alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 28210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14132]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Sunshine Act Meeting
Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.
Time and Date: 11:00 a.m., Monday, June 10, 1996.
Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street 
entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.
Status: Closed.
Matters to be Considered:
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal 
Reserve System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced 
meeting.
Contact Person for More Information: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to 
the Board; (202) 452-3204. You may call (202) 452-3207, beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before this meeting, for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting.
    Dated: May 31, 1996.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-14132 Filed 5-31-96; 3:41 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
**                                                Exhibit          10.38**

**I.C.          ISAACS & COMPANY,          INC. AMENDED AND RESTATED <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =          "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />**

**OMNIBUS          STOCK          PLAN**

**NONSTATUTORY          STOCK OPTION          GRANT AGREEMENT**

**ARTICLE          1**

**GRANT          OF          OPTION**

**Section          1.1  Grant of Option****           **

**ARTICLE          2**

**VESTING**

**Section          2.1  Vesting Schedule**

**Section          2.2  Acceleration of Vesting**

**ARTICLE          3**

**EXERCISE          OF          OPTION**

**Section          3.1  Exercisability of Option**

**Section          3.2 Manner of          Exercise**

**Section          3.3  Issuance of Shares and Payment          of Cash          upon Exercise**

**ARTICLE          4**

**TERMINATION          OF          OPTION**

**Section          4.1  Termination, In General**

**Section          4.2  Termination of Employment for          Cause**

**Section          4.3  Upon Optionee’s Death**

**Section          4.4  Termination of Employment by Reason          of          Disability**

**Section          4.5  Leave of Absence**

**ARTICLE          5**

**ADJUSTMENTS;          BUSINESS          COMBINATIONS**

**Section          5.1  Adjustments for Events Affecting          Common          Stock**

**Section          5.2  Pooling of Interests          Transaction**

**Section          5.3  Adjustments for Unusual          Events**

**Section          5.4  Binding Nature of          Adjustments**

**ARTICLE          6**

**MISCELLANEOUS**

**Section          6.1  Non-Guarantee of          Employment**

**Section          6.2  No Rights of Stockholder**

**Section          6.3  Non-Qualified Nature of          Option**

**Section          6.4  Confidential Information**

**Section          6.5  The Corporation's Rights****           **

**Section          6.6  Withholding of Taxes**

**Section          6.7  Optionee**

**Section          6.8  Nontransferability of          Option**

**Section          6.9  Notices**

**Section          6.10  Entire Agreement**

**Section          6.11  Amendments**

**Section          6.12  Conformity with Plan**

**Section          6.13  Governing Law**

**Section          6.14  Headings**

*Peter          J          Rizzo  *

*Jesses De La          Rama*
EXHIBIT 4.1


                                                             SHARES  -----------
        -----------                                                  |         |
NUMBER  |         |                                                  -----------
        -----------

                                                                 -----------
                                                          CUSIP  |         |
                                                                 -----------

                             ALTTECH VENTURES CORP.

               INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
           160,000,000 SHARES COMMON STOCK AUTHORIZED, $.001 PAR VALUE
          40,000,000 SHARES PREFERRED STOCK AUTHORIZED, $.001 PAR VALUE



This  certifies  that                  ***              ***


Is  the  owner  of                             ***

             FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF

                             ALTTECH VENTURES CORP.

   Transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized
attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.  This certificate
     and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the State of
  Nevada, and to the Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Corporation,
as now or hereafter amended.  This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned
                             by the Transfer Agent .
    Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the signature of its duly
                              authorized officers.

DATED:     ____________



--------------------------                               -----------------------
                PRESIDENT                                              SECRETARY

                                     [SEAL]

If  applicable  restricted  legend:

The  shares  of  stock  represented by this certificate have not been registered
under  the  securities act of 1933, as amended, and may not be sold or otherwise
transferred  unless  compliance with the registration provisions of such Act has
been  made  or  unless  availability  of  an  exemption  from  such registration
provisions  has  been established, or unless sold pursuant to rule 144 under the
Securities  Act  of  1933.


