alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60748-60749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24666]


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

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

[[Page 60749]]

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 October 28, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Rigler Investment Co., New Hampton, Iowa; to acquire 100 percent 
of the voting shares of State Bank & Trust Company, Waverly, Iowa.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 28, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-24666 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24592]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Intent To Grant an Exclusive Field of Use License of U.S. 
Government-Owned Patents

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e), and 37 CFR 404.7 
(a)(1)(i) and 37 CFR 404.7 (b)(1)(i), announcement is made of the 
intent to grant a field of use exclusive, revocable license for the 
field of vaccination of ungulates to U.S. Patent No. 7,235,644 issued 
on June 26, 2007, U.S. Patent No. 7,025,963 issued on April 11, 2006, 
and U.S. Patent No. 7,018,636 issued on March 28, 2006, and related 
foreign patents and patent applications deriving from PCT/US95/04446, 
with all patents and patent applications entitled ``Vaccine Against 
Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections,'' to the University of Maryland, 
Baltimore, with its principal place of business at 620 West Lexington 
Street, 4th floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21201-1508.

ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, 
ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, 
Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, 
Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA), (301) 619-6664. 
For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-
7808, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of 
this license can file written objections along with supporting 
evidence, if any, within 15 days from the date of this publication. 
Written objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see 
ADDRESSES).

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-24592 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
583 A.2d 300

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CORNELL M. WOOD.

January 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6195** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Petitioner

- Appellee ,
v. STEPHEN G. DEES , Respondent

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern D istrict of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. ( 5:09

- hc

- 02100

- BR )

Submitted : October 28, 2010 Decided: December 9 , 2010

Before MOTZ and SHEDD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un publ ished per curiam opinion
.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Diana Pereira, Research and Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorne y, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, David T. Huband, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stephen G. Dees appeals the district court’s order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18
U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). Dees asserts that the district court erred in concluding that he posed a substantial risk of danger to others as a result of his mental disorder. Finding no error, we affirm. After a hearing, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Dees “is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect as a result of which his release would create a substantial risk of bodi ly injury to another person or serious damage to property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Dees met this standard. United States v. LeClair , 338 F .3d 882, 885 (8th Cir. 2003) (stating standard of review); see United States v. Robinson , 404 F.3d 850, 856 (4th Cir. 2005) (reviewing for clear error court’s decision regarding defendant’s competency to stand trial and citing United States v. Cox , 964 F.2 d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992)); see also United States v. Harvey , 532 F.3d 326, 336

- 37 (4th Cir. 2008) (stating that a finding is clearly erroneous “when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite3 and firm conviction that a mist ake has been committed”) (internal quotatio n marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, we af firm the order of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequa t ely presented in the materials before the court and argumen t would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
#### Sandford Johnson v. James J. Moore.

(No. 3164.)

Error from McLennan County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 210. *Injunction; judgment on dissolution of.*Plaintiff in error obtained an injunction restraining the collection of a judgment owned by defendant in error. The injunction was dissolved and the petition dismissed, the court rendering judgment against plaintiff in error for the amount of the judgment enjoined, for interest *165thereon, and for the costs of that suit; and rendered judgment against plaintiff in error, and the sureties on his injunction bond, for the costs of this suit. “Under the Revised Statutes, no judgment can be rendered against the principal and sureties on an injunction bond,- or against the principal alone, on dissolution of the injunction. The holder of the judgment pursues his ordinary remedy to collect the same, and the bond which restrained its collection gives him an additional security for his debt.” [R. R. Co. v. White, 57 Tex. 129.]

May 28, 1884.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 31.01

                            CERTIFICATION

I, Tom Hofer, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Vendalux
Corporation

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.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and 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.  The registrant's other certifying officers and 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 functions):

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

<PAGE>
<PAGE> 2

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

Date: August 28, 2003

By:            /s/
   ---------------------------------
   Tom Hofer
   (Chief Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be
retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Willie J. ZENO, Sr. v. FLOWERS’ BAKING COMPANY.

No. 2011-C-1234.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 2011.

*1162In re Zeno Sr., Willie J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Workers’ Compensation District 04, No. 2010-02790; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-1413.

