alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21236]


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

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 received are subject to public disclosure. In general, 
comments received will be made available without change and will not be 
modified to remove personal or business information including 
confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments 
should not include any information such as confidential information 
that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
    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 October 3, 2024.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Mark Rauzi, Vice 
President), 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3d707c7d504d514e135b4f5f13524f5a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f222e2f021f031c41091d0d41001d08">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. John Daniel Billingsley, Lake Elmo, Minnesota; to join the 
Raleigh Family Control Group, a group acting in concert, to retain 
voting shares of Lake Elmo Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly 
retain voting shares of Lake Elmo Bank, both of Lake Elmo, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Erin Cayce,
Assistant Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-21236 Filed 9-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### BRANNON v. COLUMBIA PHONOGRAPH CO.

No. 3042.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

July 19, 1934.

Couch & Couch, of Bonham, for appellant.

W. H. Hall, of Dallas, for appellee.

HIGGINS, Justice.

The Columbia Phonograph Company brought this suit in Dallas county against J. C. Brannon to recover the purchase price of certain merchandise. Brannon pleaded his privilege to be sued in Pannin county. Prom an order overruling such plea, Brannon appeals.

Appellee seeks to sustain the venue as laid under subdivision 5 of the Venue Statute (article 1995), by virtue of a financial statement submitted to appellee to which Brannon’s name was signed and which provided that all invoices were payable at Dallas in Dallas county. Brannon’s name was signed to such instrument by an employee who was employed as a salesman and to repair radios.

Such employee had no actual authority from Brannon to sign such instrument. As to this appellee makes no point, but contends such employee had implied authority to act for Brannon in executing .such instrument or that in so doing such employee acted within the apparent scope of the authority conferred upon him.

We cannot agree with the view that an employee, with the duties stated, has implied authority to execute instruments in behalf of his employer, of the nature such as that upon which appellee seeks to sustain the venue in Dallas county. Nor do we find anything in the evidence to support the view that in executing such instrument the employee acted within the apparent scope of the authority conferred upon him by Brannon.

The plea of privilege should have been sustained.

Reversed, and judgment here rendered ordering the venue changed to Pannin county.
#### SALCIDO v. GORDON.

No. 3757.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Oct. 27, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1938.

Sam B. Gillett, of El Paso, for appellant.

Potash & Cameron, of El Paso, for ap-pellee.

NEALON, Chief Justice.

Appellant, E. M. Salcido, appeals from a judgment of the El Paso County Court at Law for $276.57 entered against him and in favor of appellee. The suit was upon promissory notes. Appellant, as defendant, pleaded that there was no consideration for said notes in that they were made for the accommodation of Ricardo Moreno, an employee of plaintiff, for past ■due indebtedness claimed by plaintiff and ■an assignor of plaintiff. By supplemental petition plaintiff pleaded that he had in good faith a claim against Moreno, who was under bond with the Maryland Surety Company; that in consideration of said notes plaintiff refrained from filing a claim on said indemnity bond, thereby changing his position. The effect of plaintiff’s pleading and evidence was that the notes were given at the request of Moreno to satisfy plaintiff’s alleged claim against Moreno and that the claim had been urged in good faith. The Court filed findings of fact favorable to him upon the issues made by the pleadings. There was evidence to support these findings. We find no reversible error. It was not necessary that the consideration flow to Salcido directly. Apparently, plaintiff did refrain from giving notice to'the Surety Company and filing the claim required by the terms of the bond and did retain Moreno in his employ for a considerable length of time and until plaintiff became dissatisfied with him on account of another transaction.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
* 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.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41210 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. ANTONIO JONES Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-19 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Antonio Jones has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jones has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 25, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
#### ERVIN v. STATE.

No. 20237.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 1, 1939.

Horace Moore, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is rape; the punishment, death.

■ On the 19th of June, 1938, Mrs. Eula Buie was living alone in the City of Fort Worth. According to her testimony, appellant, who is a negro, entered her home about daybreak and ravished her. She was sixty-four'years of age'at the time and had been ill during the night. In accomplishing his purpose appellant threatened to kill her, and when she resisted he choked her until she .felt that she could “never breathe' again.” She attempted to scream and did everything in her power to prevent the outrage. Notwithstanding the utmost resistance upon her part, appellant succeeded in having an act of sexual intercourse with her. Before leaving the house appellant forced her to give him what money she had.

" Immediately after appellant left the house Mrs. Buie notified the officers and a physician. The physician testified that his examination showed that she had been recently penetrated. The testimony of the officers was to the effect that they found blood in the house.

