alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13281]



[[Page 28911]]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than June 12, 2001.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. Raymond and Ruth Schnake, St. Peter, Illinois; to retain voting 
shares of St. Peter Bancshares, Inc., St. Peter, Illinois, and thereby 
indirectly retain voting shares of First State Bank of St. Peter, St. 
Peter, Illinois.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. William James Collier, Post, Texas, Thomas Curtis Darden, Linda 
Ann Lewis, both of Lubbock, Texas, and Jesse Lee Reese, Ralls, Texas; 
to acquire voting shares of Kenco Bancshares, Inc., Jayton, Texas, and 
thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Kent County State Bank, 
Jayton, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 22, 2001.
Robert deV. Frierson
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-13281 Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
143 So. 924

#### Viola HULAND v. John COLEMAN.

8 Div. 287.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 6, 1932.

Simpson & Simpson, of Florence, for appellant.

Almon & Almon, of Florence, for appellee.

BOULDIN, J.

Upon the contest of the alleged will of Robert Coleman, deceased, heard by Hon. H. L. Stutts, sitting without a jury, upon the oral testimony of witnesses appearing before him, the final decree discloses the following finding of facts: “ * * * The Court finds from the testimony that at the time of the execution of the alleged will that Robert Coleman was in a very weals condition, both physically and mentally; that a confidential relationship existed between himself and the beneficiary in said will, Viola Huland; that the said Robert Coleman was, at the time of the execution of the will and for some time prior thereto, under the influence, domination and control of the said Viola Huland, that she was shown by the testimony to have been active in and about the execution of the will, and that the execution thereof was the result of undue influence exercised by her over the said Robert Coleman.”

Upon a careful consideration of the entire evidence, direct and circumstantial, we find no sufficient reason to declare such conclusion clearly wrong. The governing rules of law applicable to the case are well stated in Coghill v. Kennedy, 119 Ala. 641, 658, 659, 24 So. 459. A detailed discussion of the evidence would serve no good purpose.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (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 registrant, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: November 3, 2010
    /s/ Harpreet S. GrewalHarpreet S. GrewalExecutive Vice President and
 Chief Financial Officer
Dismissed and Opinion Filed May 11, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 11

- 01448

- CV

ROBERT AND KATHY WEBB , Appellants

V. GLENBROOK OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219

- 00591

- 06

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Nowell We reinstate this appeal. This case was abated in 201 2 due to bankruptcy. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 8.2. The Court conducted an independent review of the federal Public

Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) which shows the bankruptcy

proceeding associated with this appeal was terminated on April 20, 2015.

We notified the parties by letter, requesting they inform the Court of the status

of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the failure to respond would

result in the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 42.3(b),(c). To

date , neither party has responded.– 2

–

Because we gave the parties an opportunity to show why we should not

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and no one responded, we dismiss this

appeal. See id. 42.3(b),(c) ; Brewer v. Admiral Ins. Co. , 2002 WL 31312990, at *1

(Tex. App.

— Dallas Oct. 16, 2002, no writ) (per curiam) (not designated for

publication).

111448f.p05 /Erin A. Nowell// ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ROBERT AND KATHY WEBB, Appellants

No. 05

- 11

- 01448

- CV V.

GLENBROOK OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219

- 00591

- 06. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowel l. Justices Osborne and Pedersen, III participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered this 11 th day of May, 2021.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27953-27954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12648]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-1419-000]


Rowan County Power, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

May 15, 2001.
    Rowan County Power, LLC (Rowan) submitted for filing a rate 
schedule under which Rowan will engage in wholesale electric power and 
energy transactions at market-based rates. Rowan also requested waiver 
of various Commission regulations. In particular, Rowan requested that 
the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all 
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Rowan.
    On May 4, 2001, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Rowan should file a motion to intervene 
or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 
of the Commission's Rules and Practice

[[Page 27954]]

and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition within this period, 
Rowan is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or 
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect 
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or 
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of 
the applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is 
reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Rowan's issuances of securities or assumptions of 
liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is June 4, 2001.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-12648 Filed 5-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13568]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Closed Meeting

AGENCY: Defense Intelligence Agency, Defense.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of Subsection (d) of Section 10 of 
Public Law 92-463, as amended by Section 5 of Public Law 94-409, notice 
is hereby given that a closed meeting of the DIA Joint Military 
Intelligence College Board of Visitors has been scheduled as follows:

DATES: Monday, 11 June 2001, 0800 to 1700; and Tuesday, 12 June 2001, 
0800 to 1200.

ADDRESSES: Joint Military Intelligence College, Washington, DC 20340-
5100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. A. Denis Clift, President, DIA 
Joint Military Intelligence College, Washington, DC 20340-5100 (202/
231-3344).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The entire meeting is devoted to the 
discussion of classified information as defined in Section 552b(c)(1), 
Title 5 of the U.S. Code and therefore will be closed. The Board will 
discuss several current critical intelligence issues and advise the 
Director, DIA, as to the successful accomplishment of the mission 
assigned to the Joint Military Intelligence College.

    Dated: May 10, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 01-13568 Filed 5-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2490 

AN ACT 

To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the 

Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the 

feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2490 EH

1 SECTION 1. CHIEF STANDING BEAR NATIONAL HISTORIC 

2 TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY. 

3 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 

4 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(xx) CHIEF STANDING BEAR NATIONAL HIS7 TORIC TRAIL.—The Chief Standing Bear Trail, ex8 tending approximately 550 miles from Niobrara, Ne9 braska, to Ponca City, Oklahoma, which follows the 

10 route taken by Chief Standing Bear and the Ponca 

11 people during Federal Indian removal, and approxi12 mately 550 miles from Ponca City, Oklahoma, 

13 through Omaha, Nebraska, to Niobrara, Nebraska, 

14 which follows the return route taken by Chief Stand15 ing Bear and the Ponca people.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 26, 

2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2490 

AN ACT 

To amend the National Trails System Act to direct 

purposes. ing Bear National Historic Trail, and for other on the feasibility of designating the Chief Standthe Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2427 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2427

 To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to reauthorize the 
            Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2019

  Mr. Sarbanes (for himself, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Wittman, Mr. 
 Harris, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Hoyer, Ms. 
Wexton, Mr. Brown of Maryland, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Trone, Mr. McEachin, Ms. 
 Blunt Rochester, Mrs. Luria, and Ms. Norton) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to reauthorize the 
            Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

    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 ``Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
Watertrails Network Reauthorization Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY GATEWAYS AND WATERTRAILS 
              NETWORK.

    Section 502(2) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 (16 
U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105-312) is amended by striking ``for each 
of fiscal years 1999 through 2019'' and inserting ``for each of fiscal 
years 2020 through 2025''.
                                 <all>
```
#### William E. BURKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE ROCHESTER CORPORATION, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 05-2155.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2006.

Decided: June 1, 2006.

Robert P. Dwoskin, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Charles E. McDonald, III, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

*310Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

William E. Burke appeals the district court’s order rejecting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Burke v. The Rochester Corp.,*No. CA-04-37-3 (W.D.Va. Sept. 27, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1251]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[FCC 00-352]


Waivers, Reductions and Deferrals of Regulatory Fees; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission published in the Federal 
Register of December 18, 2000, a document that was to deny the petition 
for reconsideration filed by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry 
Association on August 2, 1999 regarding the Report and Order in the 
matter of Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 
1999 and also amend the Commission's rule regarding petitions for 
reduction of regulatory fees. Inadvertently, the document did not 
include the paragraph noting the denial of the petition for 
reconsideration. This document corrects that error.

DATES: Effective January 17, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Conover, Office of General 
Counsel, (202) 418-7882.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 00-31946, published in the 
Federal Register of December 18, 2000 (65 FR 78989), the paragraph 
noting the denial of a petition for reconsideration was not included. 
This correction includes that paragraph.
    1. This supplementary information is a summary of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration (Order) in MD Docket 
No. 98-200 (FCC 00-352), adopted September 21, 2000, and released 
October 10, 2000. The complete text of the Order is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, International Transcription Services (ITS, Inc.), CY-B400, 
445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC.
    2. In FR Doc. 00-31946, on page 78989, in the first column, in the 
Summary, insert this sentence at the end of the paragraph: This 
document also denies the petition for reconsideration filed by the 
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association on August 2, 1999 
regarding the Report and Order adopted on June 11, 1999 in the matter 
of Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1999.
    3. On page 78989, in the third column, insert the following before 
the List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1: 4. The petition for 
reconsideration filed by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry 
Association on August 2, 1999 regarding the Report and Order adopted on 
June 11, 1999 in the matter of Assessment and Collection of Regulatory 
Fees for Fiscal Year 1999 is denied.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-1251 Filed 1-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
SAMSON LOYNACHAN

V.

CAUSE*

STATE OF TEXAS

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PDR

TO THE HONORABLE COURT,

Comes now, Samson M. Loynachan, Appellant Pro Se and.files this motion for

an extension of time and in support shows the following.

I.

On 25 June, 2015, Appellants NOTICE OF APPEAL, 02-1 5-001 35-CR was dis

missed by the 2nd Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant

wishes to petition this court on the question of jurisdiction. The Pe

tition for Discretionary Review is currently due on 2k Duly, 2015.

II.

Appellant asserts that he needs more time to file his PDR due to the

complexity of Texas' jurisdictional statutes and the corresponding judicial

rulings.

PRAYER

Wherefore, premises considered, Appellant prays this court grants

this motion''and' extends filing deadline 60 days to give the Appellant

the opportunity to properly file his PDR.

Respectfully submitted,

COURT OF

CRIMINAL

APPEALS

SAMSON M. L0Y^CHANf#1 789266

FRENCH ROBERTSON UNIT

12071 FM 3522

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 10 20(5

Abel Acosta, Clerk

ABILENE, TX 79601
# C_2020240EN.01001401.xml

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave — Slovakia) — DHL Logistics (Slovakia) spol. s r. o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo SR

(Case C-810/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheading 8525 80 91 - Digital cameras - Video camera recorders - Digital video camera recorder capable of capturing and recording still images and sequences of video with a resolution quality of less than 800 × 600 pixels)

(2020/C 240/18)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Trnave

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DHL Logistics (Slovakia) spol. s r. o.

Defendant: Finančné riaditeľstvo SR

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010, Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that digital video camera recorders having a dual function, that is to say, to capture and record both still images and sequences of video, come under subheading 8525 80 91 of the Combined Nomenclature as ‘video camera recorders’, even though, with regard to sequences of video, those cameras allow such sequences to be captured and recorded only with an image resolution quality lower than 800 × 600 pixels, provided that the principal function of those digital video camera recorders is to capture and record such sequences, this being a matter which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---