alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62859-62860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29822]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Wells Fargo & Company; Change in Bank Control Notices; 
Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 95-28984) published on page 
58627 of the issue for Tuesday, November 28, 1995.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco heading, the entry 
for Wells Fargo & Company, is revised to read as follows:
    1. Wells Fargo & Company San Francisco, California; to acquire at 
least 50.1 percent of the voting shares of First Interstate Bancorp, 
Los Angeles, California, and thereby indirectly acquire First 
Interstate Bank of Alaska, N.A., Anchorage, Alaska; First Interstate 
Bank of Arizona, N.A., Phoenix, Arizona; First Interstate Bank of 
California, Los Angeles, California; First Interstate Bank of Denver, 
N.A., Denver, Colorado; First Interstate Bank of Englewood, N.A., 
Englewood, Colorado; First Interstate Bank of Idaho, N.A., Boise, 
Idaho; First Interstate Bank of Montana, N.A., Kalispell, Montana; 
First Interstate Bank of Nevada, N.A., Las Vegas, Nevada; First 
Interstate Bank of New Mexico, N.A., Santa Fe, New Mexico; First 
Interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A., Portland, Oregon; First Interstate 
Bank of Texas, N.A., Houston, Texas; First Interstate Bank of Utah, 
N.A., Salt Lake City, Utah; First Interstate Bank of Washington, N.A., 
Seattle, Washington; First Interstate Bank of Wyoming, N.A., 

[[Page 62860]]
Casper, Wyoming; First Interstate Bank, Ltd., Los Angeles, California; 
and First Interstate Central Bank, Calabasas, California.
    Wells Fargo & Company San Francisco, California; to acquire First 
Interstate Resource Finance Associates, Newport Beach, California, and 
thereby engage in making, servicing, and acquiring loans, pursuant to 
Sec.  225.25(b)(1) of the Board's Regulation Y, Liberty Brokerage, 
Inc., New York, New York, and thereby engage in securities brokerage 
activities, pursuant to Sec.  225.25(b)(15) of the Board's Regulation 
Y, and Star System, Inc., California, and thereby engage in data 
transmission services through an electronic fund transfer network, 
pursuant to Sec.  225.25(b)(7) of the Board's Regulation Y.
    Comments on this application must be received by December 22, 1995.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 1, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-29822 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EL PASO COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DISTRICT,

Appellant,

v.

ROSA GONZALEZ,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00258

- CV

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2008

- 3813)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal, and

concludes the motion should be granted and the appea l should be dismissed, in accordance with

the opinion of this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. Cost are taxed against Appellant.

See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(d). This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
#### J. H. HARRIS v. HELEN SMITH, Administratrix.

(Filed 18 October, 1939.)

1. Trial §§ 22b, 24—

Upon a motion to nonsuit, tbe evidence must be considered in tbe light most favorable to plaintiff, and tbe case must be submitted to tbe jury if a cause of action is made out, even though tbe damages shown be slight or only nominal.

2. Agriculture § 7e—

Evidence of lease agreement to rent farm lands for a term of one year and the landlord’s breach of the agreement *held,*sufficient for the jury.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Williams, J.,*at March Term, 1939, of Pitt. Civil action to recover damages for breach of rental contract.

There is evidence on the record permitting tbe inference that in December, 1937, defendant’s intestate, Marcellus Smith, agreed to rent to the plaintiff for the ensuing year “four acres in tobacco, four acres in cotton and six acres in corn”; that it is the general custom “when the landlord furnishes the team, each gets one-half of the crop”; that plaintiff cleaned up the vacant house which he was to occupy on defendant’s place, but was prevented from moving in because there had been “some backing out.” Plaintiff worked elsewhere during 1938, but made very little.

From judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, he appeals, assigning errors.

*R. T. Martin for plaintiff, appellant.*

*John Hill Paylor for defendant, appellee.*

Stacy, C. J.

Viewing the evidence in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, as we are required to do on motion to nonsuit, it appears to be sufficient to carry the case to the jury, albeit the damages shown would seem to be slight or only nominal. See *Gulley v. Raynor,*185 N. C., 96, 116 S. E., 171; *Perry v. Kime,*169 N. C., 540, 86 S. E., 337; *Machine Co. v. Tobacco Co.,*141 N. C., 284, 53 S. E., 885; *Herring v. Armwood,*130 N. C., 177, 41 S. E., 96; *Spencer v. Hamilton,*113 N. C., 49, 18 S. E., 167.

