alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 22786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9156]


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

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 11, 2012.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. B2B Holdings, Inc., Houston, Texas; to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Stockmens 
National Bank in Cotulla, Cotulla, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 12, 
2012.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-9156 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit 32.1 Certificate:



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

OF GRAY PEAKS, INC.



I, the undersigned, being the one of the co-chief executive officers, respectively, of Gray Peaks, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his information, knowledge
and belief, that (1) the Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)) and
(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: November 15, 2005



|       |  |                           
|------ |  | --------------------------
|       | 
|       |  | /s/    BARY BERTIGER      
|Title: |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 11.0

 

KEARNY FINANCIAL CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

STATEMENTS RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

(In Thousands, Except Per Share Data, Unaudited)

 

 

|                                                                                     |   | Three Months Ended |   | Six Months Ended  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------|--------|-------------------|
|                                                                                     |   | December 31, 2009  |   | December 31, 2009 |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |              |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |              |
| Income available to common stockholders                                                  |   |               | $      | 1,841             |   |   |   | $ | 2,936 |   |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |              |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average shares outstanding                                                      |   |               |   | 68,015            |   |   |   |   | 68,045 |   |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |              |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Basic earnings per share                                                                 |   |               | $      | 0.03              |   |   |   | $ | 0.04 |   |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |              |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Income for diluted earnings per share                                                    |   |               | $      | 1,841             |   |   |   | $ | 2,936 |   |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |              |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding for diluted computation |   |               |   | 68,015            |   |   |   |   | 68,045 |   |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |              |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted earnings per share                                                               |   |               | $      | 0.03              |   |   |   | $ | 0.04 |   |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |              |   |   |   |   |   |   |
#### James Stelle, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error.

(Supreme Court of Florida, *En Banc,*

October 29, 1907).

Writ of Error to Criminal Court of Record, Duval county; John S. Maxwell, Judge.

No appearance for plaintiff in error.

W. H. Ellis, Attorney General, for the state.

This action was brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error. There was judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant takes writ of error. Dismissed on motion of counsel for defendant in error.
EXHIBIT 99(g)







Bergen Brunswig Corporation
4000 Metropolitan Drive
Orange, CA 92868




Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have  audited  the  consolidated  financial  statements  of  Bergen  Brunswig
Corporation  as of September 30, 1998 and 1997,  and for each of the three years
in the period ended  September 30, 1998,  included in your Annual Report on Form
10-K to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission,  and have  issued our report
thereon dated October 30, 1998. Note 1 to such consolidated financial statements
contains a description  of your  adoption,  during the year ended  September 30,
1998, of a fair value  approach  using a discounted  future  operating cash flow
analysis for the assessment of the recoverability of goodwill.  In our judgment,
such change is to an alternative  accounting  principle that is preferable under
the circumstances.



Yours truly,


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Costa Mesa, California


                               EXH 99(g) - Page 1
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 13

- 00838

- CR

FINLEY WRIGHT , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 174th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1334182).

TO THE 174TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS :

Before this Court, on the 12th day of February 2015, the case upon appeal to

revise or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these

words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on August 27, 2013. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contai ns no reversible error. Accordingly, the

Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered February 12, 2015.Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle. Opinion delivered by Justice Higley.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

July 3, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           6,262
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  116,609
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,030)
<INVENTORY>                                     77,145
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,748
<PP&E>                                         140,070
<DEPRECIATION>                                (87,183)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 295,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          129,588
<BONDS>                                         13,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,719
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,138
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   295,400
<SALES>                                        328,031
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               328,031
<CGS>                                          212,733
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  212,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               103,546
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,129
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,623
<INCOME-TAX>                                       697
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,926
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,926
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22


</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 20303 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

ANGEL ALFARO

- HERNANDEZ
,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17

- CR

- 695

- 1

Before KING, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Angel Alfaro

Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Alfaro

- Hernandez h a s not file d a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 23, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-20303 Document: 00514694016 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2018No. 18

- 20303

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-20303 Document: 00514694016 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2018
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 on Form 10-Q of Wise Metals Group LLC (the Company) for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David DAddario, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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.

Date:
August 16, 2010



By:

/s/ David DAddarioDavid DAddarioChairman and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original
of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

FRANK ROSADO,

Petitioner

v.

THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE PA.

SUPREME COURT,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 83 EM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20 th day of October , 2022, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and the Application for an

Immediate Hearing are DENIED.
**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 Zagg Incorporated (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert
      G. Pedersen II, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best
      of
      my knowledge, 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 and 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/****ROBERT
                G. PEDERSEN II******Robert
                G. Pedersen IIChief
                Executive OfficerNovember
                14, 2007
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0870. CARDELL ABRAMS v. THE STATE.

