alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 61148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24371]



[[Page 61148]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5267-N-01]


The Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Office of the Deputy Secretary, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of appointments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Housing and Urban Development announces the 
appointments of Ronald Y. Spraker and Jon L. Gant as members; and 
Dominique G. Blom as an alternate member of the Departmental 
Performance Review Board. The address is: Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410-0050.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Persons desiring any further 
information about the Performance Review Board and its members may 
contact Earnestine Pruitt, Director, Executive Personnel Management 
Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 
20410. Telephone (202) 708-1381. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    Dated: October 7, 2008.
Roy A. Bernardi,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-24371 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
Microsoft Word 10.0.3416;



                                  UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D. C. 20549

                                     FORM 8-K

                                    CURRENT REPORT

                     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934

        Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): February 13, 2004

                              HIGHLANDS BANKSHARES, INC.
                (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

           West Virginia                  0-16761                 55-0650793
(State or Other Jurisdiction of   (Commission File Number)    (I.R.S. Employer
 Incorporation or Organization)                              Identification No.)


                            P. O. Box 929 Petersburg, West
                                   Virginia 26847
                    (Address of principal executive offices)


      (Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code)       (304) 257-4111


                                 Not Applicable
                 (Former address of principal executive offices)



<PAGE> 2


Item 5.    Other Events

         Following the January 31, 2004  retirement of Leslie A. Barr,
President and Chief Executive  Officer of Highlands  Bankshares
Inc.,  since 1992 the Board of Directors of  Highlands,  at it's
February 10, 2004 meeting  named  Clarence E. Porter as President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

         In addition to President  and Chief  Executive  officer of Highlands
Bankshares,  Inc.,  Mr. Porter will retain his duties as President and Chief
Executive Officer of The Grant County Bank, a subsidiary of Highlands
Bankshares, Inc.


SIGNATURES

                  Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on behalf of the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                            HIGHLANDS BANKSHARES, INC.
                                            (Registrant)


                                            /s/ R. ALAN MILLER
                                            R. Alan Miller
                                            Finance Officer


February 13, 2004
#### E. C. GIVENS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ARCADIA, LOUISIANA, et al., Defendants, Appellees.

No. 4081.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 9, 1931.

Barksdale, Warren & Barksdale, of Ruston, for appellant.

J. Rush Wimberly, of Arcadia, for appel-lees.

McGREGOR, J.

In this case, counsel for the plaintiff and appellant appeared in open court and abandoned the appeal, and asked that the judgment of the lower court in favor of the defendant be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
#### Isaac Hassid, Plaintiff, *v.*Jack Kay, Defendant. (Action No. 1.) (In Supreme Court, New York County.) Jack Kay, Plaintiff, *v.*Ernst Cohn et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.) (In City Court of New York, New York County.) Jack Kay, Plaintiff, *v.*Souren Serebrakian et al., Defendants. (Action No. 3.) (In Municipal Court of City of New York.) Jack Kay, Plaintiff, *v.*John De Luca, Defendant. (Action No. 4.) (In Municipal Court of City of New York.)

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

September 19, 1956.

*Harold Grashe*for plaintiff in Action No. 1 and for defend- • ants in Actions Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

*Marvin TJsdin*for plaintiff in Actions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and for defendant in Action No. 1.

Matthew M. Levy, J.

Motion by plaintiff (in Supreme Court action) to remove certain actions to this court and for consolidation with the action pending here is granted. One of those *241actions is pending in the City Court and two in the Municipal Court. The plaintiff in those three suits is the defendant in the Supreme Court.

It is clear from the facts presented to me that all the actions result from transactions between the parties in the Supreme Court action and that common questions of fact and law exist in all of the actions. Lack of joinder of issue here is not, in the circumstances of these issues, fatal to joinder of trial *(Gibbs*v. *Sokol,*216 App. Div. 260; *Pansy*v. *Massola,*207 Misc. 908, 914). Nor does the mere imminence of trial in the Municipal Court overcome the clear prejudice to plaintiff arising from his inability to obtain full redress in that court, particularly where (as here) the instant equity action may be reasonably promptly reached for trial, and there has been no laches on the part of the moving party (cf. *Dorney*v. *Wasmuski,*149 N. Y. S. 2d 688).

In the interests of justice as between the parties, as well as in the time-saving need for the avoidance of duplication in the administration of justice, the application is approved. There has not been shown any substantial prejudice to the opponent (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 96, 97), while on the other hand injustice may result to the movant and unnecessary expense to the community were the actions not joined *(Denton*v. *Koshfer,*201 Misc. 394).

Settle order in accordance with the principles of *Vidal*v. *Sheffield Farms*(208 Misc. 438).
#### William Grant DORSETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46368.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 20, 1973.

Roger Butler, Corpus Christi, John H. Miller, Jr., Sinton, for appellant'.

Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

The conviction is for cattle theft. The punishment was assessed at ten years, probated.

Two grounds of error are alleged. The first complains of the court’s refusal to grant his motion for a new trial. He argues that it was error for the state to prove that more than two cattle were stolen.

The indictment alleges that the appellant stole two cattle from Kenneth Hunter. Hunter testified that at least six of his cattle were missing from his pasture and two of those were later found in Bee County. Others were located in Uvalde and Alice. Testifying in his own behalf, appellant admitted that he stole six cattle from Hunter and sold four of them. This testimony was admitted without objection, hence no error is preserved for review.

Further, the record reflects that the other four cattle were stolen out of the same pasture on the same occasion as the two head of cattle alleged in the indictment. This was res gestae of the offense. See, e.g., Buster v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 470 S.W.2d 887; Burgess v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 90, 296 S.W. 318.

The second ground of error is that “The trial court erred in refusing and not granting the defendant’s requested bill of exception.”

The record reflects that notice of appeal was given on April 22, 1972, and the formal bill of exception was not filed with the clerk until August 9, 1972. The trial court refused the formal bill of exception *99because the same was not timely filed within 90 days after notice of appeal was given, pursuant to Article 40.09, Sec. 6(a), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. The court’s action in refusing the same was proper.

There being no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0588

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

KACEY LEE SECREASE,

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 October 14, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 8 2020

09/08/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0588
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

Certification

 

The undersigned officer ofNatrol, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that to thebest of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.  This certification is providedsolely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

 
| Date:  | 5/15/2003 |   | Name:  | /s/Elliott  Balbert    |
|--------|-----------|--------|--------|------------------------|
|   |      |   |   |                   |
|   |      |   | Title: | President/CEO/Chairman |

 

----
Exhibit 34.3

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors 

HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc.:

 

We have examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying “Report on Compliance With Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant To Item 1122 of Regulation AB Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” (Exhibit 33.3) that HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc. (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB (the Applicable Servicing Criteria)applicable to the servicing of asset backed securitization transactions backed by private label credit card receivables, as of and for the period from February 14, 2007 (date of issuance of the initial asset-backed securitization transaction covered by this report) through December 31, 2007. Exhibit 33.3 identifies the individual asset-backed securitization transactions (the Covered Transactions) defined by managementas part of their assessment. Management has determined that all other criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the Company's activities with respect to the Covered Transactions.  Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)****and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Covered Transactions, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Covered Transactions, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by theCompany during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the period from February 14, 2007 through December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ KPMG

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 3, 2008
J.

a protected property or liberty interest."); see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995) ("[D]iscipline in segregated confinement [does] not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might conceivably create a liberty interest."); Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that a prisoner does not have a property or liberty interest in prison employment under the due process clause). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

, J. Parraguirre

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge Edwan Thurmond Attorney GenerallCarson City Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF 2 NEVADA

CO 1947A aggEOu
Order entered October 24, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00142-CV

DARREN MELTON, Appellant

V.

601 JEALOUSE, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-06444-B

ORDER

Before the Court is the October 23, 2019 request of Robin Washington, Official Court 

Reporter for County Court at Law No. 2, for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. 

We GRANT the request and extend the time to November 4, 2019.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Joseph Silagye, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

January 23, 1957.

*Grossman & Grossman*for Catherine M. Wessley, for the motion.

*Kenneth J. Mullane*for Albert A. Combar, in opposition.

S. Samuel Di Falco, S.

This is a motion by the contestant in a probate proceeding to vacate a notice of examination before trial served by the proponent. The contestant, sister of deceased, has objected to probate on grounds of execution, testamentary capacity and fraud and undue influence. The notice of examination requires the contestant to submit to examination as to “ All the relevant facts and circumstances relating to the issues raised by * '* * [each] objection of the ” contestant. Contestant moves to vacate this notice of examination.

The contestant’s principal contention is that proponent cannot examine contestant on any issue or any “ side ” of an issue the burden of proof of which is on the contestant. The leading case on this question is *Marie Dorros, Inc.*v. *Dorros Bros.*(274 App. Div. 11). It established the rule that in examination *688before trial the burden of proof does not control but is only to be considered as one element affecting the materiality and the necessity of the examination. Prior to this case, a more arbitrary rule prevailed whereby a motion for an examination before trial would be denied if the burden of proof was not on the movant. *(Matter of Jacobs,*176 Misc. 639, affd. 263 App. Div. 829; *Matter of Andriola,*160 Misc. 775; *Matter of Montgomery,*153 Misc. 419.) Since *Marie Borros, Inc.*v. *Borros Bros, (supra)*examinations before trial have been granted in many instances where the burden of proof was on the party to be examined. *(Matter of Kahn,*274 App. Div. 900; *Matter of Held,*83 N. Y. S. 2d 656; *Matter of McConnell,*107 N. Y. S. 2d 258; *Robinson*v. *Goldberg,*94 N. Y. S. 2d 422.)

