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

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57952-57953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23816]

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

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

[[Page 57953]]

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 October 18, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Henderson Texas Bancshares, Inc., Henderson, Texas; to acquire 
85 percent of the voting shares of Prosper Bancshares, Inc., and 
thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Prosper Bank, both of 
Prosper, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 20, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-23816 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```
EXHIBIT
32.1



CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Annual Report of Exeo Entertainment, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended November
30, 2021, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert S. Amaral,
as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The
    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
    of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|By:    | /s/
    Robert S. Amaral                                                                                                                       | Dated: | April 14, 2022
|------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | --------------
|       | Robert
    S. Amaral                                                                                                                           |        |               
|Title: | Chief
                                         Executive Officer
        (Principal
        Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)



This
certification is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A
signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided by the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Beauchamp & Byrd v. Schiff, Reeves & Schwartz.

(No. 2388.)

Appeal from Hunt County.

L. W. Terhune, counsel for appellants.

Montrose & G-rubbs, counsel for appellees.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 170. *Certiorari; informal vjrit of, held sufficient; case stated.*Appellees reco vered a j udgment against appellants in justice’s court. Appellants petitioned the county judge for a writ of *certiorari,*which petition was granted; *the'certiorari*bond was executed and approved, and said papers filed with the clerk of the county court. Said clerk docketed the cause, and instead of issuing a writ of *certiorari*in the usual form, he issued a *subpoena duces tecum*commanding the justice of the peace to appear as a witness in the case, and bring with him and produce in *214court the papers in said cause. The' justice made out a proper transcript, and delivered the same, together with the original papers in said cause, to said clerk. Upon motion of appellees, the *certiorari*was dismissed upon the ground that no *writ of certiorari*had issued as required by law, and, therefore, the county court had not acquired jurisdiction of the cause. *Held,*the court erred in dismissing the *certiorari.*When the judge granted 'the *certiorari,*and appellants made the bond required, the jurisdiction of the county court over the cause attached. It was then the mere ministerial duty of the clerk of said court to issue the writ of *certiorari;*a duty which appellants could not control or supervise. It was. not the issuance of the writ that conferred. jurisdiction of the case upon the county court. The purpose of the writ is merely to bring the proceedings and papers in the cause from the justice’s to the county court, that the cause may be tried *de novo*in the latter court. If this purpose be accomplished, as it was in this instance, it can make no difference by what form of process it was accomplished.

November 6, 1886.

Reversed and remanded.
II 

Calendar No. 807 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 123 

[Report No. 110–375] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 12, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

APRIL 10, 2008 

Committee discharged; referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

JUNE 16, 2008 

Reported by Mr. BINGAMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To authorize appropriations for the San Gabriel Basin 

Restoration Fund. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION FUND. 

4 Section 110 of division B of the Miscellaneous Appro5 priations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 2763A–222), as enacted 

6 into law by section 1(a)(4) of the Consolidated Appropriamstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 123 RS

1 tions Act, 2001 (Public Law 106–554, as amended by 

2 Public Law 107–66), is further amended— 

3 (1) in subsection (a)(3)(B), by inserting after 

4 clause (iii) the following: 

5 ‘‘(iv) NON-FEDERAL MATCH.—After 

6 $85,000,000 has cumulatively been appro7 priated under subsection (d)(1), the re8 mainder of Federal funds appropriated 

9 under subsection (d) shall be subject to the 

10 following matching requirement: 

11 ‘‘(I) SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER

12 QUALITY AUTHORITY.—The San Ga13 briel Basin Water Quality Authority 

14 shall be responsible for providing a 35 

15 percent non-Federal match for Fed16 eral funds made available to the Au17 thority under this Act. 

18 ‘‘(II) CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL

19 WATER DISTRICT.—The Central Basin 

20 Municipal Water District shall be re21 sponsible for providing a 35 percent 

22 non-Federal match for Federal funds 

23 made available to the District under 

24 this Act.’’; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HR 123 RS

1 (2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(4) INTEREST ON FUNDS IN RESTORATION

4 FUND.—No amounts appropriated above the cumu5 lative amount of $85,000,000 to the Restoration 

6 Fund under subsection (d)(1) shall be invested by 

7 the Secretary of the Treasury in interest-bearing se8 curities of the United States.’’; and 

9 (3) by amending subsection (d) to read as fol10 lows: 

11 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

12 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be 

13 appropriated to the Restoration Fund established 

14 under subsection (a) $146,200,000. Such funds shall 

15 remain available until expended. 

16 ‘‘(2) SET-ASIDE.—Of the amounts appropriated 

17 under paragraph (1), no more than $21,200,000 

18 shall be made available to carry out the Central 

19 Basin Water Quality Project.’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

Calendar No. 807 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 123 

[Report No. 110

–375] 

AN ACT 

To authorize appropriations for the San Gabriel 

Basin Restoration Fund. 

JUNE 16, 2008 

Reported without amendment 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1434

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 896 Pittsburgh Street in Springdale, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Rachel Carson Post Office Building’’.

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

•HR 1434 EH

1 SECTION 1. RACHEL CARSON POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 896 Pittsburgh Street in Spring4 dale, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Rachel Carson Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Rachel Carson Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 23, 2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1434

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office Building’’. Springdale, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Rachel Carson al Service located at 896 Pittsburgh Street in
578 A.2d 1228

#### IN THE MATTER OF JAMES E. PANNY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 17, 1990.

ORDER

JAMES E. PANNY of MARMORA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1977, having tendered his consent to disbarment as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JAMES E. PANNY is disbarred by consent, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that he be permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with disbarred attorneys.
#### G. B. Anderson v. Bill Beaty.

(No. 4091.)

Appeal from Ellis County.

*(Transferred from Austin.J*

G. B. Anderson, counsel for appellant.

Basoom <& McDaniel, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 260. *Appeal bond from justice’s court; record may be looked to in determining sufficiency of.*Appellee recovered judgment against appellant in justice’s court for $115 and costs. Appellant appealed to the county court and executed an appeal bond, in which bond the judgment was described as one for $136.20, and because of this supposed misdescription of the judgment, the appeal was dismissed. *Held*error. The bond states the style and number of the cause, the date of the judgment', and the court in which the same was rendered, correctly. We find, upon inspection of the record, that the costs which had accrued in the cause in justice’s court amounted to $21.20. This amount added to the principal of the judgment makes $136.20, the amount recited in the bond, and hence the bond does not misdecribe the judgment as to the amount. When the question arises as to jurisdiction of an appeal, it is proper for the court *319to look to the entire record to determine it. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 408, 1236; 2 W. Con. Rep. §§ 111, 548, 669.]

February 9, 1887.

Ee versed and remanded.
#### Thomas BERKNER, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 00-1219.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 5, 2001.

Decided Jan. 22, 2001.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Berkner appeals the district court’s1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C) dismissal with prejudice of his civil action against Ford Motor Company. Having closely scrutinized the district court’s decision to dismiss Berkner’s lawsuit based on his lack of cooperation in the discovery process, culminating in his failure to comply with its order compelling discovery, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. *See Schojfstall v..*
      *614
      *Henderson,*223 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review; district court may dismiss action as sanction for failing to comply with discovery orders if there is order compelling discovery, it is willfully violated, and there is prejudice to other party). We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to appellee. *See Comiskey v. JFTJ Corp.,*989 F.2d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 1993) (Rule 37 authorizes award encompassing all expenses, whenever incurred, that would not have been sustained had party conducted itself properly). To the extent Berkner is requesting an in camera hearing, we deny his request.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jonathan G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21.01

                             RWD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                                RWD SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

            Subsidiary Name/                   Registration/
      Jurisdiction of Incorporation             Company No.              Date Formed
-----------------------------------------  --------------------     ----------------------
<S>                                        <C>                   <C>
RWD Technologies UK Limited United
 Kingdom.................................          03314693        February 3, 1997
RWD Mexico, S. de R.L. Mexico............      RME970423BF7          April 23, 1997
RWD Technologies Australia Pty Ltd
 Australia...............................        79 969 930       September 4, 1997
RWD Holdings LLC United States...........          W5067707         August 21, 1998
RWD Technologies Germany GmbH............          HRB 1668          August 5, 1999
Merrimac Interactive Media Corp. United
 States..................................           2962673        December 8, 1998
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 140 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 140

     To amend title 10, United States Code, to require the amounts 
reimbursed to institutional providers of health care services under the 
 TRICARE program to be the same as amounts reimbursed under Medicare, 
  and to require the Secretary of Defense to contract for health care 
      services with at least one teaching hospital in urban areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

   Mr. Gene Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title 10, United States Code, to require the amounts 
reimbursed to institutional providers of health care services under the 
 TRICARE program to be the same as amounts reimbursed under Medicare, 
  and to require the Secretary of Defense to contract for health care 
      services with at least one teaching hospital in urban areas.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR TRICARE PROGRAM REIMBURSEMENT OF 
              INSTITUTIONAL PROVIDERS OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO BE 
              IDENTICAL TO REIMBURSEMENT UNDER MEDICARE.

