alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>1

                              Subsidiaries



The Company has one subsidiary, First Citizens National Bank,
Dyersburg, Tennessee.  The Company is the sole shareholder of the
Bank.  First Citizens National Bank is a National Bank organized
under the authority of the Comptroller of the Currency.

On January 28, 1985, First Citizens Financial Plus, Inc. was
chartered in the State of Tennessee as a wholly-owned subsidiary
of First Citizens National Bank for the purpose of providing
investment advisory service to the community.  The Corporation's
registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an
investment advisor was effective February 21, 1985.

On December 19, 1988 First Citizens Financial Plus, Inc. received
notification from the National Association of Securities Dealers
that the Company's registration as a broker/dealer was effective. 
As a result, in addition to being an investment advisor, the
Company is now a full service introducing broker/dealer.

On August 19, 1996, Delta Finance, Inc. was chartered in the
State of Tennessee as a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Citizens
National Bank for the purpose of providing consumer financial
services to the community.  Delta Finance will operate as an
Industrial Loan and Thrift Company pursuant to Tennessee Code
Annotated Section 45-5-101 and to acquire by purchase, lease or
otherwise, and to hold, operate, manage, develop, encumber and
otherwise deal with any and all kinds of real and personal
property and to engage in any business not prohibited by law
under the laws of Tennessee; and to do any and all things
necessary or incidental in the operation of such business or
businesses.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge David L. West

Criminal Case No. 11-PO-00149-DLW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. MARK L. HALPER,

Defendant.

 

ORDER SETTING HEARING RE: MOTION TO MODIFY SENTENCE [DOC. #116]

 

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID L. WEST

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Modify Sentence

[Doc. #116] is set before the Magistrate Judge in Durango, Colorado on November 13, 2013 at 1:30

p.m.

DATED: October 22, 2013. 

BY THE COURT:

s/David L. West 

United States Magistrate Judge
TAYLOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC.
**Exhibit 99.1**
**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**
         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned chief executive officer of TaylorCapital Group, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that:
         (i)  the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2002 (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
         (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.   Dated: November 22, 2002 /s/ Jeffrey W. TaylorJeffrey W. Taylor
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23743]


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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

[Docket No. SSA-2008-0056]


Future Systems Technology Advisory Panel Meeting

AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA).

ACTION: Notice of Inaugural Meeting.

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

DATES: October 23, 2008, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. and October 24, 2008, 8:30 
a.m.-12 p.m.
    Location: L'Enfant Plaza Hotel.

ADDRESSES: 480 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Type of meeting: The meeting is open to the public.
    Purpose: The Panel, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 
1972, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as ``the FACA'') shall 
report to and provide the Commissioner of Social Security independent 
advice and recommendations on the future of systems technology and 
electronic services at the agency five to ten years into the future. 
The Panel will recommend a road map to aid SSA in determining what 
future systems technologies may be developed to assist in carrying out 
its statutory mission. Advice and recommendations can relate to SSA's 
systems in the area of internet application, customer service, or any 
other arena that would improve SSA's ability to serve the American 
people.
    Agenda: The Panel will meet on Thursday, October 23, 2008 from 8:30 
a.m. until 5 p.m. and Friday, October 24, 2008 from 8:30 a.m. to 12 
p.m. The agenda will be available on the Internet at http://www.ssa.gov/fstap/index.htm or available by e-mail or fax on request, 
one week prior to the starting date.
    During the first meeting the Panel will hear presentations on the 
status of electronic service delivery, systems technology and customer 
service issues within SSA; review the Panel charter and operating 
procedures; hold deliberations and discuss the Panel's organization, 
operating procedures, and the agenda for the future meetings.
    Contact Information: Records are kept of all proceedings and will 
be available for public inspection by appointment at the Panel office. 
Anyone requiring information regarding the Panel should contact the 
staff by:
    Mail addressed to SSA, Future Systems Technology Advisory Panel, 
Room 800, Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 
21235-0001; Telephone at 202-358-6126; Fax at 202-358-6079; or E-mail 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2e4f1f6e3f2e2d1d1c38cc5cdd4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="692f3a3d2839291a1a08470e061f">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 1, 2008.
Dianne L. Rose,
Designated Federal Officer, Future Systems Technology Advisory Panel.
[FR Doc. E8-23743 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02588–MSK–KMT

ROBERT P. HAMMOND,

Plaintiff,

v. 