The proponent may examine contestant on the issue of decedent’s testamentary capacity. *(Matter of McAvoy,*58 N. Y. S. 2d 624; *Matter of Rubin,*161 Misc. 374; *Matter of Zaiss,*147 Misc. 616; *Matter of Martinez,*N. Y. L. J., April 27, 1923, p. 344, col. 3.) The motion of the contestant to vacate the proponent’s notice of examination before trial is denied.

The motion of the contestant to examine the proponent before trial is granted as to the items set forth in the contestant’s notice of motion. The proponent may be examined as to the issues of fraud and undue influence covering a period of three years prior to the execution of the alleged last will and testament dated May 31, 1951 until the date of decedent’s death. Any books, papers or other documents in the possession of proponent bearing on the issues of fraud and undue influence are to be produced at the time of the examination.

Submit orders on notice.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 21, 2015

No. 04-14-00668-CV

WEST 17TH RESOURCES, LLC, Pamela Mika Wolf, and Thomas Mika,

Appellants

v.

Lucian A. PAWELEK and Carleen J. Pawelek,

Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-04-00087-CVK

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellee’s Opposed 3rd and Final Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is 

hereby GRANTED. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of May, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 4, 2013

NO. 03

- 13

- 00290

- CV

Virginia Jaimes, Appellant

v.

Federal National Mortgage Association, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEF ORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on Marc h 5, 2013. Having

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

in the court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this app eal, both in this Court and the court below.
ACCEPTED

04-14-00620-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

6/24/2015 4:54:12 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 06/24/15 4:54:12 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

MADE THE 1 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2001 BETWEEN:

             WEST-BEND CONSTRUCTION LTD.
            (Incorporation No. 116,283), a company duly
             incorporated under the laws of the Province of
             British Columbia, having its registered office
             located at 13511 Woodcrest Drive,
             Surrey, British Columbia. V4P 1 W3

            (the "Landlord")

OF THE FIRST PART

AND

             SPECTRUM TRADING INC. (Incorporation
             No. 396738), a company duly incorporated under
             the laws of the Province of British Columbia,
             having its registered office located at Suite 203,
             4629 Sydney Street, Vancouver, B.C. V5N 5N8

            (the "Tenant")

OF THE SECOND PART

WHEREAS the parties are desirous to extend the lease for a term of three
3 years commencing the 1st day of September, 2001 and ending the 31st
day of August, 2004 to encompass Unit #200, 13018 - 80 Avenue, Surrey,
British Columbia, more particularly known and described as:

             Parcel Identifier: 009-646-493
             Lot 3, Section 20, Township 2
             New Westminster District
             Plan 76694

to all the same terms and conditions of the original lease signed on September
l, 1998. Basic Rent of $6.00 per square foot or $26,400.00 per annum, as
outlined in Article 5.01 of the lease to remain unchanged.


<PAGE>
Page 2

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.

THE CORPORATE SEAL of the Landlord
was hereunto affixed
in the presence of


/s/
------------------------------


                                         /s/
                                         -------------------------------
                                         West-Bend Construction Ltd.

THE CORPORATE SEAL of the Tenant
was hereunto affixed
in the presence of


/s/
------------------------------


                                         /s/
                                         -------------------------------
                                         Spectrum Trading Inc.
<PAGE>
Date,Total,Households,Business,State and local govts.,Federal
1999,6.4,8.4,10.8,3.3,-1.9
2000,5.0,9.1,9.3,1.4,-8.0
2001,6.3,9.6,5.8,8.8,-0.2
2002,7.3,10.8,2.6,11.1,7.6
2003,8.1,11.6,2.5,8.3,10.9
2004,8.9,11.2,6.2,7.4,9.0
2005,9.5,11.1,8.7,10.2,7.0
2006,8.9,10.0,10.5,8.2,3.9
2007,8.6,6.6,13.1,9.3,4.9
2008,5.8,0.4,4.8,2.2,24.2
2007Q1,8.1,7.0,10.5,10.9,5.5
2008Q2,8.1,7.2,12.9,10.0,0.3
2008Q3,9.1,5.9,14.3,7.2,8.0
2008Q4,8.0,5.6,12.4,7.7,5.3
2008Q1,5.2,3.0,7.2,3.5,8.1
2008Q2,3.1,0.3,5.8,0.9,5.9
2008Q3,8.1,0.2,4.1,3.1,39.2
2008Q4,6.3,-2.0,1.7,1.2,37.0