alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1     Press Release





PRESS RELEASE
August 23, 2001                  For further information contact:
                                 David M. Bradley
                                 Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
                                 North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                                 825 Central Avenue
                                 Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                                 515-576-7531


                NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC. DECLARES DIVIDEND

David M. Bradley, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of North
Central Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") announced today that the Company
declared a regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.15 per share on the Company's
common stock for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2001. The dividend will
be payable to all stockholders of record as of September 14, 2001 and will be
paid on October 5, 2001.

On May 2, 2001, the Company commenced a new stock repurchase program for 100,000
shares, of which 38,100 shares remain to be repurchased. The Company has
1,822,680 shares of common stock currently outstanding.

North Central Bancshares, Inc. serves north central and southeastern Iowa at 8
full service locations in Fort Dodge, Nevada, Ames, Burlington, Mount Pleasant
and Perry, Iowa through its wholly-owned subsidiary, First Federal Savings Bank
of Iowa, headquartered in Fort Dodge, Iowa. The Bank's deposits are insured by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The Company's stock is traded on The
Nasdaq National Market under the symbol "FFFD".
EXHIBIT
      32.2





SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Landbank Group, Inc. (the "registrant")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, John Genesi,
      Chief
      Financial Officer of the registrant, 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:





(1)
      The
      report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      registrant.








Date: March
        30,
        2007
  By: 
/s/ John
        Genesi
 John
        Genesi,
        CFO
#### McKinsey *vs.*Anderson.

(Messrs. Ilnnt Johnson for plaintiff: Mr. Combs for defendant.}

Attachment

From the Circuit Court for Fayette County.

*April 12.*

An attachment is *a suit*at law, admitting any plea appropriate to a com. law action on the «ame liability; ■andto which, the *63pendency of another suit between the same parties, for the same cause, is a good plea in abatement. That there *was*another suit when the attachment was sued out, would not per sc besuf ficient; but one then pending, *$r*continuing up to the time of the plea pleaded, is,.

*62Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This writ of error is prosecuted to reverse a judgment rendered on an attachment against McKinsey, as an absconding debtor.

On the calling of the attachment, in the Circuit Court, he pleaded in abatement, the pendency, at that time, of a suit by petition and summons, brought before the *63•issuing of the attachment, for the same debt, in the same Court, and between the same parties. But the Court, being of the opinion, that the matter of the plea was insufficient and inapplicable in a procedure by attachment, therefore sustained a demurrer to the plea. And the correctness of that judgment is the only matter now to be considered.

The attachment was certainly a *suit*at law; and we can perceive no reason why, in such a suit, any plea may net be admissible and available which might be proper and effectual in any other form of action. A creditor has no right to persist in proceeding against his debtor by the ordinary legal remedy, and also by attachment at the same time, and for the same debt. They are distinct and independent actions, and the one is not sub-1 ordinate or subsidiary'to the other. And consequently, if Anderson preferred a prosecution of his attachment to that of his petition, he ought to have dismissed the latter; otherwise his attachment, like any other suit, was liable to abatement. The pendency of the petition *■ivhen the attachment was issued,*would not *per se*have been sufficient to abate the latter. But the *continued*pendency of the petition *to the time of pleading in Court,*furnished unanswerable matter in abatement of the *suit*which was last instituted.

Wherefore, it is considered by this Court that, the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to overrule the denjurrer to. the plea in abatement.
#### The People *ex rel.*Wm. H. Osborn, App’lt, *v.*Edward Gilon *et al.,*Board of Assessors, Resp’ts.

See 35 N. Y. State Rep., 991.

*Traman R. Baldwin,*for app’lt; *David J. Dean*and *George L. Sterling,*for resp’ts.

Appeal dismissed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LOKMAN HOSSAIN BABU, 

Petitioner,

 v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-72104

Agency No. A093-299-492

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 30, 2020** 

Portland, Oregon

Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Lokman Hossain Babu, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of

the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the

determination of the immigration judge (IJ) to deny deferral of removal under the

FILED

NOV 4 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition for review.1

The IJ did not err in making additional credibility findings on remand. The

BIA’s general articulation of the purpose for remand, without express retention of

jurisdiction, was not sufficient to limit the scope of remand. See Fernandes v.

Holder, 619 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010).

The IJ and the BIA did not err in evaluating Babu’s CAT claim; they

“denuded” Babu’s CAT claim “of his discredited testimony” and independently

considered other non-discredited evidence in the record that supported his claim. 

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence

supports the BIA’s conclusion that the country conditions evidence in the record

failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that Babu would be tortured upon

his return to Bangladesh. See Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1124–26 (9th Cir.

2004). The Department of State’s 2015 Human Rights Report on Bangladesh

described general strife but was insufficiently particularized to Babu’s

1

 Babu failed to raise his argument under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct.

2105 (2018), before the BIA. As a result, we lack jurisdiction to reach the merits

of that claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). In any

event, the argument is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 889

(9th Cir. 2020) (“[A]n initial NTA need not contain time, date, and place

information to vest an immigration court with jurisdiction if such information is

provided before the hearing.”).

2
circumstances. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)

(per curiam). The expert’s testimony and report were insufficiently particularized,

as well as speculative and premised on discredited testimony.

PETITION DENIED.

3
|   | 1. | The      Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | The      information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company at the end of the periods covered by the Annual      Report. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  January      5, 2010 |   |                                                 |
|---------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  | By:    | /s/      James McAlinden                             |
|                                  |   | James      McAlinden                                 |
|                                  |   | President,      Chief Financial Officer, andDirector |

----
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0435 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0435

**2001/435/EC: Commission Decision of 21 May 2001 on the inventory of wine production potential presented by France pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (notified under document number C(2001) 1443) **

*
Official Journal L 154 , 09/06/2001 P. 0064 - 0064 *

Commission Decision

of 21 May 2001

on the inventory of wine production potential presented by France pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999

(notified under document number C(2001) 1443)

(Only the French text is authentic)

(2001/435/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, of 17 May 1999, on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000(2), and in particular Article 23(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 provides for the presentation of an inventory of wine production potential. Access to the regularisation of unlawfully planted areas, the increase in planting rights and support for restructuring and conversion is subject to prior presentation of this inventory.

(2) Article 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000, of 31 May 2000, laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, as regards production potential(3) sets out details of the information to be included in the inventory.

(3) By letters of 25 September 2000, 29 December 2000 and 8 January 2001 France sent the Commission the information referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999. Examination of this information shows that France has compiled the inventory.

(4) This Decision does not entail recognition by the Commission of the accuracy of the information contained in the inventory or of the compatibility of the legislation referred to in the inventory with Community law. It is without prejudice to any future Commission decision on these points.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Commission notes that France has compiled the inventory referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the French Republic.

Done at Brussels, 21 May 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2.

(3) OJ L 143, 16.6.2000, p. 1.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6912 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6912

  To direct the Librarian of Congress to obtain a stained glass panel 
 depicting the seal of the District of Columbia and install the panel 
  among the stained glass panels depicting the seals of States, which 
   overlook the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress Thomas 
                          Jefferson Building.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2024

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on 
  Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Librarian of Congress to obtain a stained glass panel 
 depicting the seal of the District of Columbia and install the panel 
  among the stained glass panels depicting the seals of States, which 
   overlook the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress Thomas 
                          Jefferson Building.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUDING STAINED GLASS PANEL DEPICTING SEAL OF DISTRICT OF 
              COLUMBIA IN LIBRARY OF CONGRESS THOMAS JEFFERSON 
              BUILDING.

    The Librarian of Congress shall obtain a stained glass panel 
depicting the seal of the District of Columbia and install the panel 
among the panels depicting the seals of States, which overlook the Main 
Reading Room of the Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of AAF-McQuay Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, I, Bruce D. Krueger, Vice President of Financeand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1) the quarterly reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the quarterly reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 

 
| */s/*Bruce D.  Krueger                                                                             |   | November 11,  2002 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------|
| Bruce D.  Krueger                                                                                  |   |
| Vice  President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Finance and Accounting Officer) |   |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*John Williams, Appellant.

Submitted October 4, 1943;

decided October *7,*1943.

*Alexander I. Borke, LeBoy Campbell*and *Stanley S. Katsenstein*for motion.

*Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney,*opposed.

Motion dismissed, without prejudice to the making of any motion in the Court of General Sessions, as defendant may be advised.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Power of the Dream Ventures, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Ildiko Rozsa, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)
            the
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
      December 31, 2007 (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 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.








/s/
      Ildiko RozsaIldiko
      RozsaTitle:    Chief
      Financial Officer





This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA, INC., Appellant v. HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee

2016-2598

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

August 15, 2017

David James Cushing, Sughrue Mion, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Mark Boland, Raja N. Saliba, Grant Simon Shackelford.

Steven Halpern, McCarter & English, LLP, Newark, NJ, argued for appellee. Also represented by Scott S. Christie, Timothy Patrick Homlish, Mark Nikolsky, Matthew Adam Sklar; Lee Carl Bromberg, Boston, MA.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Clevenger and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Osmin QUINTANILLA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50255

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2017 *

Filed July 25, 2017

Matthew Craig Brehm, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Edgar Osmin Quintanilla, Pro Se

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Edgar Oscar Quintanilla appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the sentence of 37 months in prison imposed following his guilty plea conviction *570for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Quintanilla’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Quintanilla the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Quintanilla has waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Gazzetta ufficiale C 19A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0944
  doi:10.3000/19770944.CA2014.019.ita |
| --- | --- |
| Gazzetta ufficiale
  dell'Unione europea | C 19A |
| | |
| Edizione in lingua italiana | Comunicazioni e informazioni | 57o anno22 gennaio 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0944

doi:10.3000/19770944.CA2014.019.ita

Gazzetta ufficiale

dell'Unione europea

C 19A

Edizione in lingua italiana

Comunicazioni e informazioni

57o anno22 gennaio 2014

---

| Numero d'informazione | Sommario | pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avvisi |
| | PROCEDIMENTI AMMINISTRATIVI |
| | Agenzia europea per i medicinali |
| 2014/C 019A/01 | Avviso di annullamento | 1 |

Numero d'informazione

Sommario

pagina

V   Avvisi

PROCEDIMENTI AMMINISTRATIVI

Agenzia europea per i medicinali

2014/C 019A/01

Avviso di annullamento

1

CRONISTORIA DELLE GU C A CONCORSI

Si riporta qui di seguito l'elenco delle GU C A pubblicate nell'anno in corso.

Salvo indicazione contraria, le GU sono pubblicate in tutte le versioni linguistiche.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |

5

6

11

19

| IT | |
| --- | --- |

IT

---

V Avvisi

PROCEDIMENTI AMMINISTRATIVI

Agenzia europea per i medicinali

| 22.1.2014 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea | CA 19/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2014

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea

CA 19/1

---

Avviso di annullamento

(2014/C 19 A/01)

L'Agenzia europea per i medicinali ha deciso di annullare le seguenti procedure di selezione:

| — | EMA/CA/S/039: agente contrattuale (a breve termine), assistenza scientifica alla Sorveglianza europea del consumo di antimicrobici quali medicinali veterinari (FG IV) (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/039: agente contrattuale (a breve termine), assistenza scientifica alla Sorveglianza europea del consumo di antimicrobici quali medicinali veterinari (FG IV) (1);

| — | EMA/CA/S/040: personale contrattuale (a breve termine), segreteria scientifica per i pareri della Commissione europea sulla resistenza agli antimicrobici, reparto medicinali veterinari (FG IV) (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/040: personale contrattuale (a breve termine), segreteria scientifica per i pareri della Commissione europea sulla resistenza agli antimicrobici, reparto medicinali veterinari (FG IV) (2).

---

(1)  GU C 320 A del 6.11.2013, pag. 2.

(2)  Cfr. nota a piè di pagina n. 1.

---
<PAGE>



                                   Exhibit 4.3
                                   -----------

1.       Option Agreement with one (1) individual for 250 common shares of the
         Company at an exercise price of $6.32 per share. Options vest at a
         rate of 20% per year over five (5) years.

2.       Option Agreements with twenty-five (25) individuals for an aggregate of
         22,400 common shares of the Company at an exercise price of $25.29 per
         share. Options vest at a rate of 20% per year over five (5) years.

3.       Option Agreements with two (2) individuals each for 27,500 common
         shares of the Company at an exercise price of $19.31 per share; such
         options vest at a rate of 33.33% per year over three (3) years. Option
         Agreements with nine (9) individuals for an aggregate of 44,750 common
         shares of the Company at an exercise price of $19.31 per share; such
         options vest at a rate of 20% per year over five (5) years.
#### Sol Galanter, Plaintiff, *v.*Henry Pearson, Defendant. Abraham P. Strauss, Attorney to be substituted, Appellant. Milton S. Marks, Substituted Attorney, Respondent.

Submitted May 20, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*887
      *Edward A. Shandell, Desmond T. Barry*and *Joseph J. Brophy*for appellant.

*Milton S. Marks*respondent in person.

Order affirmed, with costs. Question certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.