alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 158 (Thursday, August 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47602-47603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18828]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 8, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. First Western Financial, Inc., Denver, Colorado, to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of First Western Trust Bank of Arizona, 
Scottsdale, Arizona (in organization).


[[Page 47603]]


    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 11, 
2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-18828 Filed 8-13-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### M. Lindheim & Company, Appellant, v. Central National Realty and Construction Company and Others, Respondents. Axel Shureen, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES - OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Protection One, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the yearended December 31, 2009  (the “Report”),which this certification accompanies, I, Darius G. Nevin, in my capacity asExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Protection One, Inc.,certify that to the best of my knowledge the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Protection One, Inc.

 

 
| Date: April 30, 2010 |   | /s/ Darius G. Nevin                                                              |
|---------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Darius G. Nevin                                                                  |
|                      |   | Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer, Protection One, Inc. |

 

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes — Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Companies aspart of the Report or as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section 18or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                    ------------


                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Levcor International,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Edward F. Cooke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.


Dated:  May 14, 2007

By: /s/ EDWARD F. COOKE
    -------------------------------
    Edward F. Cooke
    Chief Financial Officer



                                    Page 47
18413.

#### CITY OF SYLVANIA *v.*MILLER.

Submitted November 10, 1953

Decided January 12, 1954.

*291*Howard & Hunter,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hollingsworth & Hollingsworth,*contra.

Worrill, Justice.

1, 2, 4, 5. The rulings announced in the first, second, fourth, and fifth headnotes do not require elaboration.

3. The third special ground complains because the trial court, after charging that the burden of proving the petitioner’s case was upon her, instructed the jury: “Likewise, the same burden rests upon the defendant in this case to satisfy the jury by a preponderance of the evidence of their contentions, that is, that they have not trespassed upon any of the property of the plaintiff in this case.”

It is plain from the record that, on the trial of the case, the principal issue was as to whether or not the city had title to the strip of land in question by dedication and prescription, and therefore the acts complained of did not constitute a trespass. The trial court fully instructed the jury that the city contended that it had not trespassed upon the land of the petitioner because of its assertion of title as above stated. It must be admitted that, after the court, in the excerpt complained of, used the word “contentions,” it was inapt to merely characterize such contentions as a denial that the city had “trespassed upon any of the property of the plaintiff in this case,” without explaining that the city was making such denial because of the affirmative contention that it had title by dedication and by prescription. However, it cannot reasonably be said, in view of the presented issue of title as claimed by the city and the instruction by the court in this connection, that in the isolated instance complained of the court confused the jury into thinking that the contentions of the city amounted merely to a denial of the acts complained of and not its assertion of title as claimed, the burden of establishing which rested upon the city. Code § 38-103; *Brown*v. *Caraker,*147 *Ga.*498 (5a) (94 S. E. 759); *Hyde*v. *Chappell,*194 *Ga.*536 (1) (22 S. E. 2d 313). Accordingly, while the latter portion of the excerpt from the charge standing alone was inapt, yet, when *292considered in connection with the entire charge and the issue upon which the case was tried, it was not harmful and reversible error.

The present case is distinguished by its facts from *Wooten*v. *Morris, 175 Ga.*290 (3) (165 S. E. 626), which is relied upon by the city, but did not involve an affirmative negation.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Duck-U'orth, C. J., not participating.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6549

LANCE L. JENKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate

Judge. (3:06-cv-00101-MHL)

Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 29, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lance L. Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lance L. Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and denying

his subsequent application for a certificate of appealability. The

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jenkins has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 674

To provide that a spouse, former spouse, surviving spouse, or surviving

former spouse may qualify for retirement, survivor, and health benefits

under the Foreign Service Act if the Foreign Service participant is

disqualified for such benefits for reasons of misconduct or disloyalty

to the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1995

Mrs. MALONEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations and, in addition, to the Committee on

Government Reform and Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To provide that a spouse, former spouse, surviving spouse,

or surviving former spouse may qualify for retirement,

survivor, and health benefits under the Foreign Service

Act if the Foreign Service participant is disqualified for

such benefits for reasons of misconduct or disloyalty

to the United States.

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

•HR 674 IH

1 SECTION 1. RETENTION OF SPOUSAL RETIREMENT, SURVI2 VOR, AND HEALTH BENEFITS UNDER FOR3 EIGN SERVICE ACT IF PARTICIPANT DIS4 QUALIFIED DUE TO MISCONDUCT OR DIS5 LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Foreign Service Act of 1980

7 (22 U.S.C. 3901 et seq.) is amended by inserting after

8 section 833 the following section:

9 ‘‘SEC. 834. RETENTION OF SPOUSAL RETIREMENT,

10 SURVIVOR, AND HEALTH BENEFITS IF PARTICIPANT DIS11 QUALIFIED DUE TO MISCONDUCT OR DISLOYALTY TO

12 THE UNITED STATES.—Notwithstanding any other provi13 sion of this subchapter, any retirement, survivor, health,

14 or other benefit which would be payable or available under

15 this subchapter to an otherwise qualified surviving spouse,

16 former spouse, or surviving former spouse except that the

17 participant is disqualified for such benefits under this Act

18 for official misconduct or disloyalty to the United States,

19 shall be paid and made available to any such spouse (in

20 the same manner as such payments would have been made

21 but for the participants disqualification) if such spouse

22 had no involvement in such misconduct or disloyalty to

23 the United States.’’.
3

•HR 674 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any application

3 for benefits after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 703

To terminate the C–17 aircraft program after fiscal year 1995 and provide

for a program to meet the remaining strategic airlift requirements of

the Department of Defense with nondevelopmental aircraft.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 26, 1995

Ms. FURSE (for herself, Mr. KLUG, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr.

BARRETT of Wisconsin, Mr. MINGE, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. OWENS, Ms.

VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. PALLONE,

and Mrs. SCHROEDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on National Security

A BILL

To terminate the C–17 aircraft program after fiscal year

1995 and provide for a program to meet the remaining

strategic airlift requirements of the Department of Defense with nondevelopmental aircraft.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Airlift Enhancement

5 Act’’.
2

•HR 703 IH

1 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF C–17 STRATEGIC AIRLIFT PRO2 GRAM.

3 (a) PROGRAM TERMINATION.—The Secretary of De4 fense shall terminate the C–17 aircraft acquisition pro5 gram with those aircraft for which funds are appropriated

6 for fiscal year 1996. No funds appropriated to the Depart7 ment of Defense for fiscal year 1996 may be obligated for

8 procurement of long-lead items for C–17 aircraft, and no

9 funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for a

10 fiscal year after fiscal year 1996 may be obligated for pro11 curement of C–17 aircraft or for procurement of long-lead

12 items for such aircraft.

13 (b) ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIC AIRLIFT PROGRAM.—

14 (1) The Secretary shall develop a program to meet the

15 remaining strategic airlift requirements of the Air Force

16 through acquisition of nondevelopmental airlift aircraft.

17 (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the remaining

18 strategic airlift requirements of the Air Force are those

19 requirements that before the date of the enactment of this

20 Act were programmed to be met through the acquisition

21 of C–17 aircraft using funds appropriated for a fiscal year

22 after fiscal year 1996.

23 (3) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enact24 ment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress

25 a report on the program developed under paragraph (1).

26 The report shall describe the proposed scope, pace, and
3

•HR 703 IH

1 cost of the acquisition of nondevelopmental airlift aircraft

2 under that program.

Æ
#### Martha A. Hungerford, Plaintiff, v. The Village of Waverly and Others, Defendants.

Motion denied, without costs.
#### The People of the State of New York v. William Clark.

Motion granted.
#### Providenza Maggio v. A. H. Meyer Company.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 2 6 , 2024

NO. 03

- 23

- 00053

- CV

Michael Rooney and Yvonne Nacu , Appellant s

v.

City of Austin; Kirk Watson, in his Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Austin; Shay Roalson, in her Official Capacity as Austin Water Director; and Denise Lucas, in her Official Capacity as City of Austin Development Department Services Director , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, KELLY, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the tr i a l court on December 19, 2022

. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s final judgment

. A ppellant s shall

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 47143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18667]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1294-000]


Crystal Lake Wind II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

August 6, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Crystal Lake Wind II, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is August 26, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81c7c4d3c2ceefede8efe4d2f4f1f1eef3f5c1e7e4f3e2afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c78182958488a9abaea9a294b2b7b7a8b5b387a1a2b5a4e9a0a8b1">[email protected]</span></a>. 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18667 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SECTION OF THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,042,050
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          33,348
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        49,050
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,124,448
<COMMON>                                        85,474
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      192,717
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             59,287
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 337,478
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           467,475
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 107,650
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     16,241
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   428
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 195,176
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,124,448
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       60,905
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            10,201
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      24,214
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      34,415
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         26,490
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 126
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  26,616
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        10,865
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,751
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   15,751
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       110,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        7,262
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          37,947
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   15,751
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   15,751
                                               

</TABLE>
Exhibit 24
  POWER OF
    ATTORNEY
  Form 10-K
    Signature

Title/s/  Michael
    C. Arnold  Michael
    C. Arnold

Director/s/  Donald
    G. Barger, Jr  Donald
    G. Barger, Jr

Director/s/  Frank
    J. Hansen  Frank
    J. Hansen

Chairman of the Board of Directors/s/  Raymond
    R. Hipp  Raymond
    R. Hipp

Director/s/  David
    D. Petratis  David
    D. Petratis

Director/s/  Diane
    K. Schumacher  Diane
    K. Schumacher

Director/s/  Charles
    L. Szews  Charles
    L. Szews

Director/s/  Richard
    L. Thompson  Richard
    L. Thompson

Director