alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 237 (Monday, December 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 63528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30039]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

First United Bancorporation, et al.; Formations of; Acquisitions 
by; and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Each application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank or to the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must 
include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in 
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically any questions of fact that 
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at 
a hearing.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received not later than January 8, 1996.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Senior 
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261:
    1. First United Bancorporation, Anderson, South Carolina; to 
acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of The Community Bank of 
Greenville, N.A., Greenville, South Carolina (in organization).
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. Wilson Bank Holding Company, Lebanon, Tennessee; to acquire 50 
percent of the voting shares of DeKalb Bank & Trust, Smithville, 
Tennessee (in organization).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 5, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-30039 Filed 12-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Exhibit
13.2




Certification
by the Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd.
(the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, M.
Anthea Chung, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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), 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.




Date:
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­May
3, 2010




By:
            /s/
      Anthea ChungName:
            Anthea
      ChungTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4538-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Entered: 10/31/19 15:13:41 Page 1

of 8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4538-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Entered: 10/31/19 15:13:41 Page 2

of 8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4538-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Entered: 10/31/19 15:13:41 Page 3

of 8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4538-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Entered: 10/31/19 15:13:41 Page 4

of 8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4538-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Entered: 10/31/19 15:13:41 Page 5

of 8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4538-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Entered: 10/31/19 15:13:41 Page 6

of 8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4538-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Entered: 10/31/19 15:13:41 Page 7

of 8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4538-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Entered: 10/31/19 15:13:41 Page 8

of 8
Amended Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.4 
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLAN 
  

	1)	All director annual retainer and applicable fees will be paid in the form of a grant of Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) pursuant to the Company’s 2004 Performance
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). 

  

	2)	RSUs will be payable in three equal annual installments beginning on the first anniversary of the grant date but will be payable in full on the earlier of (i) the date the
applicable Director ceases to be a Director of the Company or (ii) a Change in Control (as defined in the Plan). 

  

	3)	Directors have the option to defer payment of any installment to the later of (i) the date the applicable Director ceases to be a Director of the Company or (ii) such
other deferral period as may be required by Internal Revenue Code Section 409A. 

  

	4)	Dividend equivalents on the awards are deferred (credited with interest quarterly at the same rate as five-year U.S. government bonds) and paid out at the same time the
corresponding portion of the award vests. 

  

	5)	The Company shall make payment upon vesting of the RSUs in Company common stock. 

  

	6)	The schedule of fees is as follows: 

  

				
	 Base Fee:
	  		
	 Director annual retainer
	  	$	220,000
	 Additional Fees:
	  		
	 Chairman of the Board
	  	$	150,000
	 Chairman of Audit Committee
	  	$	35,000
	 Chairs of other Committees
	  	$	20,000
	 Audit Committee member other than Chairman
	  	$	20,000

 Approved by the Board of Directors on May 21, 2009
#### JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, v. ETHEL BOOGHER, ELISE BOOGHER, LYLES HARRIS, and WESTERN CAROLINA HILLS, INC.

(Filed 17 October, 1945.)

Mortgages §§ 30c, 31c—

Where plaintiff claimed title by deed of trustee in a deed of trust and defendant denied plaintiff’s title, evidence for plaintiff, tending to show default in payment of the indebtedness secured by the deed of trust which was foreclosed, is competent.

Stacy, C. J., took no part in the-consideration or decision of this case.

Appeal by defendants from *Bobbitt, J.,*at April Term, 1945, of Watauga.

Civil action to recover land, in which defendants deny title asserted by plaintiff.

This case was here at Fall Term, 1944, and is reported in 224 N. 0., 563, 31 S. E. (2d), 771. The purpose of th'e action and statement of essential facts are there fully set forth — thereby rendering unnecessary a restatement of them here. A new trial was ordered. And on new trial the case was again submitted to the jury upon same issues as at former trial, each of which was again answered in the affirmative. While the contest revolved in the main around the first issue as to whether the foreclosure sale, under which plaintiff asserts title, was advertised in the manner provided in the deed of trust, defendants’ denial of plaintiff’s title still remained. And plaintiff offered evidence tending to show default in payment of the indebtedness secured by the deed of trust under which the foreclosure was had. Exceptions by defendants. Defendants also excepted to the ruling of the court in sustaining objection to question as to whether plaintiff had foreclosed on any other loan on resort property in Blowing Bock. The question was *494not answered, nor does the record show what the answer would have been.

From judgment on verdict defendants appeal to Supreme Court and assign error.

*Triveite & Ilolshouser and Smith, Wharton & Jordan for plaintiff, appellee.*

*John W. Aiken for defendants, appellants.*

Winborne, J.

The exceptions taken by defendants and assigned as error, as hereinabove set forth, have been given due consideration and are found to be without merit.

The evidence offered by plaintiff to which exceptions are taken by defendants is competent, particularly in view of defendants’ denial of plaintiff’s title. Even though defendants admit the purport of the evidence, the admission of it cannot be held for error. .

The matter to which other exception is taken is immaterial and foreign to the issue, and incompetent. Moreover, no harmful effect appears since the record fails to show what the answer would have been.

Hence, in the judgment below we find

No error.

Stacy, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
EXHIBIT 32


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 Raven Moon Entertainment, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Joey DiFrancesco, President, Chief Executive Officer and principal financial
officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the Registrant.

Dated: August 21, 2006		/s/ Joseph DiFrancesco
	         	        ---------------------------
				Joey DiFrancesco, President,
				Chief Executive Officer and
				Principal Financial Officer
#### STATE v. D. M. BYRD.

(Filed 8 February, 1933.)

Bills and Notes I f—

A post-dated check for a past account does not come within provisions of the “bad-check law.” O. S., 4283(a).

Appeal by defendant from *Moore, J.,*at April Term, 1932, of Mitchell.

New trial.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.*

*Berry & Greene for defendant.*

AdaMS, J.

The defendant drew two checks on the Bank of Spruce Pine payable to the order of the Climax Manufacturing Company. Both checks were post-dated — that is, the date on each check was later than the real date of its issue: The question is whether the defendant is guilty of giving a worthless check in violation of section 4283(a) of the Consolidated Statutes.

The trial court instructed the jury to convict the defendant if they believed the evidence and found beyond a reasonable doubt that he had given the checks, and that it made no difference whether the checks were or were not post-dated.

They were given for a past account and if post-dated did not import criminal liability. *S. v. Crawford,*198 N. C., 522. For error in the instruction the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

New trial.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law

of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 28 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
RONALD EDWARD GILLETTE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v. JOHN SHANKS, Warden; and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Respondents-Appellees. No. 96-2127 (D.C. No. CIV 94-1422 JC/LFG) (District of New Mexico)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, PORFILIO , Circuit Judge, and MURPHY , Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have examined the record and determined appellant has failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right; therefore a certificate of appealability must be denied. Lennox v. Evans , 87 F.3d 431, 432 (10th Cir, 1996); 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (1996).- 2 -

In the district court, Mr. Gillette filed two petitions that were joined for disposition. In the first, he asserted the denial of constitutional rights because he was not granted sufficient meritorious release credits by the state. In the second petition, he claimed a denial of due process during a prison disciplinary hearing. After denying relief on both petitions, the district court also denied a certificate of appealability. On appeal, Mr. Gillette asserts the state is failing to comply with the terms of a “federal consent decree” which pertains to educational opportunities in state prisons. This issue was not raised in either of his original petitions or in his amended petition. He does not raise the claims asserted in the district court. Because we agree substantially with the disposition of the district court, we conclude Mr. Gillette has not met his burden. Moreover, if the state has failed to comply with a consent decree of which he is a beneficiary, his remedy lies in the court that issued the decree. The certificate of appealability is DENIED
. ENTERED FOR THE COURT John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge
#### Mary Irene Hoyt, Appellant, v. Samuel N. Hoyt and others, Respondents.

Decree affirmed, with costs. Opinion hy

Van Brunt, P. J.
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

# AGENCY:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

# ACTION:

Notice of intent.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), intends to                               ( print page 4615)                            grant to Handix, LLC of Boulder, Colorado, an exclusive global license to manufacture and distribute its “OPEN PATH OPTICAL CELL”.                    

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before February 29, 2016.

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to NOAA Technology Partnerships Office, SSMC4 Room 7605, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Derek Parks, NOAA Technology Transfer Program Manager, at:                         *derek.parks@noaa.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Government's rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Commerce. It is in the public interest to so license this invention, as Handix, LLC of Boulder, Colorado, has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the NOAA Technology Partnerships Office receives written evidence and argument which establishes the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Dated: January 21, 2016.