<PAGE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 6, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51704

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

APOLINAR GUADALUPE HOLGUIN-GONZALEZ 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-2102-ALL

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Apolinar Guadalupe Holguin-Gonzalez

(Holguin) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Holguin has been deported and

has not filed a response to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of the

record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
No. 06-51704

2

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

in part as frivolous, see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2, and in part as moot.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1985

___________________________

Danny R. Moore

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Gene Beasley, Warden, Forrest City

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________

Submitted: January 15, 2019

Filed: January 29, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Danny Moore appeals after the district court dismissed his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 1

petition, in which he asserted his prior burglary convictions no longer qualified as

The Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent

of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
career-offender predicates after Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2257

(2016). Upon careful de novo review, see Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 959

(8th Cir. 2004), we conclude that Moore’s claim does not entitle him to relief. See,

e.g., Martin v. United States, 904 F.3d 594, 597 (8th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 26905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13379]



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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notices have been accepted for 
processing, they 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 indicated for that notice or to the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later 
than June 11, 1996.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (James A. Bluemle, Vice 
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690:
    1. Richard Kundert, Blanchardville, Wisconsin; to acquire an 
additional 7.38 percent, for a total of 31.91 percent, of the voting 
shares of Blanchardville Financial Services, Inc., Blanchardville, 
Wisconsin, and thereby indirectly acquire First National Bank of 
Blanchardville, Blanchardville, Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 22, 1996.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-13379 Filed 5-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
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 

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Samir Mahmud Arikat, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Scottsdale Ferrari LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00438-PHX-DJH 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendant Maserati North America, Inc.’s 

(“Defendant”) Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff Samir Arikat (“Plaintiff”) (Doc. 27) 

wherein Defendant seeks relief for Plaintiff’s alleged inadequate initial discovery 

disclosures. Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 32) and Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 33). 

The Court finds that in bringing this motion, Defendant failed to follow the discovery 

dispute protocol detailed in the parties’ Rule 16 Scheduling Order (Doc. 25). Specifically, 

this Court’s discovery dispute procedure prohibits the parties from filing written discovery 

motions, such as this one, without leave of Court. The procedure provides as follows: 

 Discovery Disputes. The parties shall not file written 

discovery motions without leave of Court. If a discovery 

dispute arises and cannot be resolved despite sincere efforts to resolve the matter through personal consultation (in person or by telephone), the parties shall jointly file (1) a brief written 

summary of the dispute, not to exceed two pages, with explanation of the position taken by each party and (2) a joint written certification that the counsel or the parties have 

attempted to resolve the matter through personal consultation and sincere effort as required by LRCiv 7.2(j) and have reached an impasse. If the opposing party has refused to personally consult, the party seeking relief shall describe the efforts made 
- 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 

to obtain personal consultation. Upon review of the filed written summary of the dispute, the Court may set an n in-court hearing or telephonic conference, order written briefing, or decide the dispute without conference or briefing. If the Court desires supplemental briefing prior to a hearing, counsel will be notified by order of the Court. Any briefing ordered by the Court shall also comply with LRCiv 7.2(j). 

(Doc. 25 at 5). Thus, the Court will strike Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions for failure to 

comply with the discovery dispute procedure. Notwithstanding the February 4, 2019 

Completion of Fact Discovery Deadline, the Court will allow Defendant to bring the 

discovery dispute to the Court’s attention in compliance with this Court’s discovery dispute 

procedure. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff 

(Doc. 27) is STRICKEN. 

 Dated this 5th day of February, 2019. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa 

United States District Judge
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

1

TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 025180)

KENT LAW OFFICES

3219 E. Camelback Rd., #588

Phoenix, AZ 85018

Telephone: (480) 247-9644

Facsimile: (480) 717-4781

E-mail: tkent@kentlawpc.com

Of Counsel to:

Michigan Consumer Credit Lawyers

22142 West Nine Mile Road

Southfield, MI 48033

Telephone: (248) 353-2882

Facsimile: (248) 353-4840

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Mikel Anderson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mikel Anderson,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Experian Information Solution, Inc., et al.,

 

Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-04460-DGC

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AS TO 

DEFENDANT EXPERIAN 

INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., 

ONLY

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff and Defendant, Experian 

Information Solutions, Inc., in the above-captioned case have reached a settlement. 

