alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    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 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 the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).                

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 March 25, 2022.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco*                     (Sebastian Astrada, Director, Applications) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:                

                    1.                     *Endeavor Bancorp, San Diego, California;*                     to become a bank holding company by acquiring Endeavor Bank, San Diego, California.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 18, 2022.

Michele Taylor Fennell,

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2022-03948 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
|   | 1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or      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      as of the dates and for the periods covered by the  Report. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| August 6, 2010 |   | /s/ David M. Bradley               |   |
|----------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated          |   | David      M. Bradley              |   |
|           |   | Chairman,      President & CEO |   |

----
**EXHIBIT - 32.2**

 

MOSSIMO,INC.

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofMossimo, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the Report), I Edwin Lewis, Vice-Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tothe best of my knowledge:

 

(1)              The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit -32.2, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)              The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition, results of operations, and cashflows of the Company.

 
| /s/    | Edwin Lewis                                   |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Edwin Lewis                                   |
|   | Vice-Chairman and Co-Chief Executive  Officer |
|   | August 11, 2005                          |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTENSTATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HASBEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHEDTO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION STAFF UPON REQUEST.

 

THIS CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANIES THE FORM 10-QTO WHICH IT RELATES, IS NOT DEEMED FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION AND IS NOT TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO A FILING OF THECOMPANY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 OR THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934 (WHETHERMADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE FORM 10-Q), IRRESPECTIVE OF ANYGENERAL INCORPORATION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUCH FILING.

 

----
#### Guetatchew FIKROU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15669

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017

*300Guetatchew Fikrou, Pro Se

Karen Hess Rohrbaugh, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Human Resources, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants-Appellees Montgomery County Office of Child Support Enforcement Division, Christopher J. Kunz, E. Harkleroad, Pamela Steromwsky, Debbie Hinds, Samir Malhortra

Marcy L. Berkman, Esquire, Deputy County Counsel, County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Counsel, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Santa Clara County California Child Support Enforcement Division

Avi Burkwitz, Esquire, Attorney, Natalie Ursula Luongo, Esquire, Attorney, Peterson Bradford Burkwitz, Burbank, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Los Angeles County California Child Support Enforcement Division

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Guetatchew Fikrou appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims stemming from defendants’ enforcement of a child support order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine. *Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Fikrou’s action was proper because Fikrou failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that the district court had personal jurisdiction over any defendant. *See Walden v. Fiore,*— U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121-23, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014) (discussing the requirements for specific personal jurisdiction and explaining that “the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum”); *Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,*374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004) (requirements for general personal jurisdiction). To the extent the district court erred by denying Fikrou’s motion for reconsideration contending that the *Rook-er-Feldman*doctrine was inapplicable to his claims of extrinsic fraud, any error was harmless because dismissal was proper for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint because amendment would have been futile. *See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am.,*232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00533

- CR

Pablo Reyna, Jr.

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 213th District Court

o f Tarrant Co unty (1301204D )

December 4, 2014

Opinion by Justice McCoy

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

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

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bob McCoy

_________________ Justice Bob McCoy
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, James R. Lavelle, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Cotelligent, Inc.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  |                                                                   
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 14, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    James R. Lavelle
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | James R. Lavelle Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
#### Sean Danahy CONNELLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brent FREYBERGER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15726

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*390Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 1, 2017

Sean Danahy Connelly, Pro Se

Leslie Steven Tuskai, Assistant Counsel, Phoenix City Attorney’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Sean Danahy Connelly appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging excessive force. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of motions for appointment of counsel, *Palmer v. Valdez,*560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009), and rulings on discovery issues, *Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,*342 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Connelly’s motions for appointment of counsel because Connelly did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances. *See Palmer,*560 F.3d at 970 (setting forth “exceptional circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Connelly’s “motion for discovery requests.” *See Laub,*342 F.3d at 1093 (“A district court is vested with broad discretion to permit or deny discovery, and a decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that the denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice» to the complaining litigant.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Connelly’s contention that the district court ignored his request to amend the complaint.

Connelly does not challenge the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his ■ opening brief and has therefore waived any objection to the district court’s summary judgment on appeal. *See Paladin Assocs., Inc. v. Mont. Power Co.,*328 F.3d 1145, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Brian ALEXIS, aka Blagoy Petrov Alexiev, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, official capacity; et. al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56035

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 27, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 3, 2017

*346Brian Alexis,' Torrance, CA, pro se.

