alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 6971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2125]


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

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 March 3, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Burl Thornton, Assistant Vice 
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. West Suburban Bancorp, Inc., Lombard, Illinois; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of G.R. Bancorp, Ltd., and thereby 
indirectly acquire voting shares of The First National Bank of Grand 
Ridge, both of Grand Ridge, Illinois.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant 
Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. ENB Acquisition Corporation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; to become 
a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Exchange Bancshares of Moore, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire 
Exchange National Bank of Moore, both of Moore, Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 1, 
2008.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-2125 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 31

       STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                       BY
                    PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER
       REGARDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO EXCHANGE ACT FILINGS

I, Cary Brokaw, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Avenue Entertainment
Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and we have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report
         is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
         this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
         evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
         controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
         identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
         internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal controls; and over financial controls.


Date:  November 15, 2004


                                               /s/ Cary Brokaw
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Cary Brokaw
                                               President and Chief Executive and
                                               Financial Officer
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




September 2012


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: December 5, 2012
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ADAM THOMAS,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 8:23CR116

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [20]. 

Counsel needs additional time to confer about issues that may influence Defendant’s 

decision to proceed to trial or, alternatively, to attempt to resolve the matter through a 

negotiated settlement. For good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [20] is granted, as 

follows:

1. The jury trial now set for March 25, 2023, is continued to June 17, 2024.

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests 

of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising 

as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s 

date and June 17, 2024, shall be deemed excludable time in any 

computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to 

grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for 

effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).

DATED: March 18, 2024.

 BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00116-RFR-MDN Doc # 21 Filed: 03/18/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 41
188 La. 546

#### STATE v. STEWART.

No. 34539.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 2, 1937.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1937.

Columbus Reid, of Hammond, for appellant.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Dist. Atty., of Amite, and Joseph M. Blache, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., of Hammond, for the State.

LAND, Justice.'

The defendant,'Alex. Stewart, was jointly indicted with two other defendants for the burglary of an outhouse or. “smokehouse,” in the nighttime. All of the defendants were jointly tried by jury, and convicted, and each was sentenced to serve a term of not less than one year nor more than three years in the State Penitentiary.

The defendant, Alex. Stewart, has appealed, and relies for the reversal of the judgment of the lower court upon a single bill of exceptions, reserved to the overruling by the trial judge of a motion for a new trial.

This motion in based upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, since there was no competent legal evidence upon which to base the verdict, as the evidence upon which defendant was convicted was mere hearsay testimony.

No testimony was taken down by the clerk of the lower court on the trial of the motion for a new trial. Consequently, there is nothing before this court to act upon, except the allegations set forth in the ex parte affidavit of defendant for a new trial that he was convicted upon mere hearsay evidence. It is elementary, that this is not sufficient. The only known way by which evidence can be brought .before the' Supreme Court is by annexing and making same a part of a bill of exceptions, timely reserved. Objection to the admission or rejection of evidence should be made at the time at which the evidence is offered, and, if the objection is not sustained, a formal bill of exceptions setting forth the objection and the ruling should be taken at the time at which such ruling is made, otherwise the objection cannot be raised after verdict, and presents no question for the review of the Supreme Court. Marr’s Crim.Juris. (1906 Ed.) § 419, p. 704, citing numerous authorities.

*663The trial judge states in the per curiam to the hill reserved to the overruling of the motion for new trial: “Only the State offered testimony and no objection was made to the State’s testimony. The jury rendered the proper verdict under the law and the evidence.”

The conviction and sentence appealed from are affirmed.

HIGGINS, J., takes no part.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Samuel J. Bourne

v. Civil No. 05-cv-365-JD

Town of Madison, et al.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

In the procedural order issued on May 3, 2007, the court

recognized that the outcome of the consolidated state action in

the Carroll County Superior Court, Bedrock Realty Trust v. Town

of Madison, Nos. 03-E-0061, 0114, 0144, and 05-E-0014, could

affect issues in this case. The court notified the parties that

if a party believed that an order of this court was inconsistent

with a subsequent decision of the superior court in the

consolidated state action, that party could file a motion to

reconsider within thirty days of the superior court's order

entering judgment. On June 29, 2007, the court issued an order

on motions that were then pending in this case.

The plaintiff, Samuel J. Bourne, moved for reconsideration

of the June 29 order as to his claims of substantive due process

and equal protection violations and the court's ruling that the

release signed by the parties was valid and enforceable. A month

later, Bourne filed notice of the state court's decision in the

consolidated action, which issued on August 10, 2007. On

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 113 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 2
2

September 10, Bourne filed a supplemental memorandum in support

of his motion for reconsideration, based on the state court's

decision. 

The deadline established in the May 3 order for the parties

to file a motion for reconsideration based on a decision in the

consolidated action in state court is thirty days after an order

entering judgment in that case. Neither party has filed notice

that judgment has been entered, and it is not clear whether the

August 10 decision in the state court action is a final judgment. 

Therefore, the court will not address the pending motion for

reconsideration until the parties file a joint notice that

judgment has been entered in the consolidated state court action

and the thirty-day period allowed for filing a motion for

reconsideration here has passed.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

September 14, 2007

cc: Catherine M. Costanzo, Esquire

Brian J.S. Cullen, Esquire

Rachel A. Hampe, Esquire

Richard D. Sager, Esquire

Gerald F. Williamson, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 113 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 158 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 158

      To provide for the retention of the name of Mount McKinley.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

  Mr. Regula introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To provide for the retention of the name of Mount McKinley.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding 
any other authority of law, the mountain located 63 degrees 04 minutes 
12 seconds north, by 151 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds west shall 
continue to be named and referred to for all purposes as Mount 
McKinley.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 06-cr-104-01-SM

Jessica Greene

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document

no. 7) is granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the October 2006

trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights

not later than July 24, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, her

continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a

continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that

failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation

taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances.

