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

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. 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 the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 4, 2008.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis**                     (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:                

*1. First Cecilian Bancorp, Inc.*, Cecilia, Kentucky, to engage in lending activities, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 15, 2008.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E8-19292 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          20,971
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  263,111
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,431
<INVENTORY>                                    202,039
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               565,221
<PP&E>                                       6,257,989
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,666,928
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,461,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          327,207
<BONDS>                                      2,314,408
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500
<COMMON>                                        43,507
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,240,406
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,461,782
<SALES>                                      1,110,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,178,313
<CGS>                                          688,996
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  720,891
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               168,601
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              85,379
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,686
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,383
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,485
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,485
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
<FN>
<F1>Reflects basic earnings per share.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0146 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JUSTIN DOUGLAS DAY,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 5, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 28 2022

01/28/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0146
ex10-24.htm


Exhibit 10.24






AMENDMENT OF THE 2006 EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN


 

 


3. Shares Subject to the Plan


 

 


(a) Shares Authorized.   Subject to adjustment as described below, (i) the maximum aggregate number of shares of common stock of the Company (“Company Stock”) that may be issued or transferred under any forms of Grants under the Plan is nine million (9,000,000), (ii) the maximum aggregate number of shares of Company Stock that may be issued under the Plan under Incentive Stock Options is nine million (9,000,000) and (iii) the maximum aggregate number of shares of Company Stock that may be issued under the Plan under Awards other than Options  is nine million (9,000,000). The maximum aggregate number of shares of Company Stock that shall be subject to Grants made under the Plan to any individual during any calendar year shall be five million (5,000,000). If and to the extent Options granted under the Plan terminate, expire, or are canceled, forfeited, exchanged, or surrendered without having been exercised or if any Stock Awards (including restricted Stock Awards received upon the exercise of Options) are forfeited, the shares subject to such Grants shall again be available for purposes of the Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if at any time the offer and sale of securities pursuant to the Plan is subject to compliance with Section 260.140.45 of Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations (“Section 260.140.45”), the total number of shares of Company Stock issuable upon the exercise of all outstanding Options (together with options outstanding under any other stock option plan of the Company) and the total number of shares provided for under any stock bonus or similar plan of the Company shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) (or such other higher percentage limitation as may be approved by the shareholders of the Company pursuant to Section 260.140.45) of the then outstanding shares of the Company as calculated in accordance with the conditions and exclusions of Section 260.140.45.
Exhibit (10)



Standard Retainer/Meeting Fee Arrangement for Non-Employee Directors



Effective July 1, 2004, Owens Cornings Compensation Committee amended the standard
retainer/meeting fee arrangement for non-employee Directors to provide as follows:



| |  | An annual retainer of $100,000 for Directors
| | - | --------------------------------------------



| |  | An additional annual retainer of $7,500 for Chairmen of Board Committees
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Meeting fees of $1,500 per meeting of a Board Committee
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------



| |  | No meeting fees for meetings of the Board of Directors
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------



| |  | A fee of $1,500 for each days attendance at other functions at which Directors are requested to participate
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Steven M. FANGMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-1860.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

Steven M. Fangmann, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Spencer Saudek, Hogan & Hartson, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Steven M. Fangmann appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in his civil action in which he claimed, *inter alia,*violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2002). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Fangmann v. Georgetoum University Medical Ctr.,*No. CA-01-1958-S (D.Md. July 8, 2002). 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.*
Exhibit 15






May 13, 1998



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are aware that Phelps Dodge  Corporation  has  incorporated  by reference our
report dated April 13, 1998 (issued  pursuant to the  provisions of Statement on
Auditing  Standards  No.  71)  in  the  Prospectus   constituting  part  of  its
Registration  Statement  and  Post-Effective  Amendment  No. 1 on Form S-3 (Nos.
33-44380 and  333-36415)  and in the  Registration  Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
33-26442, 33-6141, 33-26443,  33-29144,  33-19012, 2-67317, 33-34363,  33-34362,
33-62648,  333-42231 and 333-52175).  We are also aware of our  responsibilities
under the Securities Act of 1933.


Yours very truly,




Price Waterhouse LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6264 

To make the assault of a law enforcement officer a deportable offense, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2021 

Mr. GARBARINO (for himself, Mr. BUDD, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. JACOBS of New York, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, Mrs. HINSON, Mr. VAN DREW, 

Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mrs. CAMMACK, Mr. GIMENEZ, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, 

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. GUEST, Ms. STEFANIK, 

Mr. KATKO, and Mr. ZELDIN) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To make the assault of a law enforcement officer a 

deportable offense, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Protect Our Law en5 forcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement Act 

6 of 2021’’ or the ‘‘POLICE Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6264 IH

1 SEC. 2. ASSAULT OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. 

2 Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality 

3 Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended— 

4 ‘‘(G) ASSAULT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OF5 FICERS.—Any alien who assaults a law enforce6 ment officer is deportable.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Guiseppe Di Prima, as Administrator, etc., of Frank Di Prima, Deceased, Respondent, v. Consumers’ Brewing Company of New York, Limited, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event as against the weight of evidence as to the defendant’s negligence and as to the contributory negligence of the custodian of plaintiff’s intestate. Laughlin, J., dissenting.
OREGON METALLURGICAL CORPORATION