Raymond Joseph Fuentes, Fuentes & McNally, LLP, Glendale, CA, Kevin Michael McCormick, Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham, Ventura, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for’decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Brian Alexis, AKA Blagoy Petrov Ale-xiev, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising from a state court family law case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Alexis’ claims against Judges Lewis and Pacheco on the basis of judicial immunity. *See Duvall v. County of Kitsap,*260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (describing factors relevant to whether an act is judicial in nature and therefore subject to judicial immunity).

The district court properly dismissed Alexis’ claims alleging that the County of Los Angeles is liable because it is “represented” by the Judges, as the California Superior Court and its judges are State actors, not County actors. *See Greater L.A. Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin,*812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1987) (suit against a California superior court is a suit against the State, which is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity), *superseded by statute on other grounds; cf. Hyland v. Wonder,*117 F.3d 405, 413 (9th Cir. 1997) (describing California Superior Court judges as State agents or employees).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 145 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 145

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to ensure that 
 preexisting condition exclusions with respect to enrollment in health 
  insurance coverage and group health plans continue to be prohibited.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2021

Mr. Joyce of Ohio (for himself and Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to ensure that 
 preexisting condition exclusions with respect to enrollment in health 
  insurance coverage and group health plans continue to be prohibited.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Continuing Coverage for Preexisting 
Conditions Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. ENSURING THE PROHIBITION OF PREEXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS 
              WITH RESPECT TO ENROLLMENT IN HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE 
              AND GROUP HEALTH PLANS.

    Part I of subtitle F of title I of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18091 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
the end the following section:

``SEC. 1503. SEVERABILITY.

    ``If subsection (a) of section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986, as added by section 1501(b), is to any extent illegal, 
unconstitutional, otherwise invalid, or incapable of being enforced, 
the validity and enforceability of sections 2701 through 2705 of the 
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg-4), as added 
by section 1201, shall not be affected. Nothing in the previous 
sentence shall be construed to affect the severability of any provision 
of this Act that is not specified in the previous sentence.''.
                                 <all>
```
<Page>

Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Kent Wyatt, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Atlantic Syndication
Network, Inc.,

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4.    The small business issuer's other certifying 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 (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control financial reporting;

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 small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):

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

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


/s/ Kent Wyatt, Sr.

Kent Wyatt, Sr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
Date: June 6, 2007
|   | 1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or      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      as of the dates and for the periods covered by the  Report. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                    |   |                                       |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
| May 14,      2009                  |   | /s/ Kyle      C. Cook                 |   |
| Dated                                                                                                                   |   | Kyle      C. Cook                          |   |
|                                                                                                                    |   | Chief      Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |

----
exhibit10-6.htm


Exhibit 10.6


 










	  	  	  
	
Notice of Grant of

	  	
LSI CORPORATION


	
Restricted Stock Unit Award

	  	
ID: 94-2712976


	
Under the

	  	
1621 BARBER LANE


	
LSI Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive Plan

	  	
MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035







 










	  	  	  	  
	
GRANTEE NAME

	  	
Award Number:

	  
	
Address

	  	
Grant Date:

	  
	
Address

	  	
Number of Restricted Stock Units:

	  





 









 


On the grant date shown above, LSI Corporation granted you the number of restricted stock units shown above under the LSI Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive Plan.  If and when it vests, each restricted stock unit entitles you to receive one share of LSI common stock.  We typically will withhold some of the shares you would receive when the restricted stock units vest to satisfy applicable tax or similar withholding obligations. 


 


 


Your award will vest according to the vesting schedule shown below. Vesting will occur only if [any applicable performance requirements indicated below have been met and] you have not incurred a Termination of Service prior to the vesting date. 


 



	  	  	  	  	  
	
Shares

	  	
Vesting Date

	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  





 









 


By your signature below, you agree that this award is governed by this Notice of Grant, the attached Restricted Stock Unit Agreement and the LSI Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive Plan. You acknowledge that you have received, read and understand this Notice of Grant, the attached agreement and the plan. You agree to accept as binding all decisions or interpretations of the Board of Directors of LSI or its delegate regarding any questions relating to the plan, this Notice of Grant or the attached agreement. 


 










	  	  	  
	
________________________________________________

	  	  
	
GRANTEE NAME

	  	  
	
Date: