alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42178-42179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15088]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors

[[Page 42179]]

that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in 
paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
    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 July 29, 2022
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Karen Smith, Director, 
Applications) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. The Katherine A. Satel 2021 Family Trust One, The Katherine A. 
Satel 2021 Family Trust Two, the Emily G. Satel 2021 Family Trust One, 
the Emily G. Satel 2021 Family Trust Two, the Caroline M. Satel 2021 
Family Trust One, the Caroline M. Satel 2021 Family Trust Two, 14 
trusts fbo minor children, and Jefferson Bank, as trustee for all of 
the forementioned trusts, all of San Antonio, Texas; to join the 
McSween Family Control Group, a group acting in concert, to retain 
voting shares of Jefferson Bancshares, Inc., and thereby retain voting 
shares of Jefferson Bank, both of San Antonio, Texas.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-15088 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
STATE of North Carolina v. Craig Clifford WISSINK.

No. 484PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 28, 2007.

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 172 N.C.App. 829, 617 S.E.2d 319 (2005), finding no error in part in judgments entered 1 April 2004 by Judge Knox V. Jenkins in Superior Court, Cumberland County, but remanding for resentencing on defendant's conviction for discharging a firearm into occupied property. Heard in the Supreme Court 7 May 2007.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

M. Alexander Charns, Durham, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Although the Court of Appeals addressed several issues in its opinion, we allowed review solely for consideration of whether the trial court's finding of defendant's probationary status constituted error under *Blakely v. Washington,* 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and whether defendant had knowingly and voluntarily stipulated to his probationary status. The decision of the Court of Appeals to remand for resentencing is reversed, and we remand this case to that court for reconsideration of these two issues in light of our decisions in *State v. Hurt,* 361 N.C. 325, 330, 643 S.E.2d 915, 918 (2007) (holding "a judge may not find an aggravating factor on the basis of a defendant's admission unless that defendant personally or through counsel admits the necessary facts or admits that the aggravating factor is applicable") and *State v. Blackwell,* 361 N.C. 41, 44, 49-51, 638 S.E.2d 452, 455, 458-59 (2006) (explaining that *Blakely* error is subject to harmless error review), *cert. denied,* ___ U.S. ____, 127 S.Ct. 2281, ___ L.Ed.2d ____, 75 U.S.L.W. 3609 (2007). The Court of Appeals opinion remains undisturbed in all other respects.

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-14-00407-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-29873

Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County

On May 19, 2014, relator, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., filed a petition for a writ 

of mandamus. Relator also has filed a motion for emergency stay and a supplemental motion for

emergency stay, requesting a stay as to the trial court’s March 24, 2014 order compelling 

production of documents reflecting relator’s net worth. Relator’s motion and supplemental 

motion are denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jim Sharp 

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: June 25, 2016
STATE of North Carolina v. Dwight Eugene SLOAN and Kolanda Kay Wooten.

No. 24A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

Nora Henry Hargrove, for Sloan.

Norman Young, Jr., Thomas Meacham, Jr., Assistant Attorney Generals, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Rick Glazier, Fayetteville, for Wooten.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant (Sloan) on the 19th day of January 2007 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of March 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th day of January 2007 by Defendant (Sloan) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of March 2007."

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Defendant (Wooten) new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more that 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
STATE v. SMITH

No. COA06-597.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 5, 2007.

Certification Date June 25, 2007.

Appeal from Moore (03CRS56127, 05CRS2077, 05CRS51257).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0733. ANTAVIOUS PARKS v. THE STATE.

A jury convicted Antavious Parks of armed robbery, and he was sentenced as

a recidivist to life imprisonment. We affirmed his conviction on appeal. Parks v. State,

257 Ga. App. 25 (570 SE2d 350) (2002). Since then, Parks has filed multiple pro se

motions, including a January 2018 “Motion to Vacate Void/Illegal Sentence,” in which

he argued that he was incorrectly sentenced as a recidivist. The trial court denied the

motion and Parks filed this appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Parks previously has raised the same void-sentence claim. See Case No.