On October 25, 2005, Cardell Abrams entered a negotiated guilty plea to

multiple counts of armed robbery, kidnapping, and possession of a weapon during the

commission of a felony. He also pled guilty to rape, aggravated sodomy, and other

crimes. Although Abrams faced a possible sentence of eight life sentences plus 245

years, the trial court sentenced Abrams to 35 years to serve 25. Years later, Abrams

filed a pro se Motion for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and motion for

Evidentiary Hearing. The trial court denied the motion, Abrams appealed, and we

dismissed the appeal, finding that the order was not directly appealable. Abrams v.

State, Case No. A07A2361 (dismissed Aug. 1, 2007). In 2014, Abrams filed a

“Motion for Relief of Judgment,” arguing procedural issues with his indictment. The

trial court denied the motion, and Abrams filed this direct appeal. We lack

jurisdiction.

An appealfroman order denying or dismissing a challenge to an allegedly void

conviction issubject to dismissal. See Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192 (695 SE2d 244)

(2010). However, a direct appeal may lie from the denial of a motion to correct a

void sentence if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is void. See

Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). A sentence is void only

when the trial court imposes a punishment that the law does not allow; assertions

taking issue with the procedure employed in imposing the sentence do not constitute

colorable void sentence claims. See Coleman v. State, 305 Ga. App. 680 (700 SE2d

668) (2010). Here, Abrams does not allege any void sentence claim. He takes issue

March 26, 2015
with his indictment. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, which is

hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/26/2015
DONNA R.GEHL

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

422ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

100 West Mulberry

Kaufman, Texas 75126

Telephone: 972-932-0258

Email: donnaRehl@gmail.com

April 9, 2015

Clerk of the Court

Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

Re: Williams, Eric Lyle

CCA No. AP-77,053

TCC No. 32021-422

Clerk of the Court:

I was the official court reporter in the above referenced case. I am respectfully requesting an extension

for filing of the court reporter's record that is currently due on April 16, 2015 due to the size of the case

and daily court obligations. There were approximately 10 hearings. The jury selection went into its 8th

week. The trial went into its 3rd week. There were approximately 600 exhibits.

Sincerely,

Donna R. Gehl
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 28 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 28

 Expressing support for designation of the first Friday of October as 
                         ``Manufacturing Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2019

Mr. Ryan (for himself and Mr. Reed) submitted the following concurrent 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for designation of the first Friday of October as 
                         ``Manufacturing Day''.

Whereas according to the most recent data, manufacturers contributed $2.18 
        trillion to the economy, accounting for 11.2 percent of gross domestic 
        product (GDP);
Whereas this figure has risen steadily over the past decade, from $1.70 trillion 
        in 2009;
Whereas manufacturers in the United States are a significant driver of 
        innovation, spending $211.7 billion on research and development in 2016;
Whereas more than 12.8 million people in the United States (or 8 percent of the 
        workforce) are employed directly in manufacturing, while many millions 
        more jobs are supported through the supply chain and related industries;
Whereas in 2017, on average, manufacturing workers in the United States earned 
        more than the average worker in all industries;
Whereas the number of skilled, family wage jobs in this sector is increasing, 
        presenting the opportunity to promote the benefits of a career in 
        manufacturing to young people and their parents; and
Whereas the first Friday of October would be an appropriate date to designate as 
        ``Manufacturing Day'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress supports the designation of ``Manufacturing Day''.
                                 <all>
```
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000050729-MAR-201209:31 AM
Order entered April 9, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01106-CR

No. 05-14-01107-CR

DEWAYNE KEITH FINCHER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F08-63186-M, F10-51689-M

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeals.

On January 21, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. We have not received the findings, but on April 8, 2015, we 

received the reporter’s record. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeals, we VACATE

the January 21, 2015 order requiring findings.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order. 

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-14-00315-CR

____________________

RICHARD DEAN SNYDER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR29088 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Richard Dean Snyder 

pleaded guilty to theft of property valued in an amount of at least $1,500 but less 

than $20,000. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) (West Supp. 2014).1

The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Snyder guilty, but the court 

 1

We cite to the current version of the statute as the subsequent amendments 

do not affect the outcome of this appeal. 
2

deferred further proceedings and placed Snyder on community supervision for four 

years and assessed a $1,000 fine. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke 

Snyder’s unadjudicated community supervision. Snyder entered a plea of “not 

true” to the alleged violations of the conditions of his community supervision.

After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Snyder violated 

the conditions of his community supervision, found Snyder guilty of theft of 

property, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement.

Snyder’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional 

evaluation of the record, and appellate counsel concludes the appeal is frivolous. 

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On January 2, 2015, we granted an extension of time for 

Snyder to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Snyder. We have 

reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no 

arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order 

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 

However, we note that in the section of the judgment entitled “Plea to 

Motion to Adjudicate[,]” the judgment incorrectly recites that Snyder pleaded 

“True[.]” This Court has the authority to reform the trial court’s judgments to 
3

correct clerical errors. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 

27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). We delete this language and substitute “Not True” in 

its place. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as reformed.

2

AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.

_________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

 Justice

Submitted on April 6, 2015

Opinion Delivered April 8, 2015

Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.

 2

Snyder may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.