Reversed.
Exhibit 34.1.5.5

 

[Letterhead of ERNST and YOUNG LLP]

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that ZC Sterling Insurance Agency, Inc. (‘the Company’ or ‘ZCSIA’) complied with certain servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the ZC Sterling Automated Tracking Solution (Tracking System) Hazard Insurance Outsourcing Platform (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. The Company has determined that only certain servicing criteria Item 1122(d)(1)(iv), Item 1122(d)(4)(xi), Item 1122(d)(4)(xii) and Item 1122(d)(4)(xiii) are applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by this report. See Appendix A of management’s assertion for the Platform and Servicers covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our teststhat may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the Platform. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

 

February 14, 2008
Exhibit 10.21




Long-Term Cash Award


Agreement 2010






Employee Name:        Thomas F. Prisby




The above named employee was awarded a long- term cash bonus of $43,485 onFebruary 11, 2010.




Vesting and Payment


The long-term cash bonus award will become vested in accordance with the following vesting schedule:




33% on May 1, 2012


33% on May 1, 2013


34% on May 1, 2014




The long-term cash bonus will be paid on the date on which the bonus, or a portion thereof, becomes vested in accordance with the above vesting schedule, except as provided otherwise in this paragraph.  In the event the employee’s employment is terminated for any reason other than Death, Disability, or Retirement prior to vesting, the bonus will be forfeited.  In the event of a termination due to Death, Disability, or Retirement, the non-vested portion of the bonus will become vested as of the date of termination.  In the event of a Change in Control, the non-vested portion of the bonus will become vested and be paid on the date the Change in Control occurs.  The terms “Disability,” “Retirement,” and “Change in Control” will have the same definition used in the CFS Bancorp, Inc. 2008 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan.




This document is not a contract or commitment for employment.




CFS BANCORP, INC.






Authorized By:                      /s/ Daryl D. Pomranke


Daryl D. Pomranke – President and COO






Recipient’s Signature:            /s/ Thomas F. Prisby


Thomas F. Prisby






Signature Witnessed by:        /s/ Monica F. Sullivan


Monica F. Sullivan – Corporate Secretary
#### In the Matter of the Last Will, etc., of Ebenezer C. Campbell, Deceased.

Decree reversed. Issue to be tried before jury at Circuit. Order and issue to be settled before Landon, J., costs to abide event. Opinions by

Landon and Bockes, JJ.,

and by Learned, P. J., dissenting.
Exhibit 12.1

Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges  (Amounts in thousands)

Year ended
December 31,
2010

Year ended
December 31,
2009

Year ended
December 31,
2008

Year ended
December 31,
2007

Year ended
December 31,
2006Earnings (loss):Income (loss) before equity in income of unconsolidated affiliate and income tax expense

$
371,766

$
77,220

$
(1,077,601
)
$
205,000

$
120,868Add: Fixed charges from below


156,852


289,374


564,614


617,504


430,384Total earnings (loss) before equity in income of unconsolidated affiliate, income tax expense and fixed charges

$
528,618

$
366,594

$
(512,987
)
$
822,504

$
551,252Fixed charges:Interest expense

$
156,852

$
289,374

$
564,614

$
617,504

$
430,384Total fixed charges

$
156,852

$
289,374

$
564,614

$
617,504

$
430,384Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


3.4x


1.3x



*

1.3x


1.3x


*Losses
exceeded fixed charges by approximately $513.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. The coverage deficiency for total fixed
charges for the year ended December 31, 2008 was $1,077.6 million to arrive at a one-to-one ratio.


---



QuickLinks
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.4
      
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS    
      
MariLyn R. Blair    
Robert M. Burks, Jr.
Michel C. Cadieux 
Thomas Deitrich   
R. Bruce Douglas
Barbara J. Doyle
Deloris R. Duquette    
Kirby A. Dyess      
Jon E. Eliassen    
Charles H. Gaylord    
Thomas S. Glanville  
Frank Jaehnert 
Jerome Lande
Timothy Leyden 
Peter Mainz
Charles McAtee    
Philip C. Mezey    
Sharelynn F. Moore
Sharon L. Nelson    
Daniel S. Pelino
Simon Pontin
Carl W. Porter    
Gary E. Pruitt    
W. Mark Schmitz
Diana Tremblay
Russell E. Vanos    
Shannon M. Votava
Robert W. Whitney    
Lynda L. Ziegler
#### E. G. Blakeslee Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff, v. The E. G. Blakeslee’s Sons’ Iron Works, Defendant.

—Judgment affirmed for non-submission of papers according to stipulation.

— Dykman, J., not sitting.
July 12, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals
ANDREW PSYK, M.D. , Appellant
NO. 14

- 11

- 00943

- CV V.
PAUL JOSEPH , Appellee

____________________
This cause, an appeal from the trial court’s order in favor of appellee , Paul Joseph, signed October 6, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the trial court’s order. We order the order of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant, Andrew Psyk, M.D., to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
----

**EXHIBIT      32.1          **

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | */s/                Robert C. Salipante*     |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Robert                C. Salipante           |
|   | President                                    |
|   | (principal                executive officer) |
|   | August                14, 2007               |

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4847-5509-9803 

44553.00001

Dennis F. Dunne (admitted pro hac vice) 

Samuel A. Khalil (admitted pro hac vice) 

MILBANK LLP 

55 Hudson Yards 

New York, New York 10001-2163 

Telephone: (212) 530-5000 

Facsimile: (212) 530-5219 

and 

Gregory A. Bray (SBN 115367) 

Thomas R. Kreller (SBN 161922) 

MILBANK LLP 

2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Telephone: (424) 386-4000 

Facsimile: (213) 629-5063 

Counsel for the Official Committee 

of Unsecured Creditors 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION 

 -andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

 Debtors. 

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered)

 Affects PG&E Corporation 

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company 

 Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case. 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE 

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 

[No Hearing Requested] 

The Court having considered the Motion of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors 

for an Order Authorizing the Filing of an Objection Under Seal (the “Motion”), filed by the 

Signed and Filed: July 2, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

July 02, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2840 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 16:49:14 Page 1 of

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

4847-5509-9803 

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Creditors Committee”) appointed in the jointly 

administered chapter 11 cases (the “Chapter 11 Cases”) of the above-captioned debtors in 

possession, filed on July 2, 2019, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Motion is GRANTED. 

2. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters arising from 

or related to the implementation, interpretation, or enforcement of this Order. 

***END OF ORDER*** 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2840 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 16:49:14 Page 2 of

2
Order entered October 20 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 16 - 00939 - CR No. 05 - 16 - 009 40 - CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V. GEORGE DAVID RINGER, Appellee On A ppeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 11 - 00284 - P & F11 - 00285 - P



### O RDER We GRANT court reporter Lisabeth Kellett’s request for extension of time to file record and ORDER the reporter’s record filed no late r than 30 days from the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YIQIN CHEN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-72966 

Agency No. A099-967-281 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 17, 2022**

Pasadena, California

Before: OWENS and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District 

Judge.

Yiqin Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for 

the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAY 19 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. “We 

review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for 

substantial evidence.” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). As the 

parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the 

petition for review.

 Under the totality of the circumstances, substantial evidence supports the 

agency’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1064-65. The agency 

determined that Chen was not credible because of numerous material 

inconsistencies between Chen’s testimony and asylum application declaration. 

Chen does not dispute that these inconsistencies exist, and he only argues that his 

explanation—that the inconsistencies were the result of his faulty memory because 

of the passage of time—is “plausible.”

However, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that 

Chen’s faulty memory explanation was not reasonable. Although “the normal 

limits of human understanding and memory may make some inconsistencies or 

lack of recall present in any witness’s case,” the inconsistencies between Chen’s 

testimony and declaration concerned significant discrepancies regarding material 

details. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044-45 (9th Cir. 2010). For example, 

despite being given numerous opportunities to clarify, Chen was inconsistent 

regarding whether the land dispute protest occurred in 1996, shortly after the birth 
3 

of his son, or a decade later in 2006, shortly before he left China. Chen was also 

inconsistent regarding whether he was physically abused while detained, how long 

he was detained, and how often he was interrogated while detained.

Without credible testimony, substantial evidence supports that Chen has not 

met his burden to demonstrate eligibility for relief. See Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 

1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,692
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,957
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,835
<INVENTORY>                                     39,882
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,264
<PP&E>                                          62,270
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,904
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 278,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,898
<BONDS>                                        193,052
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   278,591
<SALES>                                        158,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               158,279
<CGS>                                          115,488
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  141,893
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,030
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,136
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,356
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (742)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,098
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,098
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5562 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5562

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
     801 West Ocean Avenue in Lompoc, California, as the ``Federal 
 Correctional Officer Scott J. Williams Memorial Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SCOTT J. WILLIAMS MEMORIAL POST 
OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 801 West Ocean Avenue in Lompoc, California, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Federal Correctional Officer Scott J. Williams 
Memorial 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 ``Federal 
Correctional Officer Scott J. Williams Memorial Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```