Case 1:06-cr-00104-PB Document 8 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: September 25, 2006 at 4:30 PM 

Jury Selection: October 3, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

July 18, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Mark Irish, AUSA

 Jonathan Saxe, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00104-PB Document 8 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Marguerite B. PARKS, Appellant, v. Kate C. BARLOW and Howard L. Putnam, as Administrators, etc., Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Feb. 5, 1954.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Vplusia County; George William Jackson, Judge.

Affirmed.
Case 1 :05-cv-00491-T-JH Document 14 Filed 03/21/2006 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

STEVEN A . SWAN,

Plaintif f

V . NH CA05-401JD

RI CA05-491T

PAUL J . BARBADORO, ET AL .,

Defendants

ORDER

This matter is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Jacob

Hagopian, sitting by designation, for report and recommendation

as to why the case should not be dismissed for plaintiff's

failure to serve the complaint on the named defendants .

By Order :

Depu C1

ENTER :

Chief Judge Ernest C . Torres

date : 3h~~yp(,,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jonathan Andrew Perfetto

v. No. 06-fp-372

NH State Prison

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $5.60 is due no later than

November 13, 2006. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s

income credited to plaintiff’s account to be remitted by the New

Hampshire State Prison when the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 until the sum of $350.00 has been paid. Failure to pay

the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff’s request for in

forma pauperis has been granted. 

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-372-PB. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 11, 2006

cc: Jonathan Andrew Perfetto, pro se

 Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

 New Hampshire State Prison, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:06-cv-00372-PB Document 3 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 1
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0152. AKASH DIXIT v. TANYA SINGH DIXIT

Upon consideration of this Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered

that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10

days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a

copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

The only issue that appears to have merit is applicant’s contention that the

Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, at page 5, item 3, erroneously awards attorney

fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 for fees incurred in connection with appellate

proceedings. See Kautter v. Kautter, 286 Ga. 16, 19 (4) (c) (685 SE2d 266) (2009).

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.

November 08, 2017

11/08/2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-268-PB

Hugh Reynolds

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the May 2, 2006 trial in

the above case, citing a negotiated plea agreement and the need

for additional time to finalize the plea. The government does

not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to finalize a plea agreement or prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from May 2, 2006 to September 6, 2006. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the 

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

The April 19, 2006 final pretrial is continued to August 30,

2006 at 3:00 p.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00268-PB Document 26 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 19, 2006

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Mark Howard, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00268-PB Document 26 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1612

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove the cover over

of tax for Puerto Rico.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 26, 2001

Mr. HANSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove

the cover over of tax for Puerto Rico.

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

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF COVER OVER OF TAX FOR PUER4 TO RICO.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7652(a) of the Internal

6 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to Puerto Rico) is amend7 ed by striking paragraph (3).

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

9 (1) Section 7652(c) of the Internal Revenue

10 Code of 1986 is amended—
2

•HR 1612 IH

1 (A) by striking ‘‘subsections (a)(3) and

2 (b)(3)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (b)(3)’’, and

3 (B) by striking ‘‘Puerto Rico or’’.

4 (2) Section 7652(d) of such Code is amended—

5 (A) by striking ‘‘subsections (a)(3) and

6 (b)(3)’’ in the matter preceding paragraph (1)

7 and inserting ‘‘subsection (b)(3)’’,

8 (B) by striking ‘‘(a)(3) or’’ in paragraph

9 (2)(A),

10 (C) by striking ‘‘Puerto Rico or the Virgin

11 Islands (as the case may be)’’ in paragraph

12 (2)(A) and inserting ‘‘the Virgin Islands’’,

13 (D) by striking ‘‘Puerto Rico or’’ in para14 graph (2)(B),

15 (E) by striking paragraph (1), and

16 (F) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and

17 (3) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively.

18 (3) Section 7652(e) of such Code is amended—

19 (A) by striking ‘‘TREASURIES OF PUERTO

20 RICO AND VIRGIN ISLANDS.—All’’ in paragraph

21 (1) and inserting ‘‘TREASURY OF VIRGIN IS22 LANDS.—A portion of the’’,

23 (B) by striking ‘‘treasuries of Puerto Rico

24 and the Virgin Islands’’ in paragraph (1) and

25 inserting ‘‘treasury of the Virgin Islands’’, and
3

•HR 1612 IH

1 (C) by striking ‘‘division of such tax collec2 tions between Puerto Rico and the Virgin Is3 lands’’ in paragraph (2) and inserting ‘‘deter4 mination of such tax collections for the Virgin

5 Islands’’.

6 (4) Section 7652(f) of such Code is amended by

7 striking ‘‘treasuries of Puerto Rico and the Virgin

8 Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘treasury of the Virgin Is9 lands’’.

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

11 this section shall apply with respect to articles brought

12 into the United States after the date of the enactment of

13 this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                          $       139
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,429
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   111
<BONDS>                               1,401
<COMMON>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                               56
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,568
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.00
        

</TABLE>