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation, 

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

In light of Defendant’s consent to Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint (see Doc. No. 62),

Plaintiff’s “Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint” (Doc. No. 51, filed Oct. 9,

2012) is GRANTED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). No later than November 2, 2012,

Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint identical in all respects to the “Proposed Amended

Complaint” filed on October 9, 2012 (Doc. No. 50), save for the term “PROPOSED.”

Dated: October 26, 2012 

Case 1:11-cv-02588-MSK-KMT Document 66 Filed 10/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32 (b)

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORTRULE 1350 CERTIFICATIONS OF CFO

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of First Citizens Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for theyear ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

                                           /s/ Laura Beth Butler                                           Chief Financial Officer                                            Date: March 15, 2006
Exhibit 4.6

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                          CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT

      THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT,  dated May 14, 2004
(the "First Amendment"), is by and between Burton Goldi (the "Consultant"),  and
Reality Wireless Networks, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Client").

                                    RECITALS

      A. The  Consultant  and the  Client  entered  into a  Consulting  Services
Agreement dated January 7, 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A
(the  "Agreement"),  pursuant to which the Consultant  agreed to provide certain
consulting services to the Client.

      B.  Client and  Consultant  wish to amend  Section 2 of the  Agreement  to
provide for  additional  consideration  in exchange  for  additional  consulting
services.

                                    AGREEMENT

      NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  and  the  mutual
agreements, representations,  warranties and covenants contained herein, and for
other  good  and  valuable   consideration   the  receipt  of  which  is  hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

A.  Section 2 of the  Agreement  shall be deleted in its  entirety and is hereby
amended to read as follows:

"2. Consideration.

      Client  agrees  to pay  Consultant,  as his fee and as  consideration  for
services  provided,  Three Million Two Hundred  Twenty Six Thousand  (3,226,000)
shares of common stock of the Client,  which shares shall be  registered on Form
S-8 with the United  States  Securities  and Exchange  Commission.  By amendment
dated May 14, 2004,  Client agrees to pay  Consultant  an  additional  2,500,000
shares of common stock of the Client."

<PAGE>

EXECUTED on the date first set forth above.

                              CLIENT:

                              REALITY WIRELESS NETWORKS, INC.


                              By:
                                  --------------------------------
                              Name: Steve Careaga
                              Its: CEO


                              CONSULTANT:


                              By:
                                  --------------------------------
                              Name: Burton Goldi
#### Teresa J. HEVELONE et al., Appellants, v. Patrick J. THOMAS, Sheriff of Sarpy County, Nebraska, and Harold Okeson, General Contractor, Inc., Appellees.

No. 76-1555.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 22, 1976.

Decided Dec. 27, 1976.

Charles Ledwith, Omaha, Neb., for appellants; Claude D. Shokes, Omaha, Neb., on brief.

Harry L. Welch and Harold W. Kauffman, Gross, Welch, Vinardi, Kauffman & Day, Omaha, Neb., for appellees.

Before HEANEY, STEPHENSON and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This is an appeal from a district court1 order granting summary judgment to the appellees (defendants below) 423 F.Supp. 7. The appellants had alleged a violation of their civil rights by the actions of defendant Thomas (who was the Sheriff of Sarpy County, Nebraska) and Harold Okeson, General Contractor, Inc. (employed to assist the sheriff) in executing an order of eviction entered by the Sarpy County District Court in an action pending therein.

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to the appellees on grounds of quasi-judicial immunity. The district court opinion fully relates the relevant facts in this case and we are satisfied no error of law appears. We affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the district court reported at 423 F.Supp. 7 (D.Neb.1976).

Affirmed. *See*Rule 14.

1

. The Honorable Robert V. Denney, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 Form 10-Q/A
 Amendment No. 1
 
 (Mark One)
 þ
    
    QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008
 OR
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the transition period from  to
 Commission file number 000-21827
 Amscan Holdings, Inc.
 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
 Delaware(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)
    
    13-3911462(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)80 Grasslands Road Elmsford, NY(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    10523(Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code:(914) 345-2020
 þ o
  Large accelerated filer o
Accelerated filer o
Non-accelerated filer þ(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Smaller reporting company o o þ




---



##### 



Explanatory
Note
   PART
I
 Item 4.
Controls and Procedures
   2




---



##### 



AMSCAN HOLDINGS, INC.By:
    /s/ Michael A. CorrealeMichael A. CorrealeDate: October 21, 2008
    
    Chief Financial Officer
(on behalf of the registrant and as principal
financial and accounting officer) 3
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 CardioDynamics International
Corporation (the Company) Annual Report on Form 10-k for the period ended November 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steve P. Loomis, Vice President Finance and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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: February 27, 2004