The state introduced in evidence ap- ■ pellant’s voluntary statement in which he admitted that he entered the home of Mrs. Buie on the occasion in question. However, in said statement he denied that he had had sexual intercourse with her.

Appellant did not testify.

The court gave a charge covering the exculpatory declaration embraced in appellant’s .voluntary statement.

No bills of exception are brought forward and no exceptions were leveled at the charge of the court.

The evidence is sufficient to support the judgment of conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
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 Smith Barney Mid-West Futures Fund L.P. II (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci                                Jerry PascucciCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director     Date: May 15, 2007

----
Order entered August 13 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00851
- CV LSREF2 APEX (TX) II, LLC, Appellant
V. GREGORY BLOMQUIST AN D DANIEL D. DAVIDS, II, Appellee s On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Cour t Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219
- 02840
- 2012 

### O RDER The clerk’s record in this case is incomplete. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the district clerk to file a supplemental clerks record on or before August 18, 2014 including the agreed ord er dated November 28, 2012 setting aside the trial court’s October 29, 2012 order granting summary judgment. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this order by electronic transmission to Andrea Stroh Thompson, District Clerk.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, V. Bryan Lawlis, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of AradigmCorporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal controls overfinancial reporting.         /s/ V. Bryan Lawlis      V. Bryan Lawlis   *President and Chief Executive Officer*   
Dated: December 22, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            6490
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  2835
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      45867
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           18870
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             18943
<LOANS>                                         152699
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1593
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  233243
<DEPOSITS>                                      180135
<SHORT-TERM>                                       900
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1123
<LONG-TERM>                                      27329
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           627
<OTHER-SE>                                       23129
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  233243
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  12483
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 3527
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   195
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 16206
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                6354
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7550
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             8656
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      390
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   6347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2905
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        2905
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2325
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .93
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.54
<LOANS-NON>                                         94
<LOANS-PAST>                                       612
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   2705
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1371
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      200
<RECOVERIES>                                        32
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1593
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1593
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            818


</TABLE>
#### Marie Erhard, as Executrix of Raymond J. Erhard, Deceased, Appellant, v Martin E. Panzer, Respondent.

In a medical malpractice action, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated June 2, 1989, as, *inter alia,*directed counsel for the plaintiff to personally "bear any extraordinary costs” of the defendant’s deposition of an out-of-State nonparty witness.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the plaintiff’s counsel personally.

Pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court providing for the depositions upon oral testimony of two out-of-State non-party witnesses, the parties agreed that the depositions would be conducted at the offices of counsel for the plaintiff in Deer Park, New York, despite the fact that the order contemplated the depositions taking place in New Jersey. When the defendant attempted to commence the deposition of the second witness, counsel for the plaintiff abruptly discontinued the examination, apparently in retaliation for the alleged protractedness of the deposition of the first witness. Counsel for the plaintiff further justified his refusal to allow the second deposition to go forward on the ground that the plaintiff had no intention of calling this individual as a witness at trial and that the deposition was not required by the court’s order.

The order appealed from imposed sanctions against counsel for the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3126 as a result of his unjustified conduct at the deposition. We find that the sanctions imposed against counsel were proper under the circumstances, and authorized by CPLR 3126. We do note, however, that, contrary to the appellant’s characterization of the sanctions imposed, it is *counsel*for the plaintiff who is to personally bear the "extraordinary” or "ancillary” costs of the rescheduled deposition, and not the plaintiff. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
|                                                |
|------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |  |  |
| Delaware                                       | 0-17948 | 94-2838567 |
| (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation) | (Commission File Number) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

----

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| o      | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
|   |   |
| o      | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
|   |   |
| o      | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|   |   |
| o      | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |

----

----

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |
|   |   | ELECTRONIC ARTS INC. |
|   |   |   |   |
| Dated: | November 9, 2016 | By: | /s/ Blake Jorgensen |
|   |   |   | Blake Jorgensen |
|   |   |   | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7267

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEITH LAMAR GIBSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-614, CA-97-239-4-12) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Elvin Hopkins, Jr., MCCUTCHEN, BLANTON, RHODES & JOHNSON, Columbia, South Carolina; Debra Yvonne Chapman, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Keith Lamar Gibson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Gibson , Nos. CR-94-614; CA-97-239-4-12 (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 1999). With regard to Gibson's claim that the district court failed to advise him of his right to appeal, we find that he was not entitled to relief because the district court informed him of his right to appeal his sentence during the plea colloquy. See Peguero v. United States , 526 U.S. 23, 24 (1999) (holding that "a district court's failure to advise the defendant of his right to appeal does not entitle him to habeas relief if he knew of his right and hence suffered no prejudice from the omission"). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21353]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 325 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-661, CP2024-670.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21353 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P