Jason Donaldson,

Chief Financial Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

[FR Doc. 2016-01614 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-KD-P
#### Helen Traphagen, by Guardian, Respondent, v. The Fidelity and Casualty Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00072

- CV

Transverse, LLC , Appellant

v.

Mark Swanholm , Appellee

FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D

- 1

- GN

- 21

- 007057 , THE HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Transverse, LLC has filed an unopposed moti on to dismiss this appeal.

We g rant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)

.

__________________________________________ Chari L. K elly , Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: April 27, 2022
Exhibit 35.1


                                                          [logo] Countrywide(R)
                                                                 --------------
                                                                   HOME LOANS

                                                            [logo]
                                                      400 Countrywide Way
February 29, 2008                             Simi Valley, California 93065-6298

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Attn: Katie Wannenmacher
1761 E. St. Andrews Place
Santa Ana, CA 92705

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

I, Joseph Candelario, hereby certify that I am an officer of Countrywide GP,
Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP (the "Servicer"). I
further certify, with respect to the applicable servicing agreement relating to
the securitization transaction(s) set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto (the
"Servicing Agreement") that:

      (a) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding
      calendar year and of the performance of the Servicer under the Servicing
      Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

      (b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
      fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all
      material respects throughout such year.

/s/ Joseph Candelario           February 29, 2008
---------------------           -----------------
Joseph Candelario
First Vice President
Compliance Officer
Loan Administration
<PAGE>

Exhibit A - Securitized Transaction(s)

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company - 1761 E. St. Andrews Place

BCAP 2007-AA1

BCAP 2007-AA2

BCAP 2007-AA3

BCAP 2007-AA4

DBALT 2007-AB1

DBALT 2007-AR1

DBALT 2007-AR2

DBALT 2007-AR3

DBALT 2007-BAR1

DBALT 2007-OA1

DBALT 2007-OA2

GSAA 2007-5

GSAA 2007-6

GSR 2007-AR1

GSR 2007-AR2

GSR 2007-OA1

HALO 2007-2

HALO 2007-AR1

HALO 2007-AR2

HARBORVIEW 2007-4

HARBORVIEW 2007-6

Harborview 2007-7

HASCO 2007-HE1

HASCO 2007-HE2

HASCO 2007-NC1

IMPAC CMB 2007-A

Impac SAC 2007-1
<PAGE>

Exhibit A - Securitized Transaction(s)

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company - 1761 E. St. Andrews Place

Impac SAC 2007-2

IMPAC SAC 2007-3

MSAC 2007-HE1

MSAC 2007-HE2

MSAC 2007-HE3

MSAC 2007-HE5

MSAC 2007-HE6

MSAC 2007-HE7

MSAC 2007-NC1

MSAC 2007-NC2

MSAC 2007-NC3

MSHEL 2007-1

MSHEL 2007-2

MSSTI 2007-1

Soundview 2007-1

Soundview 2007-WMC1
Order entered January 30, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00590-CV

JOYCE NEMONS, Appellant

V.

JULIUS EKHATOR, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-55250-2012

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By letter dated July 8, 2014, we 

informed appellant that the Court Reporter had notified us that the reporter’s record had not been 

filed because appellant had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid for or made arrangements to 

pay for the record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with written verification she had 

requested the record and had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record, or had been 

found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to 

provide the required documentation within ten days might result in the appeal being ordered 

submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, appellant has not provided the required 

documentation or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the reporter’s 
record. Therefore, we ORDER this appeal submitted without a reporter’s record. Appellant’s 

brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
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 this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of MEMSIC, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Patricia Niu, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.




Date: April 30, 2012





/S/ Patricia NiuPatricia NiuChief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6138

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC D. WHITE, a/k/a Eric Barnes, a/k/a Tiger, a/k/a Eric 

Carter, a/k/a Erick Barnes, a/k/a Eric Keene, a/k/a Eric 

Kane, a/k/a Eric Tiger,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:92-cr-00256-JCC-4)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 25, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric D. White, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric D. White appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of 

sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. White, No. 1:92-cr-00256-JCC-4 

(E.D. Va. filed Jan. 5, 2010 & entered Jan. 6, 2010). 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk October 31, 2012

s1024 

# Order

October 31, 2012

144946

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144946

COA: 300433

Wayne CC: 08

- 002525

- FC

HARVEY MALONE, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.