alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 71 (Thursday, April 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21981-21982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8832]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


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

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 7, 2012.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Richard Walker, Community 
Affairs Officer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204:
    1. Coastway Bancorp, MHC and Coastway Bancorp, LLC, both in 
Cranston, Rhode Island; to become a mutual bank holding company and a 
stock bank holding company, respectively, by acquiring 100 percent of 
the voting shares of Coastway

[[Page 21982]]

Community Bank, Cranston, Rhode Island.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Cadence Bancorp, LLC, Houston, Texas; to acquire 100 percent of 
the voting shares of Encore Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly 
acquire Encore Bank, N.A., both in Houston, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 9, 2012.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-8832 Filed 4-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of The Money
Tree Lending Group, Inc. for the quarter ending February 28, 2005, I, Philip A.
Sampiere, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of The Money
Tree Lending Group, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending February
          28, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the quarter ending February 28, 2005, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The
          Money Tree Lending Group, Inc.

Dated:  April 19, 2005

The Money Tree Lending Group, Inc.

By: /s/ Philip A. Sampiere, Jr.
-------------------------------------
Philip A. Sampiere, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity

Vegetable Branch
With Your Help

In FY 21 we delivered roughly 167,000,000 LBS of 

canned and frozen vegetables to both national 

warehouses and schools.
Moving Forward...

Vendor bidding process 

• Bidding to all States requirement
Forecasting

For 

Future

• Piloting a Forecasting tool on 

select products

• Breaking down products into 

Regions to solidify estimated 

demand 

• Aiming to close the gap in 

shortfall & assist vendor 

planning
Monthly Allocation Change

Easing the historical transportation challenges 
Allocation Schedule

Current Standard

Monthly Purchase Orders Cut

• Round 2 Jan – June

• Round 3 July – Sept
Allocations Moving Forward

Round 2

Purchase Order: Jan-March 

Purchase Order: April-June 

Round 3

Purchase Order: July-Sept

*dependent on School demands
Q & A Session

Questions, Comments, and Feedback Welcome!
Thank You!

If you have additional questions or concerns, please contact the following Specialists:

Ashley Train, Ashley.Train@usda.gov

Luma Kale, Luma.Kale@usda.gov
#### In the Matter of M. D. B., a child under the age of eighteen (18) years.

No. O-79-677.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Aug. 28, 1980.

Andrew M. Coats, Dist. Atty., Dorothy Amis, Asst. Dist. Atty., Kimberly Morgan, Legal Intern, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

*235MEMORANDUM OPINION

CORNISH, Presiding Judge:

A delinquency petition was filed against M. D. B. in the District Court, Oklahoma County (Case No. JF-79-1215), accusing him of pointing a pistol at another person, an act that is prohibited by 21 O.S.1971, § 1279.

The arresting officer, at whom the pistol was pointed, testified that there was a live round in the chamber, but that he did not disassemble the pistol to determine either the presence or absence of a firing pin. During the adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile testified that the weapon had no firing pin, and on that basis, the District Judge found the juvenile not guilty of the act, relying on 21 O.S.1971, § 1289.3. (Section 1289.3 defines a pistol as, in part, a firearm capable of discharging a projectile.)

In appealing the ruling of the District Court, the State raises four assignments of error, all of which center on the assertion that the State did not have to prove the weapon capable of firing in order to establish its case. Because Section 1279, supra, prohibits the pointing of a weapon *“whether loaded or not,”*this Court believes the State’s arguments are meritorious. Section 1289.3, supra, is expressly limited to the provisions of the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971, 21 O.S.1971, §§ 1289.1 et seq. It was never intended to apply to other portions of the penal code.

The question of law reserved by the State is answered in the affirmative. The ruling of the District Court was improper. The order discharging the appellee will not be disturbed.

BRETT and BUSSEY, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**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 Quarterly Report of Lease Equity Appreciation Fund II, L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert K. Moskovitz, 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: 

(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.

| August    15, 2005 | /s/ Robert    K. Moskovitz |
|--------------------|----------------------------|
|               |                            |
|               | Robert    K. Moskovitz     |
|               | Chief Financial    Officer |

----
**
Exhibit 35.1 

Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC 

**NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

The undersigned, Kevin J. Cullum, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such officer, as follows: 

(1) The undersigned has caused areview of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2023 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale andServicing Agreement, dated as of February 23, 2022 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Company LLC II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2022-A Owner Trust, to be conducted under his supervision; and 

(2) To the best of the undersigned’sknowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forpublicly-issued asset-backed securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 29th day of June, 2023. 

 

/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer**
CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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
FalconTarget, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

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

and

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

FalconTarget, Inc.

Date: November 21, 2008

By:   /s/   Serge Atlan

Serge Atlan

Chairman

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

* A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
391 A.2d 707

#### Commonwealth v. Zink, Appellant.

Submitted March 13, 1978.

R. Bruce Evanick, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Floyd P. Jones, Assistant District Attorney, and John C. Uhler, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

AMENDMENT OF RULES 4.2 AND 

4.4 OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL 

CONDUCT 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 427

JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2014, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to 

Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Rules 4.2 and 4.4 of the 

Code of Judicial Conduct of 2014 are amended in the attached form.

To the extent that notice of proposed rulemaking would otherwise be required by 

Pa.R.J.A. No. 103, the immediate promulgation of the amendments is found to be in the 

interests of justice and efficient administration.

This ORDER shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and 

shall be effective immediately. 

Additions are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions are shown in bold and are bracketed.
#### Ronald NICHOL and Lorraine Ashton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Charles BAIR, Ron Grise, George DeTullio, Lloyd Mirelez, Ralph Villano, Helen Wall, Marie Lawson, Fred Padilla, Mary Padilla, Ella Jamison and Frank Seeburger, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 80CA0651.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

March 26, 1981.

Brian T. McCauley, Westminster, for plaintiffs-appellants.

*762Richard M. Borchers, P. C., Richard M. Borchers, Chris Melonakis, Westminster, for defendants-appellees.

KELLY, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their complaint and the dissolution of a temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in finding that it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter. We affirm.

Plaintiffs were removed from their positions of Captain and Co-captain of a captaincy district within the Democratic Party of Adams County. They sued defendants, officials of the Democratic Party of Adams County, for a temporary restraining order pending their appeal to the state central committee of the Democratic Party. Plaintiffs claimed that the Party’s procedural rules had not been followed and that they would suffer irreparable harm if a temporary restraining order was not issued.

The statute in effect at the time of this dispute, § 1-14-109(1), C.R.S.1973,1 provided:

> “The state central committee of any political party in this state has full power to pass upon and determine all controversies concerning the regularity of the organization of that party ... All such determinations upon the part of the state central committee shall be final.”

Thus, the courts have no jurisdiction to hear this dispute.

> “That the state central committee of a political party, or the state convention, as the case may be, is now the sole tribunal to determine such controversies as is here presented is, to our mind, clear beyond all doubt, and, as a necessary sequence, the courts do not have concurrent jurisdiction in the premises.” *People ex rel. Lowry v. District Court,*32 Colo. 15, 20, 74 P. 896, 898 (1903).

Plaintiffs’ other contentions are without merit.

The judgment is affirmed.

PIERCE and VAN CISE, JJ., concur.

1

. This section has been repealed and re-enacted as § 1-3-106, C.R.S.1973 (1980 Repl.Vol. IB), effective January 1, 1981.
## DCE IT Services

– UAS Checklist

Date:____________________ Location:_________________ Time of arrival:____________

Weather

Visibility:_________________

Wind Speed:______________

Wind Direction:____________

Air Temperature:___________

Precipitation:______________

Arrival Checklist

1. If day and operating out of back of vehicle, point vehicle into sun.

2. Remove case and place on level surface.

3. Check distance to nearest airport and/or controlled airspace using smartphone or tabl et

app.

4. Identify flight hazards.

5. Identify flight risks.

Preflight Checklist

1. Visually inspect props for damage or warping. Replace after 50 hours of flight time

2. Visually inspect hull for cracks, moisture, debris, or other abnormities

3. Remove transmitter.

4. Router

- On

5. Transmitter

- On

6. Toggle Switches

- Full Up

7. Throttle

– Locked to 0%

8. Transmitter battery charge levels

– Verified.

9. Video Monitor

- On

10. Remove UAS from case.

11. Gimbal Lock & Lens Cap

- Removed

12. Micro

- SD card

- Inserted.

13. UAS Battery

- Inserted

14. Place UAS in clear and safe launch and recovery position if it returns to home.

15. UAS Battery

- On

16. Wifi Connection to Monitor

- Verified

17. DJI Application

- Load

18. DJI application

- Connect to Camera19. SD Card

- Format

20. Camera

- Full Up21. Compass recalibration

22. Satellite Connections

- Verified

23. Charge Levels

- Safe for Flight

24. Video Recording

– Start

25. Propeller Motors

- Start

26. Verify Propeller and mo tor function

27. Takeoff

After Takeoff Checklist

1. Hover approximately ten feet above the ground to confirm UAS is under control.

2. Verify all sticks operate correctly while in hover

3. Verify GPS, Altitude, and all other telemetry from UAS is within threshold

Pre

- Landing Checklist

1. Camera

- Full Up

2. Video Recorder

- Stop

3. Landing Zone

- Clear / Safe

Post

- Landing Checklist

- Returning to Flight Immediately

1. Battery

- Remove & Replace

2. Wifi Connection to Monitor

- Verified

3. DJI application

- Connect to Camera

4. Preform Preflight checklist steps 14

- 27

End of Ops Checklist

1. UAS Battery

- Off

2. Transmitter

- Off

3. Router

- Off
# C_2004094EN.01002003.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/20

---

Action brought on 13 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

(Case C-65/04)

(2004/C 94/43)

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by L. Ström van Lier, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(3) of Council Directive 89/618/Euratom (1) of 27 November 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency because of the lack of prior information of the population likely to be affected in the event of a radiological emergency, in connection with the local emergency plan existing in Gibraltar; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(3) of Council Directive 89/618/Euratom (1) of 27 November 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency because of the lack of prior information of the population likely to be affected in the event of a radiological emergency, in connection with the local emergency plan existing in Gibraltar; and

1

| — | to order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

to order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Article 5(3) of the Directive, concerning the prior information of the population likely to be affected in the event of a radiological emergency, requires that the relevant information be communicated to this population without any request being made.

The circumstances that gave rise to the Commission's inquires (repair operations of the nuclear submarine ‘Tireless’) highlighted that no prior information had been communicated in the past to the Gibraltar population likely to be affected in the event of a radiological emergency. The mere public availability of the Gibraltar Public Safety Scheme (GIBPUBSAFE) in the public library cannot be considered to meet the requirements of Article 5(3) of the Directive, which requires active communication of such information.

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 357, p. 31

1

---
#### The State, ex rel. Church of the Nazarene, Appellant, *v.*Fogo, Registrar, Appellee.

(No. 31237

Decided June 23, 1948.)

*46
      *Mr. Clarence J.*Stewart, for appellant.'

*Mr. Hugh S. Jenkins,*attorney general, and *Mr. Joseph S. Gill,*for appellee.

By the Court.

The single question is whether the motor vehicle used for the purposes alleged is a ‘ ‘ school bus ’ ’ entitled to registration without payment of the annual license tax.

Section 6291, General Code, levies an annual license tax upon the operation of motor vehicles on the public roads and highways of this state.

Section 6295-1, General Code, providing for an exemption, reads in part:

> “No school bus as hereinafter defined shall be required to pay the annual license tax provided for in Section 6291 of the General Code. The term ‘school bus’ as used herein shall be construed to mean any vehicle, however owned, used exclusively to transport school children, either to and/or from school, or to and/or from any school function, having a seating *47capacity of more than five persons exclusive of the. driver. ’ ’

A statutory provision which relieves from taxation' is to be strictly construed, and property which is claimed to be exempt from the payment of taxes must come squarely within the exemption provisions of the law. Paragraph one of the syllabus of *Crown Hill Cemetery Assn.*v. *Evatt, Tax Commr.,*143 Ohio St., 399, 55 N. E. (2d), 660.

Words of a statute will be construed in their ordinary acceptation and significance and with the meaning commonly attributed to them. 37 Ohio Jurisprudence, 542, Section 288; paragraph three of the syllabus, *Baker v. Powhatan Mining Co.,*146 Ohio St., 600, 67 N. E. (2d), 714.

In the ordinary acceptation, the term, “school,” standing alone, is a place where general education is imparted to young people. The meaning commonly attributed to the term is an institution conducting a course of general education and mental training similar to that offered to children by a public educational system. The terms, “Sunday school,” and, “Bible school, ’ are ordinarily applied to a place for religious instruction, operated in conjunction with a church.

The words, “school,” and, “Sunday school” or “Bible school,” are not synonymous, but are distinguishable in common understanding.

The relator was hot entitled to a writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeals and its judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Med-Zone
Biotechnologies Acquisition, Inc.for the quarter ending February 28, 2005, I,
Dennis Chen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Med-Zone
Biotechnologies Acquisition, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-KSB for the quarter ending February
          28, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the quarter ending February 28, 2005, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Med-Zone Biotechnologies Acquisition, Inc.

Dated:  April 8, 2005

MED-ZONE BIOTECHNOLOGIES ACQUISITION, INC.

By: /s/ Dennis Chen
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of West Coast Car Company
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert Worthington, Chief Executive Officer of the small business issuer,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

         (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 small
business issuer.



/s/ Robert Worthington
-----------------------
Robert Worthington
Chief Executive Officer

May 15, 2006