                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                         Earnings per share computation
                      (in thousands except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                  Three Months Ended                   Six Months Ended
                                                               ------------------------            ------------------------
                                                               June 29,        June 30,            June 29,        June 30,
                                                                 1997            1996               1997            1996
                                                                 ----            ----               ----            ----

<S>                                                          <C>               <C>               <C>              <C>     
Net income                                                   $     7,532       $  5,186          $   15,243       $  8,531
                                                             ===========       ========          ==========       ========

Weighted average shares outstanding                               16,294         11,316              16,224         11,187

Weighted average share equivalents assumed
  issued from Excess Benefit Plan                                     18             76                  25             92

Weighted average share equivalents
assumed issued from exercise of warrants
and stock options                                                     88             93                  92             85

Weighted average share equivalents assumed
issued as part of Employee Compensation Plans                        110             68                 112             54
                                                             -----------       --------          ----------       --------

Weighted average share and share
equivalents outstanding                                           16,510         11,553              16,453         11,418
                                                             ===========       ========          ==========       ========

Net income per share                                         $      0.46       $   0.45          $     0.93       $   0.75
                                                             ===========       ========          ==========       ========
</TABLE>


Earnings per share computed on both the primary and fully diluted bases are the
same.
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                   Exhibit 12

COMPUTATION OF TOTAL DEBT TO TOTAL CAPITALIZATION
(Unaudited; dollars in millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     September 30,  December 31,
                                                         1999          1998
                                                       --------      --------
<S>                                                    <C>           <C>
Short-term debt ...................................    $  229.8         116.1
Current portion of long-term debt .................        54.7          68.5
Long-term debt ....................................       806.5         836.4
                                                       --------      --------
     Total debt ...................................     1,091.0       1,021.0
Minority interests in subsidiaries ................        78.5          93.3
Common shareholders' equity .......................     2,376.8       2,587.4
                                                       --------      --------
     Total capitalization .........................    $3,546.3       3,701.7
                                                       ========      ========
Ratio of total debt to total capitalization .......        30.8%         27.6%
                                                       ========      ========
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7666

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SCOTT ALLEN SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-99-49; CA-01-1010) Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: February 17, 2004 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott Allen Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Smith raises issues regarding error by appointed counsel in the § 2255 proceeding, bias by the magistrate judge and error by the district court. However, Smith’s failure to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) precludes us from issuing a certificate of appealability. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Scott Allen Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we deny Smith a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the- 3 - materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 5, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128400 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ELIZABETH RATHBURN, Individually and as Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Next Friend of JUSTIN WADE CHILDREY, a Justices Minor, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 128400 

 COA: 250126 
 Wayne CC: 02-235017-NO

CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OF MICHIGAN, 

PATRICIA SIEGEL, Ph.D., SANFORD 

COHEN, M.D., STEVE COHEN, Ph.D., 

JOSEPH KAPLAN, M.D., DR. ABDEL-HAQ, 

M.D., ELIZABETH SECORD, M.D., 

and DR. PILTCH, M.D.,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 1, 2005 

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. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

p1128 

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. 

December 5, 2005 

Clerk
EXHIBIT 33.1

           Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria
                         for Year End December 31, 2006
    of The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as Securities Administrator


           ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA

The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. (collectively,
the "Company")  provides this  platform-level  assessment of compliance with the
servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following  servicing  criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform:  Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required
under  the   Securities   Exchange   Act  of  1934,   as  amended)   residential
mortgage-backed  securities and other mortgage-related  asset-backed  securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind  transactions  issued prior to
January  1,  2006)  for  which  the   Company   provides   trustee,   securities
administration,  paying agent or custodial services.  The platform includes like
kind   transactions   for  which  the  Company  provided   trustee,   securities
administrator,  paying agent or custodial  services as a result of the Company's
acquisition  as of October 1, 2006 of portions of  JPMorgan  Chase Bank,  N.A.'s
corporate  trust  business,   including  structured  finance  agency  and  trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d),
to  the  extent  required  by  the  related  transaction  agreements  as to  any
transaction,  except for the following criteria:  1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii), (iv),
(4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period,  the Company provides the following
assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

- The Company is responsible  for assessing its  compliance  with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

- The  Company has assessed  compliance with the  Applicable Servicing Criteria.

- As of  December  31,  2006 and for the  Period,  the  Company  was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.


Ernst & Young LLP, an independent  registered public accounting firm, has issued
an  attestation  report with respect to the  Company's  foregoing  assessment of
compliance.


        The Bank of New York                    The Bank of New York
        The Bank of New York Trust              The Bank of New York Trust
            Company, N.A.                           Company, N.A.

        By: /s/ Robert L. Griffin               By: /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
            ----------------------                  ----------------------
            Robert L. Griffin                       Patrick J. Tadie
            Authorized Signer                       Authorized Signer


March 1, 2007
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 annual report of Woozyfly Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Eric Stoppenhagen
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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
15,
2009                                                                           /s/ ERIC
STOPPENHAGEN


Eric Stoppenhagen


Interim President and Corporate
Secretary and


Chief Financial Officer