A17A1481 (dismissed June 29, 2017). As we explained in our previous dismissal

order, even assuming that Parks was improperlysentenced as a recidivist, as he alleges,

a trial court may sentence a defendant to life imprisonment for armed robbery

regardless of whether the defendant is deemed a recidivist. See OCGA § 16-8-41 (b)

(available sentencesfor armed robbery include “imprisonmentfor life”). Accordingly,

Parks’s sentence is not more severe than the law allows, and it is not void. See Brown

v. State, 295 Ga. App. 66, 67-68 (670 SE2d 867) (2008).

Moreover, “[i]t is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad

infinitum.” Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 (534 SE2d 464) (2000). In light of

Parks’s previous appeal, we are precluded from revisiting the issue. See Paradise v.

State, 321 Ga. App. 371, 373 (740 SE2d 238) (2013) (“Although a void sentence may

be challenged at any time, this important legal principle is, nevertheless, subject to the

equallywell established principles of res judicata and the law-of-the-case rule once the

issue has been raised and ruled upon.”) (citation and punctuation omitted); Ross v.

State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 328 (713 SE2d 438) (2011) (while a void sentence is a nullity

December 06, 2018
and may be vacated at any time, it is still subject to res judicata and law-of-the-case

rule; defendant is “not entitled to multiple bites at the apple”).

 For the reasons stated above, Parks’s appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/06/2018
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 66/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 66/2013 of 24 January 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 66/2013                     

# of 24 January 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 January 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

José Manuel Silva Rodríguez                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
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 Knight Transportation, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David A. Jackson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.
 
 November
      9, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      David A. JacksonDavid
      A. JacksonChief
      Financial Officer
 
 
 A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Knight Transportation, Inc. and will be retained by Knight
Transportation, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.




Back to Form
10-Q
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Auditors

The
Board of Directors
Star Buffet, Inc.:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-46939 and 333-50767) on Form S-8 of Star Buffet, Inc. of our
report dated March 16, 2001 except as to Note 2 which is as of April 18, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Star Buffet, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
January 29, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the 52-week period ended January 29, 2001 and the
53-week period ended January 31, 2000, which report appears in the January 28, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of Star Buffet, Inc.

Our
report dated March 16, 2001 except as to Note 2 which is as of April 18, 2002 contains an explanatory paragraph indicating Star Buffet, Inc. has restated its
consolidated balance sheet as of January 29, 2001 and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholder's equity and cash flows for the 52-week period ended
January 29, 2001 and the 53-week period ended January 31, 2000.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Salt
Lake City, Utah
April 26, 2002



QuickLinks
STATE v. ESQUIVEL-LOPEZ.

No. COA05-1096.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed May 16, 2006.

Certification Date June 5, 2006.

Case without published opinion. No error.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5506 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5506

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 369 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Jersey City, New Jersey, as the 
            ``Bishop Ralph E. Brower Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. BISHOP RALPH E. BROWER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 369 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Jersey City, New Jersey, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Bishop Ralph E. Brower Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Bishop 
Ralph E. Brower Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5506

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 369 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Jersey City, New Jersey, as the 
            ``Bishop Ralph E. Brower Post Office Building''.
```
STATE v. Rodney Santonio HOPPER, Jr.

No. 157P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Elizabeth J. Weese, Assistant Attorney General, Rick Shaffer, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th day of March 2007 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review Under G.S. 7A-31:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of May 2007."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 644/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 644/2013 of 4 July 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 644/2013                     

# of 4 July 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 July 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER Appellate case name: John Klumb, Veronica McCleiland, Vivian Montejano, John Gonzalez, Anita Robles, and Charmaine Pilgrim on Behalf of Themselves and All others Similarly Situated; City of Houston v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, et al., Appellate case number: 01-12-00511-CV Trial court case number: 1175492 Trial court: 

### 234th District Court of Harris County Appellants have filed a motion for oral argument in the above cause. The motion is granted. The cause is removed from the Court’s February 19, 2013 submission docket. The cause will be set for submission on March 5, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. The Court will hear oral argument at that time.~
It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature:/s/Laura C. Higley

[] Acting individually [] Acting for the Court
Date: February 4, 2013



### ~ This Court’s Clerk’s Office will send a submission notice at a later time to the parties including more details pertaining to submission and argument.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      28,422,709
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    175,551
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,837,223
<PP&E>                                         557,187
<DEPRECIATION>                                 147,336
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,332,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,051,606
<BONDS>                                      4,819,349
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           275
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,461,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,332,539
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,817,093
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             325,089
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,139,244)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,139,244)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.74)


</TABLE>