alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 17292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06362]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    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 question 
whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the 
BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the 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 April 
12, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Senior Vice 
President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001. Comments 
can also be sent electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ca89a5a7a7afa4beb9e4abbabaa6a3a9abbea3a5a4b98aa4b3e4acb8a8e4a5b8ad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="43002c2e2e262d37306d2233332f2a2022372a2c2d30032d3a6d2531216d2c3124">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Discount Bancorp, Inc., New York, New York; through its 
subsidiary bank, Israel Discount Bank, to acquire 50 percent of the 
voting shares of IDB Lido Wealth, LLC, both of New York, New York, and 
thereby indirectly engage in financial and investment advisory 
activities pursuant to section 225.28(b)(6) of the Board's Regulation 
Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 22, 
2022.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-06362 Filed 3-25-22; 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>
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, Stephen M. Siedow, the Chief Executive Officer, President
and Chief Financial Officer of Equicap, Inc. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY, that:

     1.   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
          September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
this 15th day of October, 2003.


                                            By:  /s/  Stephen M. Siedow
                                               --------------------------------
                                                      Stephen M. Siedow,
                                                      Chief Executive Officer,
                                                      President and
                                                      Chief Financial Officer


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Equicap, Inc. and will be retained by Equicap, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or it staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adrian GARCIA, also known as Nanis, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50349 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 15, 2018

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Adrian Garcia, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Adrian Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous 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*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
AFS-13-089-E

December 11, 2012

 Exemption No. 10245A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0266

Mr. Dean Ellis

Windy City Flyer/Windy City Charter

1098 S. Milwaukee Avenue, Suite 301

Wheeling, IL 60090

Dear Mr. Ellis:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10245. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated November 20, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Windy City Flyer/Windy City Charter (Windy City) for an extension of 

Exemption No. 10245. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) allows Windy City, which is operating under separate parts of 14 CFR, 

to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug testing program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Windy City.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10245

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Windy City are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Windy City part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10245 to April 30, 2015, unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Frederick E. Tilton, M.D.

Federal Air Surgeon
### Ames, Angelia (OST) From: 

### Sent: To: Bill Evans [bill@mietuslaw.com] Monday, April 

### 11, 2011 2:27 PM Ames, Angelia (OST) 

### Subject: FW: Aerovias de Mexico Exemption Application--POLLING 

## Here's the exchange ofe-mails IhadwithBob Finamore indicating there were no objections to the application.
From: Bill Evans 

### Sent: Thursday, April 

### 07, 2011 12:15 PM To: 'Robert.Finamore@dot.gov' 

### Subject: RE: Aerovias de Mexico Exemption Application--POLLING 

## Thankyou very much.
From: Robert.Finamore@dot.gov [mailto:Robert.Finamore@dot.govl 

### Sent: Thursday, April 

### 07, 201112:13 PM To: Bill Evans 

### Subject: RE: Aerovias de Mexico Exemption Application--POLLING Thanks, approval is attached

.... From: Bill Evans [mailto:bill@mietuslaw.coml 

### Sent: Thursday, April 

### 07,2011 9:18 AM To: Finamore, Robert (OST) 

### Subject: RE: Aerovias de Mexico Exemption Application--POLLING Bob: Polling is complete. No objections. Bill 

### ConnectedbyDROID on Verizon Wireless
-----Original message----- From: "Robert.Finamore@dot.gov" <Robert.Finamore@dot.gov> To: Bill Evans <bill@mietuslaw.com> 

### Sent: Thu, Apr

### 7,2011 12:34:17 GMT

### +00:00 Subject: RE: Aerovias de Mexico Exemption Application--POLLING Hi Bill, This application was docketed in 

### 2011-0075, rather than 

### 2011-0074 as we told you yesterday. Please let me know when polling is completed. Thanks, Bob From: Bill Evans [mailto:bill@mietuslaw.coml 

### Sent: Monday, April 

### 04, 2011 12:22 PM 1

### To: Aaron Goerlich; Alexander Van der Bellen; Benjamin Slocum; Bruce Keiner; Carl Nelson; Dan Weiss; Danielle Fisher; David Kirstein; David L. Vaughan; Edward P. Faberman; Frank Avent; Howard Kass; Jeff Morgan; Jeffrey A. Manley; Joanne W. Young; John Allen; John Richardson; Kris Urs; Marshall Sinick; Nancy S. Sparks; Pierre Murphy; Robert Wirick ; Steve Lachter 

### Cc: Finamore, Robert (OST) 

### Subject: Aerovias de Mexico Exemption Application--POLUNG 

## Attachedis the application ofAeromexico for Mexico City-Fresno exemption authority. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOUR CLIENTS HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS. THANKS. William C. Evans* Law Office ofJohnMietus,LLC 670I Democracy Boulevard #300 Bethesda,MD 20817-7500 (202) 747-5212 Office (410) 827-5074 Home Office (240) 396-5362Fax *Admitted in the DistrictofColumbia Practice limitedto Federal transportation matters CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this e-mail and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are notthe intended recipient, please do not review, use, disclose, distribute orcopy the information it contains; destroythis e-mail and notify the sender by reply e-mail orane-mailtoadmin@mietuslaw.com. Thanks.

2
October 26, 2011

MEMORANDUM

From: William H. Maxwell

EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01)

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

Subject: Meeting with Environmenta l Integrity Project (EIP)

Attendees :

Ellen Kurlansky, EPA/OAR/OAA/OPAR Bill Meroney, EPA/OAR/OAP/CAMD

Joel Beauvais, EPA/OGC/IO Kellie Ortega, EPA/OECA/OCE/AED Eric Schaeffer, Environmental Integrity Project Leah Kelly, Environmen tal Integrity Project Stephen Brick, consultant to E nvironmental Integrity Project

Discussion :

A general discussion was held of the comments submitted by Environmental Integrity Project on the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), specifically concerning plants that may retire but that are needed for reliability not be able to operate uncontrolled for longer or more than necessary to meet reliability needs.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 238 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 238

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for a breast cancer 
      survivors event sponsored by the National Race for the Cure.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 238

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF BREAST CANCER SURVIVORS EVENT ON CAPITOL 
              GROUNDS.

    The National Race for the Cure (referred to in this resolution as 
the ``Race'') may sponsor a public event on the Capitol Grounds on 
April 1, 1998, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate may jointly 
designate.

SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--The event to be carried out under this resolution 
shall be--
            (1) free of admission charge to the public; and
            (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress 
        and under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect of the 
        Capitol and the Capitol Police Board.
    (b) Responsibility.--The Race shall assume full responsibility for 
all expenses and liabilities incident to all activities associated with 
the event.

SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

    For the purposes of this resolution, the Race may erect upon the 
Capitol Grounds, subject to the approval of the Architect of the 
Capitol, such stage, sound amplification devices, commemorative pink 
ribbon, and other related structures and equipment as may be required 
for the event to be carried out under this resolution.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

    The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board may make 
any such additional arrangements that may be required to carry out the 
event under this resolution.

SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY OF PROHIBITIONS.

    Nothing in this resolution may be construed to waive the 
applicability of the prohibitions established by section 4 of the Act 
of July 31, 1946 (Chapter 707; 60 Stat. 718), concerning sales, 
displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 17, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: ___2013_______-NM-____224______-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 169

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 169

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, October 9, 1997, it stand adjourned

4 until 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, October 21, 1997, or until

5 noon on the second day after Members are notified to reas-
2

•HCON 169 EH

1 semble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

2 whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses

3 or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, October

4 9, 1997, Friday, October 10, 1997, or Saturday, October

5 11, 1997, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority

6 Leader, or his designee, in accordance with this concur7 rent resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon

8 on Monday, October 20, 1997, or such time on that day

9 as may be specified by the Majority Leader or his designee

10 in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the

11 second day after Members are notified to reassemble pur12 suant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever

13 occurs first.

14 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

15 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

16 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead17 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

18 and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their

19 opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives October 8,

1997.

Attest:

Clerk.
bedu-ex410_511.htm



Exhibit 4.10

Rights and Obligations Assumption Letter

 

This entity, Baoding Baigou New City Bright Scholar Shenghua Education Consulting Co., Ltd., is the subsidiary established by BGY Education Investment Management Co., Ltd. (“Investor”) and registered at the Baigou Xincheng branch office of the Administration for Industry and Commerce on May 19, 2017.The Investor holds 70% of the equity interests in this entity. 

In accordance with the Exclusive Management Service and Business Cooperation Agreement (“Agreement”) entered into by and between Investor, Zhuhai Hengqin Bright Scholar Management Consulting Co., Ltd. and other relevant parties on January 25, 2017, this entity shall join the Agreement according to Article 10.1 of the Agreement as a “New Subsidiary of Party B” under the Agreement. 

This entity hereby agrees to join the Agreement as a “New Subsidiary of Party B” of the Investor, enjoy the rights under the Agreement, and perform the obligations according to the Agreement. This Assumption Letter came into effect upon the date of execution. 

 

Baoding Baigou New City Bright Scholar Shenghua Education Consulting Co., Ltd. (Seal) Seal of Baoding Baigou New City Bright Scholar Shenghua Education Consulting Co., Ltd. Affixed

 


	
By:
	
/s/ Jinsheng Cheng

	
Name:
	
Jinsheng Cheng

	
Title:
	
Legal Representative

	
Date:
	
June 14, 2017
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

EDWIN AYBAR,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 487 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of February, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
----

----

|   | (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 result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Date:       May 15, 2009 |  By:        |  /s/  Shepard G.      Bentley            |
|-------------------------------------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                |                  | Shepart      G. BentleyChief ExecutiveOfficer |

----
#### Charles G. KINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michele R. CLARK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56162

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 28, 2017

Charles G. Kinney, Pro Se

Eric Chomsky, Esquire, Attorney, Marcus & Enowitz, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Kinney’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Charles G. Kinney appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim. *Barrett v. Belleque,*544 F.3d 1060, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Johnson v. Riv**414*erside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Kinney’s action was proper under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine because Kinney’s claims constitute a “de fac-to appeal” of prior state court judgments, or are “inextricably intertwined” with those judgments. *See Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing application of the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine); *see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev.,*474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine barred claim for injunction based on allegedly erroneous and “void” state court judgment because “[gjranting the injunction would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. *Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

We reject as without merit Kinney’s challenges to the district court orders regarding venue, transfer, relation of cases, recusal, and the striking of electronically filed documents.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Appellees’ requests for sanctions and for leave to file a motion for a vexatious litigant pre-filing review order against Kinney, set forth in the answering brief, are denied.

Kinney’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 22) is granted.

Appellees’ requests for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 11, 26 & 30) are granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

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