alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 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 21, 2010.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco**                     (Kenneth Binning, Vice President, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:                

*1. Daniel Hugh and Patricia L. Bowman*, Fontana, California; to retain voting shares of Chino Commercial Bancorp, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Chino Commercial Bank, N.A., both of Chino, California.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 1, 2010.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-13421 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
EXHIBIT 21  LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES  WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES OF KNOLL, INC.

JURISDICTION   OF   INCORPORATIONKnoll North America Corp

Ontario,   CanadaSpinneybeck Enterprises, Inc.

New   YorkSpinneybeck, LTD. (wholly owned subsidiary of   Spinneybeck Enterprises, Inc.)

Ontario,   CanadaSpinneybeck Ireland (wholly owned subsidiary of   Spinneybeck Enterprises, Inc.)

IrelandEdelman Leather, LLC

DelawareEdelman Leather Limited (wholly owned subsidiary   of Edelman Leather, LLC)

IrelandKnoll Overseas, Inc.

DelawareKnoll Middle East, LLC (wholly owned subsidiary of   Knoll Overseas, Inc.)

DelawareKnoll Muebles y Sistemas S.A. (wholly owned   subsidiary of Knoll Overseas, Inc.)

ColumbiaKnoll Europe B.V. (wholly owned subsidiary of   Knoll Overseas, Inc.)

NetherlandsKnoll Italy, Ltd. (wholly owned subsidiary of   Knoll Europe B.V.)

England &   WalesKnoll International S.p.A. (75% owned subsidiary   of Knoll Europe B.V. and 25% owned subsidiary of Knoll Italy, Ltd.)

ItalyKnoll International, Ltd. (wholly owned   subsidiary of Knoll Europe B.V.)

England &   WalesKnoll International S.A. (wholly owned subsidiary   of Knoll Europe B.V.)

FranceKnoll International GmBH (wholly owned subsidiary of Knoll Europe B.V.)

GermanyKnoll International S.A. (wholly owned subsidiary   of Knoll Europe B.V.)

Belgium
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5019 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1335 Jefferson Road in Rochester, New York, 

as the ‘‘Specialist Theodore Matthew Glende Post Office’’. 

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

•HR 5019 EH

1 SECTION 1. SPECIALIST THEODORE MATTHEW GLENDE 

2 POST OFFICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 1335 Jefferson Road in Roch5 ester, New York, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Specialist Theodore Matthew Glende Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Specialist Theodore 

11 Matthew Glende Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 8, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5019 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postdore Matthew Glende Post Office’’. Rochester, New York, as the ‘‘Specialist Theo- al Service located at 1335 Jefferson Road in
#### James H. Perkins v. James Gordon Bennett.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.

All concur.
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 12-3027

___________________________ Rhonda Golden lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Dollar General Corporation; Michelle H ughes; Tom O’Connell, district manager;

Ruth Greggory, risk management; Gayl on Keetis, regional manager; Kimberly Knaff; Ray LNU, store manager lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________ Submitted: February 14, 2013 Filed: March 1, 2013 [Unpublished]

____________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Rhonda Golden appeals the district court’s 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of her complaint. After careful de novo review, seePalmer v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co. , 666 F.3d 1081, 1083 (8th Cir. 2012), we conclude that the dismissal was proper because Golden’s complaint did not allege sufficient facts to support any of her claims, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, th at states facially plausible claim for relief). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert REID, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 532, Docket 29548.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued June 16, 1965.

Decided June 23, 1965.

Randolph Guggenheimer, Jr., New York City (Anthony F. Marra, The Legal Aid Soc., New York City), for appellant.

Daniel R. Murdock, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for the Southern Dist. of New York, Charles A. Stillman, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City), for appellee.

Before KAUFMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a conviction for violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 173, 174 (1958).

*345The charge of which appellant com.plains was not as clear as would be desirable in instructing the jury on the effect of the presumption of illegal importation.

> “In short, a finding of possession authorizes conviction, but does not compel it. It permits the jury to infer that all of the elements requisite to conviction were proved by the Government to their satisfaction. Since the jury, despite proof of possession, may find that one of those elements was lacking, it is incumbent upon the trial judge not only to explain properly the function of the statutory ‘authorization’ but also to instruct on each and every element — unlawful importation, knowledge, and facilitation or sale — of the offense charged.” United States v. Evans, 312 F.2d 556, 557 (2d Cir. 1963).

However, no objection was made to the charge and we do not believe that the charge as given was plainly erroneous within the meaning of Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Appellant asks us to rule on the basis of Erwing v. United States, 323 F. 2d 674, 682 (9th Cir. 1963) that “there is no rational connection” between cocaine hydrochloride and the presumption of illegal importation. But the record contains no evidence whatever as to place of manufacture upon which we could base such a conclusion. See United States v. Martinez, 333 F.2d 80, 81 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 907, 85 S.Ct. 199, 13 L.Ed.2d 178 (1964); United States v. Sorenson, 330 F.2d 1018, 1021 (2d Cir. 1964).

Appellant urges that the testimony of the chemist did not sufficiently identify the substance which he analyzed as the same substance which was purchased from the defendant. The record appears to lend support to the appellant’s claim. However, there is other evidence which sufficiently establishes the character of the substance sold by appellant. See United States v. Agueci, 310 F.2d 817, 828 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 959, 83 S.Ct. 1013, 10 L.Ed.2d 11 (1963). Moreover, appellant was not in a position to raise the point after his counsel stood by without objection when the judge charged the jury “that the character of the drug * * * as narcotics is not disputed by counsel for the defendant.”

Affirmed.
No. 17,855.

#### Estelle K. Byrne *v.*Charles J. Essig.

(299 P. [2d] 120)

Decided July 16, 1956.

Mr. John J. Gibbons, Messrs. Ownby & Greinetz, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Yegge, Bates, Hall & Shulenburg, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed without written opinion.
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



MIDSOUTH BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES                               EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE  (Unaudited)
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2001 AND 2000 AND
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 2000


                                    First Quarter    First Quarter     Year Ended
                                     March 31,        March 31,       December 31,
BASIC                                   2001             2000             2000
                                     ___________      __________      ___________
<S>                                  <C>              <C>             <C>
Earnings:
    Income applicable to common
      stock                            $764,884         $510,209       $2,649,113
                                     ===========      ==========      ===========

Shares:
    Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding       2,492,196        2,470,551        2,487,187
                                     ===========      ==========      ===========

Earnings per common share:
    Income applicable to common
      stock                               $0.31            $0.21            $1.07
                                     ===========      ==========      ===========


DILUTED

Earnings:
    Net income                         $795,177         $548,268       $2,787,887
                                     ===========      ==========      ===========

Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding         2,492,196        2,470,551        2,487,187

    Assuming exercise of options,
      reduced by the number of
      shares which could have
      been purchased with the
      proceeds from exercise of
      such options at the
      average issue price                40,946           36,951           29,196

    Assuming conversion of
      preferred stock at a
      conversion rate of 1 to
      2.998                             391,599          457,153          406,428
                                     ___________      __________      ___________

    Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding,
      as adjusted                     2,924,741        2,964,655        2,922,811
                                     ===========      ==========      ===========


Fully diluted earnings per common
  share                                   $0.27            $0.18            $0.95
                                     ===========      ==========      ===========



</TABLE>
#### George Alden, as Receiver, Appellant, v. Edward K. Clark, Respondent, Impleaded, etc.

—Interlocutory judgment, so far as appealed from, reversed, with costs of the appeal to the appellant, and demurrer to the first and second alleged defenses sustained.
16213.101 4813-3072-1699.3 

EXHIBIT B 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4038-2 Filed: 09/30/19 Entered: 09/30/19 13:37:00 Page 1

of 3
16213.101 4813-3072-1699.3 Exhibit B 

COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY 

COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 1, 2019 

THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2019 

TASK1

CODE DESCRIPTION1 HOURS AMOUNT 

C100 Fact Gathering 26.80 $8,188.80 

L110 Fact Investigation/Development 1.40 $560.00

L120 Analysis/Strategy 10.30 $5,080.00

L130 Experts/Consultants 5.90 $2,950.00 

L143 eDiscovery - Identification and Preservation 0.40 $200.00 

L200 Pre-Trial Pleadings and Motions 0.40 $200.00 

L310 Written Discovery 6.40 $2,730.00 

L330 Depositions 18.00 $7,490.00 

L670 Production 11.80 $2,065.00

P1002 Project Administration 50.90 $31,850.70

P240 Real and Personal Property 6.20 $4,017.60

P280 Other 0.20 100.00 

P300 Structure/Strategy/Analysis 60.80 $38,239.78

P400 Initial Document Preparation/Filing 23.90 $15,487.20

P500 Negotiation/Revision/Responses 7.80 $5,054.40

P700 Post-Completion/Post/Closing 0.60 $388.80 

 

1

 These Task Codes and Descriptions were used by Coblentz in conjunction with pre-petition 

time entries and invoices as required by Debtors prior to the filing of these Bankruptcy Cases, 

and Coblentz continues to use them in conjunction with post-petition time entries and invoices in 

these Special Counsel matters. In connection with additional services Coblentz now is required 

to perform in connection with these bankruptcy cases (e.g., in connection with Coblentz's 

retention application, monthly fee statements, fee applications, or the like), Coblentz further 

specifies the time and fees for any such additional services in footnote 2 below. 