Case 2:17-cv-04460-DGC Document 64 Filed 06/21/18 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

2

The parties anticipate filing a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Defendant 

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., ONLY, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) within 

60 days.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21st day of June, 2018.

 KENT LAW OFFICES

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent 

Trinette G. Kent 

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Mikel Anderson

Case 2:17-cv-04460-DGC Document 64 Filed 06/21/18 Page 2 of 2
#### Ernesto BAUTISTA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 13-92-00149-CR through 13-92-157-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi.

Nov. 23, 1992.

Guadalupe Olvera, III, Brownsville, Walter C. Prentice, Austin, for appellant.

Luis V. Saenz, John A. Olson, Brownsville, for appellee.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On November 23, 1992, the Honorable Walter Prentice appeared before this Court to explain why no appellate brief had been filed on behalf of appellant, Ernesto Bau-tista. The Court, having considered the facts of this case and the explanation given by Mr. Prentice, ordered Mr. Prentice to file an appellate brief on behalf of appellant at or before 5:00 p.m., December 18, 1992.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Honorable Walter Prentice file an appellate brief in the above causes at or before 5:00 p.m., December 18, 1992.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21D0204. DANIELAGUILARCERVANTES v.MARIAISELA GONZALEZ.

In this divorce case between Daniel A. Cervantez and Maria I. Gonzalez,

Daniel filed for summary judgment on the issues of child support and the ownership

of the parties’ marital residence. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to

Daniel on the issue of child support but denied summary judgment to Daniel on the

issue of the ownership of the marital residence. Daniel then filed this application for

discretionary review, seeking to appeal the denial of summary judgment on the issue

of the ownership of the marital residence. We lack jurisdiction.

Daniel’s application purportsto be from the grant of summary judgment on the

child support issue. But, in actuality, Daniel is appealing the partial denial of his

motion for summary judgment on the issue of the marital residence’s ownership. An

order denying a motion for partial summary judgment is an interlocutory order and

not a final judgment. See Sharpe’s Appliance Store, Inc. v. Anderson, 161 Ga. App.

112, 112 (289 SE2d 312) (1982); Rolleston v. Cherry, 233 Ga. App. 295, 296 (504

SE2d 504) (1998). Although Daniel did file a discretionary application pursuant to

OCGA § 5-6-35, which governs discretionary appeal procedures, that does not excuse

a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from complying with the

additional requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), including obtaining a certificate of

immediate review. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 SE2d 213)

(1996). Because Daniel failed to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures of 

February 25, 2021
OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), we are without jurisdiction to consider this application for

discretionary review which 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.

02/25/2021
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Graham K. Cooper, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.;

2. Based on my
knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a. designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b. evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation
of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 7, 2008



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Graham K. Cooper                 
|Graham K. Cooper                     
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-6-2008

USA v. Goldberg

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 07-1048

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Goldberg" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 185.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/185
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 07-1048

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MARVIN GOLDBERG,

Appellant

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal Action No. 05-cr-00157)

District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner

 

Argued June 10, 2008

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed August 8, 2008)

ORDER AMENDING PRECEDENTIAL OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the published Opinion in the above case filed August 8,

2008, be amended as follows:

On page 8, in the line before the block quote, insert “existed” after the n-dash, to read

“– existed in order to convict”.
2

On page 10, fourth and fifth lines from bottom, replace, in both lines, “where” with

“in which”.

On page 17, fifth line from bottom of first full paragraph, insert a space after “§”.

On page 22, line 2 of the block quote, replace double-hyphen with m-dash. 

On page 24, line 7, delete “10 ” from “1098 ” to read “1097-98”.

On page 25, line 1, delete “10 ” from “1098 ” to read “1097-98”.

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: November 6, 2008