    Section 1079(j)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``determined to the extent practicable in accordance with the 
same reimbursement rules as apply to payments to'' and inserting 
``identical to the amount of payments that would be paid to''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR TRICARE PROGRAM TO CONTRACT WITH AT LEAST ONE 
              TEACHING HOSPITAL IN URBAN AREAS FOR DELIVERY OF HEALTH 
              CARE.

    Section 1097(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary of 
        Defense'';
            (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The'' and 
        inserting ``Subject to paragraph (2), the'';
            (3) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as 
        subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D), respectively; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) In contracting for the delivery of health care under this 
section, the Secretary shall contract with at least one teaching 
hospital in each large urban area. In this paragraph--
            ``(A) the term `teaching hospital' means a hospital which 
        has a teaching program approved as specified in section 
        1861(b)(6) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(b)(6)); 
        and
            ``(B) the term `large urban area' has the meaning given 
        that term in the second sentence of section 1886(d)(2)(D) of 
        the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(2)(D)).''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOHN T. COLBERT,

Petitioner

v.

HON. GARY GLAZER, JUDGE, 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 139 EM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of January, 2018, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED. The 

Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
#### *Petition of*PETROL SHIPPING CORPORATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The KINGDOM OF GREECE, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, PURCHASE DIRECTORATE, Appellee.

No. 119, Docket 28188.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 30, 1963.

Decided Jan. 7, 1964.

Rehearing In Banc granted March 12, 1964—Decided May 25, 1964.

Hill, Betts, Yamaoka, Freehill & Long-cope, New York City, for appellant, Eugene F. Gilligan and Eli Ellis, New York City, of counsel.

Arthur M. Becker, Washington, D.C., and New York City, for respondent, appearing specially, Becker *&*Greenwald, Washington, D.C., of counsel.

John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., Morton Hollander, Bruno A. Ristau and John C. Eldridge, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., submitted a brief for the United States as amicus curiae.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and SWAN, WATERMAN, MOORE, FRIENDLY, SMITH, KAUFMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the brief filed by the United States as *amicus curiae*on the rehearing *in banc*at the request of the Court and the additional briefs of the parties, the Court considers further development of the facts to be desirable before disposition of the important issues of law that have been raised. To that end, we alter the decision of the panel, 326 F.2d 117 (2 Cir. 1964), vacate the judgment of the District Court dismissing the petition, and remand the case to the District Court with instructions to take such evidence as is relevant to the contentions of the parties and to make a further determination in the light thereof and the arguments made thereon by the parties and, if the District Court deems desirable, by the United States. The costs of this appeal will abide the ultimate determination.

SWAN, Circuit Judge, did not participate in this decision.

MARSHALL, Circuit Judge.

I dissent and would adhere to the decision of the panel.
#### STATE ex rel. Jemetric DEBROW v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1084.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2011.

In re Debrow, Jemetric; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 186,019; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-519-KH.

Denied.
Michael  Johnson  &  Co.,  LLC
9175  East  Kenyon  Avenue,  Suite  100
Denver,  Colorado  80237
(303)  796-0099

May  3,  2004

U.S.  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission
Division  of  Corporation  Finance
450  Fifth  Street,  N.W.
Washington,  DC  20549

CONSENT  OF  INDEPENDENT  AUDITOR

We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in this Registration
Statement  on  Form  SB-2 of Force Protection, Inc. (formerly known as Sonic Jet
Performance,  Inc.)  of  our  report  dated  March  2,  2004  included  in Force
Protection,  Inc.  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the years ended December 31,
2003  and  2002, and to all references to our firm included in this Annual
Report.

Sincerely,
/s/  Michael  Johnson  &  Co.,  LLC
Denver,  Colorado
News United States Air Force
 AF has openings for civilian aircraft maintainersPublished Sept. 27, 2016
                        
                        By Kat Bailey
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS)  --**
                The Air Force is looking for qualified civilian aircraft maintainers to fill vital positions within the Air Force Civilian Service.
Unique skills such as installation, modification, testing, repair and other critical areas are integral to ensuring the safety of Airmen around the world and the continued dominance of the Air Force in the global theater.
At locations across the country, aircraft maintainers work alongside uniformed maintainers on the most advanced fleet of aircraft in the world. They overhaul, repair, inspect and modify a variety of aircraft using some of the world’s most advanced technology.
There are civilian opportunities in the highly technical aerospace field, open to mechanics interested in the airframe, engine, electronic and fabrication fields and other aircraft-related specialties. The Air Force team also offers civilian opportunities for experienced supervisors in the field. Air Force civilians receive competitive pay, ongoing education and training, opportunities to advance and work-life balance.
For more information about applying for civilian aircraft maintenance positions with the Air Force, go to the Air Force Civilian Careers website.
Air Force civilian job opportunities can by found by clicking here.maintainer 



AFPC