/s/    STEVE P.
LOOMISSteve P. LoomisVice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer
course of law. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. And, because mandamus and

prohibition are extraordinary remedies, the decision to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition lies within our discretion. Hickey v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 105 Nev. 729, 731, 782 P.2d 1336, 1338 (1989). Petitioner represents that the juvenile court has not entered a written order in this matter. Because the juvenile court's oral order is "ineffective for any purpose," Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987), the court remains free to reconsider the issue, see id. at 688, 747 P.2d at 1382; see also Bradley v. State, 109 Nev. 1090, 1094-95, 864 P.2d 1272, 1275 (1993) (recognizing that a judge's oral pronouncement of judgment and sentence remains subject to modification until it is signed by the judge and entered by the clerk). For this reason, we are not convinced that our intervention by way of extraordinary writ is warranted at this time, and we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pickering

Saitta

cc: Hon. William 0. Voy, District Judge, Family Court Division Clark County Public Defender Attorney GenerallCarson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A OD
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21




                Isomedix Inc., a Delaware corporation, has the following
wholly-owned subsidiaries:

        1.  Isomedix Corporation (a corporation of the Province of Ontario)

        2.  Isomedix (Puerto Rico), Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

        3.  Isomedix Management Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

        4.  Isomedix Investments Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

        5.  Isomedix Operations Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

        6.  Skyland Scientific Services Inc. (a Delaware corporation)
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 861 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 168
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 861

                          [Report No. 110-489]

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4351) to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code to provide individuals temporary relief from the 
            alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 11, 2007

   Mr. Cardoza, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4351) to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code to provide individuals temporary relief from the 
            alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4351) to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code to provide individuals temporary relief from the 
alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes. All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against provisions of the bill are waived. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 4351 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the 
Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as 
may be designated by the Speaker.
                                                 House Calendar No. 168

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 861

                          [Report No. 110-489]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4351) to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code to provide individuals temporary relief from the 
            alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 11, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02578-PAB-KLM

REV. BRANDON BAKER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF COLORADO and

A.G. JOHN SUTHERS, 

Defendants.

ORDER 

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Default Judgment [Docket

No. 25] filed by plaintiff on December 13, 2011. Interpreting this document liberally, as I

am required to do because of plaintiff’s pro se status, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

519, 520 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 & n.3 (10th Cir. 1991), I

construe it as a motion for entry of default and default judgment. 

In order to obtain a judgment by default, a party must follow the two-step process

described in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55: first, he or she must seek an entry of

default from the Clerk of the Court under Rule 55(a); second, after default has been

entered by the Clerk, the party must seek default judgment according to the strictures of

Rule 55(b). Williams v. Smithson, No. 95-7019, 1995 WL 365988 at *1 (10th Cir.

June 20, 1995) (unpublished table opinion) (citing Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274, 276

(2nd Cir. 1981)); Nasious v. Nu-Way Real Estate, No. 07-cv-01177-REB-MEH, 2008

WL 659667, at *1 (D. Colo. Mar. 6, 2008). Failure to successfully complete the first

Case 1:11-cv-02578-PAB-KLM Document 39 Filed 01/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

step of obtaining an entry of default necessarily precludes the granting of default

judgment in step two. See Williams, 1995 WL 365988 at *1; Nasious, 2008 WL

659667, at *1. 

In the present case, pursuant to the power granted in Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 55(a), the Clerk of the Court interpreted plaintiff’s filing as a request for entry

of default, but denied the request [Docket No. 28] due to the filing of responsive

pleading by defendants [Docket No. 23]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (“When a party

against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise

defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the

party’s default.”). 

Because plaintiff failed to obtain an entry of default under Rule 55(a) at step one,

he may not obtain a default judgment at step two. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment [Docket No. 25] is

DENIED. 

DATED January 5, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02578-PAB-KLM Document 39 Filed 01/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6206
RICHARD WADE KENDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID T. PASTORS; JEFF N. DILLMAN; JEFFERSON AREA COMMUNITY DIVISION INCENTIVE PROGRAM, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-6-R) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Wade Kendrick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kendrick v. Pastors , No. CA-96-6-R (W.D. Va. Jan 5, 1996).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 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DCB Financial Corp.;
 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the registrant and have:
     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):
   Date: May 17, 2010
    
    /s/ Jeffrey T. Benton

Jeffrey T. BentonTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer