alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 149 (Friday, August 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 43240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16793]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan 
Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et 
seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 
CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to 
become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets 
or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a 
savings association.
    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 whether the 
proposed transaction complies with the standards enumerated in the HOLA 
(12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)).
    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 September 3, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (William Spaniel, Senior 
Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-
1521. Comments can also be sent electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ce8da1a3a3aba0babde0afbebea2a7adafbaa7a1a0bd8ebea6a7a2e0a8bcace0a1bca9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a290507070f041e19440b1a1a0603090b1e030504192a1a020306440c18084405180d">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Rhodium BA Holdings, LLC, New York, New York; to become a 
savings and loan holding company by acquiring Sunnyside Bancorp, Inc., 
and thereby indirectly acquiring Sunnyside Federal Savings and Loan 
Association of Irvington, both of Irvington, New York.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-16793 Filed 8-5-21; 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>
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1176

To guarantee that Federal agencies identify State agencies and counties

as cooperating agencies when fulfilling their environmental planning responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 15, 1997

Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. CRAIG) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public

Works

A BILL

To guarantee that Federal agencies identify State agencies

and counties as cooperating agencies when fulfilling their

environmental planning responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SHORT TITLE

4 SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State and

5 Local Government Participation Act of 1997’’.

6 SEC. 2. Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environ7 mental Policy Act of 1969 (43 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is

8 amended)—
2

S 1176 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘any Federal agency which has’’

2 in the first full sentence after subparagraph (v); and

3 (2) inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘Federal and State

4 agencies, and county governments which have’’.

Æ
# Official Journal C 169A/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.169.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 169A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5515 June 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.169.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 169A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5515 June 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2012/C 169A/01 | Recruitment notice PE/158/S | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Parliament

2012/C 169A/01

Recruitment notice PE/158/S

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 8 | (DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 10 | |
| 17 | (LT) |
| 20 | (EN) |
| 22 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (FR) |
| 31 | (ES) |
| 37 | |
| 44 | |
| 46 | |
| 53 | |
| 55 | |
| 59 | |
| 69 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 70 | (EL) |
| 71 | (ES) |
| 74 | (HU) |
| 75 | (NL) |
| 76 | |
| 77 | (RO) |
| 84 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 86 | |
| 90 | (EN) |
| 101 | |
| 110 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 114 | |
| 121 | (BG) |
| 122 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | (PT) |
| 140 | |
| 144 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 146 | (CS/DA) |
| 160 | |
| 161 | |
| 169 | (DE/EN/FR) |

8

(DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL)

10

17

(LT)

20

(EN)

22

(DE/EN/FR)

27

30

(FR)

31

(ES)

37

44

46

53

55

59

69

(DE/EN/FR)

70

(EL)

71

(ES)

74

(HU)

75

(NL)

76

77

(RO)

84

(DE/EN/FR)

86

90

(EN)

101

110

(DE/EN/FR)

114

121

(BG)

122

134

136

(PT)

140

144

(DE/EN/FR)

146

(CS/DA)

160

161

169

(DE/EN/FR)

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
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 on Form 10-QSB of
Sontra Medical Corporation (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sean F. Moran, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Sean F. Moran      
|Sean F. Moran          
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 10, 2005
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 1, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-10594

Summary Calendar

 

UDOM PUCKDEESRI, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARCUS LOPEZ, Correctional Officer III; STATE OF TEXAS,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CV-31

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

Before SMITH, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Udom Puckdeesri, Sr., Texas prisoner #732749, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his in forma pauperis (IFP) 42

U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous. His complaint alleged that the

defendants had illegally confiscated and destroyed legal papers

and court records in retaliation for complaining about a

correctional officer. His only requested relief was $5,000 per

day for mental suffering. 
No. 04-10594

-2-

Puckdeesri reiterates on appeal that he was retaliated

against when he was illegally deprived of his legal documents and

trial court transcripts, which, he argues, impeded his access to

the court and the grievance system and violated his

constitutional rights of due process and equal protection. The

district court determined that, even assuming that Puckdeesri’s

property was wrongfully confiscated, Puckdeesri had failed to

allege any physical injury to support his request for $5,000 per

day for mental suffering as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). We

affirm the district court on the alternative ground that

Puckdeesri failed to establish causation, which is required for a

retaliation claim. See Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30

(5th Cir. 1992). 

