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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at                           ( print page 71421)                        the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 16, 2014.                

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:

                    1.                     *GCP III EVB LLC, a limited liability company; Greenhill Capital Partners III, L.P., a limited partnership; Greenhill Capital Partners (Cayman Islands) III, L.P., a limited partnership; Greenhill Capital Partners (GHL) III, L.P., a limited partnership; Greenhill Capital Partners (Employees) III, L.P., a limited partnership; GCP Managing Partner III, L.P., a limited partnership; GCP Managing Partner III GP, L.P., a limited partnership; GCP Capital Partners Holdings LLC, a limited partnership; GCP Capital Partners Holdings Inc., a corporation; GCP Capital Partners LLC, a limited partnership; Robert H. Niehaus,*                     all of New York, New York, and                     *Boris Gutin,*                     Montclair, New Jersey                    *;*                     to acquire voting shares of Eastern Virginia Bankshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of EVB, both in Tappahannock, Virginia.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 26, 2014.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2014-28356 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit 99.1

Annual Certification

Re: Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2004-NC4 (the "Trust"),
    Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-NC4, issued pursuant
    to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as May 1, 2004 (the
    "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), by and among Morgan Stanley
    ABS Capital I Inc., as depositor (the "Depositor"), Deutsche Bank
    National Trust Company, as trustee (the "Trustee"), HomEq Servicing
    Corporation, as servicer (the "Servicer"), and NC Capital Corporation,
    as responsible party

I, Arthur Q. Lyon, certify to the Depositor and the Trustee, and their
officers, directors and affiliates, and with the knowledge and intent
that they will rely upon this certification, that:

A review of the activities of the Servicer during the 2004 calendar
year and the Servicer's performance under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement has been made under my supervision, the Servicer has complied
with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects and,
to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
materially fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement throughout such calendar year.

Date: March 14, 2005

HomEq Servicing Corporation
/s/: Arthur Lyon
Arthur Q. Lyon
President
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
   
     We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to
the use of our report dated February 18, 1998 (except for Note 15, as to which
the date is July 10, 1998), in Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement
(Form S-1 No. 333-56799) and related Prospectus of Clark/Bardes, Inc. (the
predecessor company to Clark/Bardes Holdings, Inc.) for the registration of
shares of its common stock.
    
 
                                                  /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                     ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Dallas, Texas
   
August 14, 1998
#### United Life, Fire & Marine Insurance Co. *v.*F. M. Eigenmore, etc.

Appeal — Bill of Exceptions, when not Part of Record.

A bill of exceptions which was not filed within the time allowed by the court, or within the authorized extension of time, is not a part of the record on appeal.

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

February 28, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

There can be no doubt but that the petition as amended discloses a cause of action in favor of these appellees.

W.e are of opinion that the paper copied in the record purporting to be a bill of exceptions can not be considered by this court.

Time was given to prepare and file a bill of exceptions till the third day of the term succeeding the judgment. On that day no bill was filed nor does any notice of the subject appear upon the record.

*525
      *Webster, for appellant.*

*Myers, for appellees.*

The extension of time made on the second day of the term was unauthorized. The order made on the 5th of January giving an indefinite extension of time, was also void. It does not appear from the record that appellees in any way waived their rights to take advantage of these errors. Their objections to filing the paper on the 21st of January should have been sustained. *Freeman v. Brenham, 17*B. Monroe 604; *Meadows v. Campbell, 1*Bush 104; *Smith v. Blakeman,*8 Bush 476. Without a bill of exceptions, it is evident that this court can not reverse the action of the court below.

The judgment must be *affirmed.*
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration
statement on Form S-8 of our report dated February 13, 1997, on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of Community Pacific Broadcasting Company L.P.
as of December 31, 1996 and for the year then ended.

PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS LLP

/s/ Price Waterhouse Coopers LLP


San Jose, California
July 6, 1998
No. 15,769.

#### Linder *v.*Smith.

*Pleading.*— Complaint.—If the plaintiff is entitled to any substantial relief, on the facts stated in his complaint, a demurrer thereto should he overruled.

From the Madison Circuit Court.

*W. A. Kittinger*and *L. M. Schwinn,*for appellant.

*J. W. Lovett*and, *S. M. Keltner,*for appellee.

Coffey, J.

This was an action in the Madison Circuit Court to recover a personal judgment for material furnished *148and work and labor done and performed in the construction of a cistern.

Filed April 8, 1892.

Coupled with the allegations necessary to the recovery of a personal judgment were allegations seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.

The court overruled a demurrer to the complaint, and this ruling is the only one discussed by counsel in their briefs.

The court did not err in this ruling.

