alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 248 (Thursday, December 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 89692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28666]


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

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 (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 
applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(j)(7)).
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than January 12, 2024.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Holly A. Rieser, 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#e8ab8785858d869c9bc689989884818b899c8187869ba89b9c849bc68e9a8ac6879a8f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d596bab8b8b0bba1a6fbb4a5a5b9bcb6b4a1bcbabba695a6a1b9a6fbb3a7b7fbbaa7b2">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Christy Jones, Kevin Jones, and the Franklin D. & Donna L. Lewis 
Trust dtd 06/21/2004, Franklin D. Lewis and Donna L. Lewis as co-
trustees, all of Marshfield, Missouri; Nathan Lewis, Liberty, Missouri; 
Thomas Lewis, Wentzville, Missouri; William R. Lewis, and Sue Ann 
Lewis, both of Lebanon, Missouri; as a group acting in concert, to 
retain voting shares of Cornerstone Bancshares, Inc., and thereby 
indirectly retain voting shares of Heritage Bank of the Ozarks, both of 
Lebanon, Missouri.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2023-28666 Filed 12-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2008327EN.01004001.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/40

---

Action brought on 23 October 2008 — Commission v Eurgit and Cirese

(Case T-470/08)

(2008/C 327/70)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Moretto, lawyer, A. M. Rouchaud-Joët and N. Bambara, agents)

Applicant:

Defendants:Associazione dei Giuristi Italiani per le Comunità Europee — Eurgit (Rome, Italy) and Vania Cirese (Rome, Italy)

Defendants:

Form of order sought

| — | Order EURGIT and Mrs Vania Cirese, both jointly and severally, to reimburse the principal sum due of EUR 7 142, together with default interest at the statutory interest rate applicable in Belgium with effect from 11 November 2002 until full payment of the sums due; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order EURGIT and Mrs Vania Cirese, both jointly and severally, to reimburse the principal sum due of EUR 7 142, together with default interest at the statutory interest rate applicable in Belgium with effect from 11 November 2002 until full payment of the sums due;

| — | order EURGIT and Mrs Vania Cirese, both jointly and severally, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EURGIT and Mrs Vania Cirese, both jointly and severally, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought by the European Commission pursuant to Article 238 EC for an order that EURGIT and Mrs Cirese, jointly and severally, reimburse the sum of EUR 7 412, together with default interest, being the advance paid by the applicant to EURGIT to carry out project No 97/GR/098, financed in the framework of the GROTIUS programme of incentives and exchanges for legal practitioners.

The Commission submits that, under paragraph 7 of the ‘statement by the beneficiary of a financial contribution’, the beneficiary undertakes, where items of expenditure incurred cannot justify the use of the financial contribution received, to reimburse, upon its request, sums already paid which are not justified.

Since EURGIT has failed, within the prescribed period, to justify the use of the sum advanced by the Commission, there can be no doubt that the defendant and any person acting in its name or on its behalf is liable for the reimbursement of the advance paid.

---
#### Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, Respondent, v Maier-Schule GMC, Inc., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy,*140 AD2d 988; *Chase Manhattan Bank v Roberts & Roberts,*63 AD2d 566, 567). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Pat-low, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
January 26 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JAMEEL A. COOK , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00731

- CV V.

DEUTSCHE BANK , Appellee

____________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on July 18, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by rea son of this appeal be paid by
JAMEEL A. COOK

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# Academies and Institutes - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Jessica Mosley Program Manager.The post Jessica Mosley appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Gloria Baca The post Gloria Baca appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Krystina Burton Program Analyst.The post Krystina Burton appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
Exhibit 31.2



Certifications for Form 10-QSB



I, Daniel L. Erickson, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Alliance Bancshares California;



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 officers 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 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 officers 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:



(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 12, 2003 |  | Name:  |  | /s/    DANIEL L. ERICKSON                       
|----------------------- |  | ------ |  | ------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |        | 
|                        |  | Title: |  | Executive Vice President 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 Tari Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the  period  ended June 30,  2006 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the
capacities and on the dates indicated  below,  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 his knowledge:



    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:  November 1, 2006

/s/ Theodore Tsagkaris
--------------------------------
Theodore Tsagkaris
President, C.E.O. and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 23— 0734 VICTORIA DESCHAMPS,

Petitioner, v. MONTANA TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, RAVALLI COUNTY, HONORABLE HOWARD F. RECHT, PRESIDING JUDGE, GRANT OF MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FILING FEE Respondent. 

### Motionto proceedwithout payment ofthe filing fee in this matter is GRANTED. DATED: December 20, 2023.
BOWEN GREENWOOD Clerk ofthe Supreme Court 12/20/2023
Case Number: OP 23-0734
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 Annual Report of NB&T Financial Group, Inc. (the Company), on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, dated the date of this Certification (the Report), I, Craig F. Fortin, the Senior Vice President and 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 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: March 20, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/    CRAIG F. FORTIN                           
|                     |  |  |  | Craig F. Fortin                                  
|                     |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



67
#### Gregoria Stringile, as Executrix of Thomas Stringile, Deceased, Appellant, v Joseph Rothman et al., Respondents.—

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, the plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), entered September 27, 1989, which, upon a jury verdict, is in her favor in the principal sum of $130,000 for wrongful death, of which $70,200 was for lost earnings.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

*282The plaintiff contends that the court erred in not permitting her to testify on direct or redirect examination that the decedent intended to continue working and that he did not intend to retire. However, the plaintiff testified on cross-examination that her husband told her, "[EJither I retire or I get my own agency”, and, the day before he died he purchased an agency (i.e., automobile dealership) with his nephew. In view of these facts, any error was harmless and the plaintiffs case was not prejudiced thereby *(see, Kutanovski v DeCicco,*152 AD2d 540, 541).