Because Puckdeesri has not shown that his property was not

seized and destroyed for the legitimate reasons given in the

confiscated property form, i.e., that the property was improperly

stored in excessive amounts and because the property had to be

given to a visitor within 60 days or it would be destroyed,

Puckdeesri cannot show that, but for the alleged retaliatory

motive, his property would not have been seized and destroyed. 

See McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Therefore, his retaliation claim must fail. See id.

In his brief, Puckdeesri requests that he be allowed to

proceed IFP on appeal. His request is DENIED as moot. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 336 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 336

To permit the collection of clothing, toys, food, and housewares during 
    the holiday season for charitable purposes in Senate buildings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 2011

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To permit the collection of clothing, toys, food, and housewares during 
    the holiday season for charitable purposes in Senate buildings.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. COLLECTION OF CLOTHING, TOYS, FOOD, AND HOUSEWARES DURING 
              THE HOLIDAY SEASON FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES IN SENATE 
              BUILDINGS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of the rules 
or regulations of the Senate--
            (1) a Senator, officer of the Senate, or employee of the 
        Senate may collect from another Senator, officer of the Senate, 
        or employee of the Senate within Senate buildings nonmonetary 
        donations of clothing, toys, food, and housewares for 
        charitable purposes related to serving persons in need or 
        members of the Armed Services and the families of those members 
        during the holiday season, if the charitable purposes do not 
        otherwise violate any rule or regulation of the Senate or of 
        Federal law; and
            (2) a Senator, officer of the Senate, or employee of the 
        Senate may work with a nonprofit organization with respect to 
        the delivery of donations described under paragraph (1).
    (b) Expiration.--The authority provided by this resolution shall 
expire at the end of the first session of the 112th Congress.
                                 <all>
```
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
  
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company for the periods presented therein.
 Date: February 6, 2009/s/ UMANG GUPTAUmang GuptaChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Gemal Tafsiou, Respondent, v Arms Acres, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 763]-

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fartnow, J.), dated April 12, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the motion was untimely.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for *996a determination of the merits of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint solely upon the ground that the motion was untimely. We agree. In an order dated November 9, 2010, the Supreme Court extended the defendant’s “time to file” a summary judgment motion by 60 days. This 60-day extension expired on January 8, 2011, which was a Saturday. Accordingly, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 282, the defendant had until Monday, January 10, 2011, to file its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On that date, the defendant’s motion papers were received and marked “approved” by the Kings County Supreme Court Motion Support Office, the office with which they were required to be filed *(see*Kings County, Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rules, part A). “Papers that are required to be filed are considered to have been filed when they are received by the office with which, or by the official with whom, they are to be filed” *(Castro v Homsun Corp.,*34 AD3d 616, 617 [2006]; *Coty v County of Clinton,*42 AD3d 612, 613-614 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Thus, the defendant’s motion papers were timely filed when received by the Motion Support Office on January 10, 2011, despite the fact that they were not stamped “filed” by the Kings County Clerk until the following day, January 11, 2011. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to determine the defendant’s motion on the merits. Skelos, J.P, Dillon, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.
SWARTZ PRIVATE EQUITY, LLC





                                  MEMORANDUM



To:       Ted Freedman, Esq.
Fax:      (303) 893-2882
Company:  Krys Boyle Freedman & Sawyer, P.C.
From:     Brad Hathorn
Date:     September 13, 1999
Re:       Ecom Registration, Filing Extension
Pages (Inc. Cover):  1


As discussed, Swartz Private Equity, LLC hereby extends the filing deadline
for the Registration Statement until Friday, September 17, 1999.




/s/ Brad Hathorn
------------------------
Brad Hathorn, Esq.



cc:  David Panaia (561) 841-7422













  1080 Holcomb Bridge Road, 200 Roswell Summit, Ste. 185, Roswell, GA  30076
              Telephone: (770) 640-8130; FAX (770) 640-7150
# Official Journal C 135A/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 135A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 499 June 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 135A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 499 June 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | European Environment Agency |
| 2006/C 135A/1 | Call for European Environment Agency Scientific Committee experts 2006 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

European Environment Agency

2006/C 135A/1