Independent of the right to a mechanic’s lien the complaint was good as an action for a personal judgment. If a plaintiff is entitled to any substantial relief on the facts stated in his complaint, a demurrer thereto should be overruled. *Howe*v. *Dibble,*45 Ind. 120.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,548
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,988
<ALLOWANCES>                                       418
<INVENTORY>                                      5,581
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,227
<PP&E>                                         218,119
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,169
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,484
<BONDS>                                         35,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,759
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,378
<SALES>                                         54,557
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,557
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 740
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (333)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (61)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (272)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (272)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4294 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 22, 2004 

Received 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal 

Building and United States Courthouse located at 333 

Constitution Avenue Northwest in the District of Columbia as the ‘William B. Bryant Annex’ ’’. 

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

HR 4294 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal 

3 Building and United States Courthouse located at 333 

4 Constitution Avenue Northwest in the District of Colum5 bia shall be known and designated as the ‘‘William B. Bry6 ant Annex’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the annex 

10 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

11 to the ‘‘William B. Bryant Annex’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 21, 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES F-4 AND 
F-5 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM S-4 FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          66,063
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,637
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               902,239
<PP&E>                                       3,423,130
<DEPRECIATION>                               (278,194)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,182,875
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,220
<BONDS>                                      1,710,124
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,317,353
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,182,875
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               447,373
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  249,631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,441
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                133,590
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            133,590
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   133,590
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 11, 2021

No. 04-21-00272-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Marco Antonio GLORIA,

Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-02-07981-MCRAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On August 10, 2021, appellee filed a Motion to Substitute Appellate Counsel. After 

consideration, appellee’s motion is GRANTED. We ORDER the clerk of this court to update 

the records of this case to show Clay Dean Thomas as attorney of record for appellee.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

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

court on this 11th day of August, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-3062

DAVID E. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FRESH FIELDS MARKET, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (CA-94-55-C)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David E. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Patrick Murphy, Michael

Frank Marino, REED, SMITH, SHAW & MCCLAY, McLean, Virginia; Eric

Anthony Welter, REED, SMITH, SHAW & MCCLAY, Washington, D.C., for

Appellee.

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 affirming

the magistrate judge's disposition of Appellant's discovery motions

for expenses, for sanctions, and for a change i the location of his

deposition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because

the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction

only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541

(1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 50849 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

CESAR ARRNOLDO VALDEZ ,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:03

- CR

- 108

- 3

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Cesar Arrnoldo
Valdez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Valdez h a s not filed a respons e. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 16, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-50849 Document: 00514475177 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2018No. 17

- 50849

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw
i s GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-50849 Document: 00514475177 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2018
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



   
                          Subsidiaries of the Company
    

   
<TABLE>
<S>         <C>
1.          Hastings Internet, Inc.
2.          Hastings Properties, Inc.
3.          College Stores, Inc.
</TABLE>
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

June 21, 2024

CR-2023-0760

M.L.B. v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court: CC-23-220) 

NOTICE 

You are hereby notified that on June 21, 2024, the following action was taken 

in the above-referenced cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals:

Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2023

- 0407

_____________________________
L ISA K ING , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Joshua M. Hawkes , Judge

.

February 23, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
O STERHAUS , C.J., and R OBERTS and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Lisa King, pro se
, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E Markham
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Dismissed; Opinion Filed July 11, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01369

- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF M .K.M., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 17

- 12692


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Partida

- Kipness, and Pedersen, III

Opinion by Justice Partida

- Kipness Appellant has not filed his brief despite being cautioned t hat failure to file the brief by June 21, 2019 would result in dismissal of the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1)

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c).

181369F.P05 /Robbie Partida

- Kipness/ ROBBIE PARTIDA

- KIPNESS JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF M.K.M., A CHILD

No. 05

- 18

- 01369

- CV On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 17

- 12692. Opinion delivered by Justice Partida

Kipness, Justices Whitehill and Pedersen, III participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 11 th day of July, 2019.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Annual Report of Millipore Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, Francis J. Lunger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kathleen B. Allen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    Francis J. Lunger *           
|                                     
|Francis J. Lunger                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|March 11, 2004                       



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/    Kathleen B. Allen *                
|                                          
|Kathleen B. Allen                         
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|March 11, 2004                            



* - A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Millipore Corporation and will be retained by Millipore Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit
32





SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350





I, Dennis
W. Doll, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the periodic report
being filed herewith containing financial statements fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in said periodic
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Middlesex Water Company for the period covered by said
periodic report.





/s/ Dennis W. DollDennis
      W. DollChief
      Executive Officer





Date:  March
8, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Middlesex Water Company and will be retained by Middlesex Water Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.