Four years later, the decedent’s nephew received an offer worth $550,000 to purchase the nephew’s shares in the dealership, which had been losing money every year since it opened. The plaintiff contends that the court erred in not allowing the nephew to testify as to the terms of this offer. However, the decedent’s nephew could not sell his shares unless Ford Motor Company (hereinafter Ford) approved of the purchaser. Ford did not approve of the purchaser and subsequently it sold the dealership to someone else. The decedent’s nephew received no money from the proceeds of that sale. He did not even recoup his initial investment. The offer was, therefore, speculative and too remote to be probative of the decedent’s future loss of earnings *(see, Stringile v Rothman,*142 AD2d 637; *Wanamaker v Pietraszek,*107 AD2d 1020).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [3]) or do not warrant reversal. Kooper, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
================================================================================

                                Exhibit 32.1;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 Pacific Spirit,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 his knowledge:



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 11, 2006

                                                /s/ Peter Sotola
                                                ------------------------------
                                                Peter Sotola
                                                President, C.E.O., CFO and
                                                Director
                                                (Principal Executive and
                                                Accounting Officer)
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: DENNIS J. COOK,

 Debtor,

WENETA M.A. KOSMALA, Chapter 11

Trustee, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of 

Dennis James Cook,

 Appellant,

 v.

DENNIS JAMES COOK; DONALD D.

COOK, Jr., Successor Trustee of the

Donald D. Cook and Nancy A Cook

Revocable Trust,

 Appellees.

No. 08-60053

BAP No. CC-08-01091-HMoD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Hollowell, Montali, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

FILED

MAR 09 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Submitted March 4, 2010** 

Pasadena, California

Before: CANBY, GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Because property devised to an inter vivos trust from a will “is not deemed

to be held under a testamentary trust of the testator but becomes a part of the trust

to which it is given,” Cal. Prob. Code § 6300, the real property at issue here

became a part of the inter vivos trust to which it was devised. We have held that

“‘income distributions derived from an intervivos trust do not fit within’ the

definition of § 541(a)(5)(A) and therefore escape ‘the pale of the 180 day

dragnet.’” Neuton v. Danning (In re Neuton), 922 F.2d 1379, 1384 n.6 (9th Cir.

1990) (quoting Newman v. Magill, 99 B.R. 881, 884–85 (C.D. Ill. 1989)). 

Therefore, the Debtor’s interest in the inter vivos trust assets is not property of the

bankruptcy estate.

AFFIRMED.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00037-CR

DERRICK WALTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 362nd District Court

of Denton County (F17-2959-431)

February 17, 2022

Opinion by Justice Walker

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment is modified to delete the $2,000 

General Fine and the $15.00 Time Payment Fee from the Bill of Costs. It is ordered 

that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Brian Walker

 Justice Brian Walker
# C_2008223EN.01005001.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/50

---

Action brought on 19 June 2008 — Commission v Commune de Valbonne

(Case T-238/08)

(2008/C 223/88)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Escobar Guerrero, acting as Agent, and E. Bouttier, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commune de Valbonne

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Order the Commune de Valbonne, represented by its current mayor, to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 18 619,38 corresponding to the principal sum of EUR 14 261,29 and late-payment interest thereon of EUR 4 358,09 due from 31 May 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commune de Valbonne, represented by its current mayor, to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 18 619,38 corresponding to the principal sum of EUR 14 261,29 and late-payment interest thereon of EUR 4 358,09 due from 31 May 2008;

| — | Order the Commune de Valbonne to pay the sum of EUR 5 000 in order to cover the costs the applicant was obliged to incur to recover the debt; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commune de Valbonne to pay the sum of EUR 5 000 in order to cover the costs the applicant was obliged to incur to recover the debt;

| — | Order the Commune de Valbonne to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commune de Valbonne to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

For 1998 and 1999, the Commission concluded, with the Commune de Valbonne (municipality of Valbonne) in France, the municipality of Fermo in Italy and the European Economic Interest Group ARCHI-MED, a research and training contract relating to a mutual education project between the city of Valbonne and the province of Di Ascoli Piceno, called ‘VALASPI MM 1027’.

The municipalities and ARCHI-MED undertook, inter alia, to supply the Commission with a final report. Since they did not supply that report following a letter of formal notice from the Commission, the Commission took the view that the contracting parties had failed to fulfil their obligations under the contract and terminated it, requesting reimbursement of part of the advances paid by the Commission, together with interest.

Faced with ARCHI-MED's insolvency, the Commission seeks an order that the defendant pay the sums due, since the contracting parties were jointly and severally liable to perform the contract.

---
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-51165 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CHANCE SHAY ALEXANDER, also known as Chance Alexander, Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CR-155-1
Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Chance Shay Alexander has moved for leave to wit h d r a w a n d 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). Alexander has filed a response and moves to relieve counsel and for the appointment of n e w counsel. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Alexander’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 21, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-51165 Document: 00511963855 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2012No. 11-51165

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 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. Alexander’s motions to relieve counsel and for the appointment of counsel are DENIED.

2 Case: 11-51165 Document: 00511963855 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2012