2

 Includes 45.30 hours ($28,221.90 in fees) related to Coblentz’s First through Sixth Monthly 

Fee Statements and related Coblentz retention issues, all contained within attached Invoice 

328030. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4038-2 Filed: 09/30/19 Entered: 09/30/19 13:37:00 Page 2

of 3
16213.101 4813-3072-1699.3 Exhibit B 

TASK1

CODE DESCRIPTION1 HOURS AMOUNT 

P800 Maintenance and Renewal 0.60 388.80 

Total: 232.40 $124,991.08

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4038-2 Filed: 09/30/19 Entered: 09/30/19 13:37:00 Page 3

of 3
Exhibit 10.1





Exhibit 10.1




Description of Compensation and Benefits for Directors




Cash Compensation of Non-employee Directors. Non-employee directors receive a $20,000 annual
retainer, $1,000 per meeting attended, and $10,000 per year for chairing certain Board committees
(other than the Audit and Human Resources Committees. The Chair of the Audit Committee receives
$20,000 per year, the Chair of the Human Resources Committee receives $15,000 per year and the Lead
Director receives $25,000 per year as a retainer fee.



Flight Benefits for Directors. Generally, directors, their spouses or enrolled friend and their
dependent children/stepchildren are entitled to complimentary first class positive space travel on
United Airlines and United Express for pleasure or UAL business travel, and will be reimbursed
annually for the income tax liability incurred in using this privilege.



Enhanced Travel Benefit. In addition, each non-employee director is entitled to ten roundtrip
first class tickets each year for complimentary positive space travel that may be distributed to
family and non-family members or donated to charity. Unless donated to charity, the use of these
tickets will be subject to imputed income and each director is responsible for the tax liability
associated with this travel.



Nonprofit Grant Program. The Company will provide support to nonprofit organizations to which a
Board member makes a personal commitment in the amount of $20,000 per year. In the case of each of
the ALPA and IAM director, the Company will provide support to organizations to which the director
or their respective union contributes up to $20,000 per year in the aggregate.



Complimentary Cargo Carriage Policy for Directors. After one year of service on the Board, or
currently an employee in good standing and having been employed by United for at least one year,
directors receive complimentary cargo carriage (excluding ground transportation) for personal goods
on United Airlines, for up to 2,500 pounds per year, and are reimbursed for the related income tax
liability.



Stock Based Compensation of Non-employee Directors. Under the UAL Corporation 2006 Director Equity
Incentive Plan, non-employee directors may receive awards in the form of UAL common stock,
restricted stock, stock options, stock appreciation rights and/or deferred stock units representing
the right to receive UAL stock in the future. In addition, the Plan permits non-employee directors
to elect, for tax purposes; to defer receipt of compensation through deferred stock units
representing the right to receive UAL stock in the future.



Directors’ and Officers’ Liability Insurance and Indemnification. The Company has a policy which
provides liability insurance for directors and officers of UAL and its subsidiaries. The Company
also provides indemnification for directors as set forth in the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of UAL Corporation.
April 10 , 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

24/7 GRILL, LLC , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00099

- CV V.

DONAL S. CLARK , Appellee

_______________ _________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Donal S. Clark, signed January 9, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find the evidence legally insufficient

. We therefore orde r the judgment of the court below REVERSED and RENDER judgment that appellee take nothing

. We order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Alexander Myers, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.—

*Per Curiam:*

When this case was before us on a former appeal (82 Hun, 36) the judgment upon a verdict in favor of plaintiff was; reversed on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and a non-suit should have been granted on that *620ground. Upon the retrial now under review a nonsuit was granted, it being said by the trial justice that in his opinion the facts were not in any material respect changed from what they were upon the former trial. We are of the opinion that the nonsuit was properly granted. The changes, if any, in the evidence related to the proof on the question of whether the conductor of the train told the plaintiff to jump on. Assuming the conductor did so tell the plaintiff, the principle of the *Hunter Case*(126 N. Y. 18) would, we think, be applicable and call for a nonsuit. The train here, according to the evidence on the part of the plaintiff, was going at about the rate of two miles an hour. In the *Hunter*case the rate was from one to two miles an hour. In the *Hunter*case the danger was apparent, and so it was here. We think the judgment should be affirmed.

Present— Hardin, P. J., Martin and Merwin, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Henry J. Gaede for Admission to the Bar.

Application granted.

Present — Jenks,- P. j., Thomas,- Carr, Woodward and Rich, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

JMP GROUP INC.

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER 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 Annual Report of JMP Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas B. Kilian, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                    |  | 
|Date: March 8, 2010 |  |  |  | /S/    THOMAS B.
KILIAN
|                    |  |  |  | Thomas B. Kilian       
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically
incorporates it by reference.
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications





The undersigned officers certify that this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





August 9, 2010
/s/ Zhiguo FuZhiguo Fu (Chief Executive Officer)August 9, 2010
/s/ Guohua WanGuohua Wan (Chief Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of American Shared Hospital Services for the quarterly period ended March 31,2006 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 ofthe United States Code.     Ernest A. Bates, M.D., the Chief Executive Officer and Craig K. Tagawa, the Chief FinancialOfficer of American Shared Hospital Services, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:     1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and     2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of American Shared Hospital Services.May 15, 2006         /s/ Ernest A. Bates, M.D.   Ernest A. Bates, M.D.   Chief Executive Officer       /s/ Craig K. Tagawa   Craig K. Tagawa   Chief Financial Officer   
15