Denied.
Exhibit 10.1


 


Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy


 


The following table sets out fees to be paid to
non-employee directors of our Company for their services as Board members
during Fiscal 2008:


 


	
  Name

  	
   

  	
  Amount

  	
   

  
	
  Kristine F.
  Hughes (Chairperson)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145,962

  	
   

  
	
  Pauline Hughes
  Francis

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  54,801

  	
   

  
	
  Robert K. Bowen

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  38,625

  	
   

  
	
  Larry A. Deppe

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  42,655

  	
   

  



 


Non-employee directors also receive health and life
insurance coverage.  Board members have
the option to receive life insurance coverage in the amount of $500,000.  We do not pay any fees for attendance at
Committee meetings.  Board members who
are also employees of our Company do not receive any directors’ fees.
EXHIBIT 99.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)  In connection
with the accompanying Annual Report of Brigham Exploration Company (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 (the Report),
I, Ben M. Brigham, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board
of the Company, hereby certify that:  (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and  (2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.  Dated: March
  31, 2003/s/ Ben M.
  BrighamBen M.
  BrighamChief Executive
  Officer
#### Sandra Lee BOUDREAUX and Floyd Boudreaux v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF LOUISIANA, INC., Southern Development of Mississippi, Inc., National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, and Lexington Insurance Company.

No. 2011-CC-1886.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ter-rebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 158466; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 762.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              12
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,396
<ALLOWANCES>                                       440 
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,396
<PP&E>                                          19,891
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,079 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,578
<BONDS>                                         14,354
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     17,674
<COMMON>                                           192
<OTHER-SE>                                     (35,872)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,982
<SALES>                                      1,432,131
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,432,131
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,372,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                59,946
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   651
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,865)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,865)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,865)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.29)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. George Earl WHITE, Jr.

No. 2010-K-2136.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re White Jr., George Earl; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Grant, 35th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 08-079; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1500.

Denied.
ACCEPTED12-14-00363-CRTWELFTH COURT OF APPEALSTYLER, TEXAS5/7/2015 11:03:26 AMCATHY LUSKCLERK
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ricky BELL, Jr.

No. 2011-KP-1177.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Bell Jr., Ricky; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Assumption, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 02-CA-000130; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0220.

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7233

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROY BLANKENSHIP,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (2:02-cr-00097; 2:04-cv-01020)

Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Blankenship, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel David Marsh, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Roy Blankenship seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2)(2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Blankenship has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**443 KA 11-01061** 
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TRACY L. JONES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. STACHOWSKI, P.C., BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. STACHOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. SMALL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), rendered July 14, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.65 [1]). We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. Supreme Court’s “brief reference to the waiver of the right to appeal during the plea colloquy was insufficient to establish that the waiver was a knowing and voluntary choice” ( People v Littleton , 62 AD3d 1267, 1268, lv denied 12 NY3d 926). Thus, defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence and his contention regarding ineffective assistance of counsel are not encompassed by his waiver of the right to appeal. Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. To the extent that defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel with respect to sentencing is not forfeited by the plea ( see People v Shubert , 83 AD3d 1577, 1578), it is lacking in merit ( see generally People v Ford , 86 NY2d 397, 404).

Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Sachs *v.*Jewish Community Credit Union, etc.

[No. 19,584.

Filed July 3, 1961.]

*159
      *Sherwood Blue,*of Indianapolis, for appellant.

*Max Klezmer,*of Indianapolis, for appellee.

Pfaff, C. J.

The motion for new trial in this cause was overruled on September 22, 1960. Appellant duly filed his petition for extension of time to file his transcript and assignment of errors with this court and was granted to and including February 22, 1961. A second petition for extension of time was granted to and including April 22, 1961. Thereafter, a third petition was filed by appellant, and he was granted to and including June 22, 1961, to file his transcript and assignment of errors. Having failed to file the same within the time granted by this court, his appeal must be dismissed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 2-2, which reads as follows:

> “In all appeals and reviews the assignment of errors and transcript of the record must be filed in the office of the Clerk of Supreme Court within 90 days from the date of the judgment or the ruling on the motion for a new trial, unless the statute under which the appeal or review is taken fixes a shorter time, in which latter event the statute shall control. If within the time for filing the assignment of errors and transcript, as above provided, it is made to appear to the court to which an appeal or review is sought, notice having been given to the adverse parties, that notwithstanding due diligence on the part of the parties seeking an appeal or review, it has been and will be im*160possible to procure a bill of exceptions or transcript to permit the filing of the transcript within the time allowed, the court to which the appeal or review is sought may, in its discretion, grant a reasonable extension of time within which to file such transcript and assignment of errors. When the ¿ppellant is under legal disability at the time the judgment is rendered, he may file the transcript and assignment of errors within 90 days after the removal of the disability.”

Appeal dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 176 N. E. 2d 154.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                            1,576,503
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       273,605
<ALLOWANCES>                        (26,518)
<INVENTORY>                         299,878
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  2,384,793
<PP&E>                            1,300,445
<DEPRECIATION>                   (1,046,490)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    3,296,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,148,926
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                         13,707,259
<OTHER-SE>                      (11,559,332)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      3,296,853
<SALES>                           2,172,142
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  2,172,142
<CGS>                               281,742
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       281,742
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  2,732,212
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  (35,149)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (806,663)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (806,663)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (806,663)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.13)



</TABLE>