Call for European Environment Agency Scientific Committee experts 2006

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Land O'Lakes, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Daniel Knutson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Company.



                                       By  /s/ Daniel Knutson
                                       ----------------------
                                       Daniel Knutson
                                       Senior Vice President
                                       and Chief Financial Officer
#### Caroline Percia, Respondent, v Nicholas J. Cascone et al., Appellants.

— In an action to foreclose a mortgage, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), dated July 9, 1984, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Order affirmed, with costs.

After a traverse hearing, it was adjudged that service of the summons and complaint upon defendants, pursuant to CPLR 308 (4), was proper. We agree. The evidence adduced at the traverse hearing established that the process server exercised due diligence in attempting to serve defendants in accordance with the provisions of CPLR 308 (1) and (2) prior to resorting to "nail-and-mail service”.

We find that the affidavit, affirmations and documentary *558proof submitted by plaintiff were sufficient to establish a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Although defendants are correct in asserting that summary judgment must be denied to a plaintiff if the motion papers reveal a meritorious unpleaded defense *(see, Gem Grywall Corp. v Scialdo & Sons,*34 AD2d 1063, 1064; *Furlo v Cheek,*20 AD2d 939, 940), the papers submitted in opposition do not disclose such a defense, nor do they raise triable issues of fact sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### Todd Smith, Plaintiff, v Lawrence J. Guli et al., Defendants. Jack Ryan’s Place, Inc. et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Richard J. Horan et al., Doing Business as Main Place Tavern, Third-Party Defendants-Respondents, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

—Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We find no proof that respondents unlawfully sold or unlawfully assisted in the procurement of liquor by the intoxicated person which would support a violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101 [1]). The proof demonstrated mere consumption by Guli. The Dram Shop Act must be construed narrowly *(Gabrielle v Craft,*75 AD2d 939) and absent proof of any sales of intoxicating beverages to Guli or other evidence that respondents did unlawfully assist "in procuring liquor for [such] intoxicated person”, summary judgment was properly granted *(Wright v Sunset Recreation,*91 AD2d 701). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                    3,555,794
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             2,613,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                               1,119,481
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          8,708,430
<PP&E>                                                      511,122
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           24,426,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     5,502,306
<BONDS>                                                     274,678
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       456,250
<PREFERRED>                                                     350
<COMMON>                                                      7,352
<OTHER-SE>                                               10,083,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             24,426,668
<SALES>                                                   3,921,971
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          3,921,971
<CGS>                                                     3,426,332
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             3,426,332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (1,762,998)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    482
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (1,763,480)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (1,763,480)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (0.26)


</TABLE>
#### FALLON, Respondent, v. MERTZ et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Thomas Fallon against Louis C. Mertz and others.

No opinion. Judgment and .order affirmed with costs. See 97 N. Y. Supp. 417.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cornell Mack, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), rendered August 7,1981, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant claims that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Some of the occurrences he now objects to were matters of unsuccessful trial strategy, including counsel’s eliciting the details of complainant’s injuries and his decision not to contact the person in whose possession the murder weapon was found. There is insufficient information in the record to determine whether counsel attempted to contact another potential witness; therefore, this court cannot pass on whether he failed to do so, or whether it would be a ground to support a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. Other errors raised by defendant with respect to counsel’s performance were not of a serious nature. Neither the Federal nor the New York State Constitution requires perfect trials, but only fair ones *(People v Morris,*100 AD2d 630, *affd*64 NY2d 803; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668, 104 S Ct 2052). Defendant has failed to demonstrate that counsel’s errors resulted in prejudice or denied him a fair trial. Therefore, we see no reason to overturn his conviction.

Defendant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.