers under this section and

4 in determining the requirements, terms, and condi5 tions to be applicable under such a permit, the Ad6 ministrator or the State (in the case of a permit pro7 gram approved under this section) shall consider the

8 ability of the applicant to pay to meet such require9 ments, terms, and conditions and the environmental

10 impact of issuance of such permit at the site of the

11 discharge.’’.

Æ
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA
, Respondent
,

v.

RUBEN TORRES
, Petitioner

.

No. 1 CA

- CR 16

- 0412 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2014

- 117754

- 001 The Honorable Danielle J. Viola
, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

Ruben Torres
, Kingman Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.STATE v. TORRES Decision of the Court

2 C R U Z
, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Ruben Torres petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post

- conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.

¶2 Torres pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery , C lass 2 dangerous felonies, with stipulations to a range of seven to fourteen years per count in the Arizona Department of Corrections, to be served consecutively. The superior court sentenced him to 10.5 years per count to be served consecutively. T orres timely filed his notice for post

- conviction relief in propria persona pursuant to Ari zona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32.4

. H is Rule 32 counsel filed a notice of completion of review
, and t he court set a deadline for Torres to file his petition for post

- conviction relief in propria persona

. See Rule 32.4(c)(2). The record reflec t s Torres never f iled a petition complying with Rule 32.5, and the superior court summarily denied his Rule 32 proceeding

. ¶3 Torres then filed a timely petition for review alleging a multitude of issues relating to ineffective assistance of counsel, due proc ess and sentencing, double jeopardy and prosecutorial misconduct, none of which was presented to the superior court for consideration. Issues not presented to the superior court may not be presented in the petition for review. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c) (1 ); State v. Ramirez , 126 Ariz. 46 4, 468, 616 P .2d 924, 928 ( App. 1980). T orres presents no facts, arguments or issues first addressed to the superior court.

¶4 Accordingly, w e grant review and deny relief.
#### Donnie ROGERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-2375.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 3, 1978.

McCrary, Berkowitz & Davis and Jeffrey L. Berkowitz, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Steven L. Bolotin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J.*, and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

*

 HAVERFIELD, C. J., participated in the decision in this case but did not hear oral argument.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order denying defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. The pro se motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, it is urged that defendant’s statement in his motion that his plea of nolo contendere was “forced upon him by Dade County law enforcement” was sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing. The record of the entry of the plea in 1974 clearly establishes the voluntariness of the plea absent any new facts to bring the voluntariness into question. The defendant having failed to allege any such fact, the order appealed is affirmed. See *Paige v. State,*282 So.2d 192 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); *Whitlow v. State,*256 So.2d 48 (Fla.2d DCA 1971); and *Gibson v. State,*213 So.2d 8 (Fla.4th DCA 1968).

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer


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 Quarterly Report of 5V Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chi Wu, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Chi WuChi Wu
Principal Executive Officer

May 23, 2011