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 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 12, 2014.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

                    1.                     *The W. W. Pete Archbold Trust, and Michael G. Lewis as trustee of the W. W. Pete Archbold Trust,*                     both of Ossian, Indiana; to acquire voting shares of Ossian Financial Services, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Ossian State Bank, both in Ossian, Indiana.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 24, 2014.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2014-28142 Filed 11-28-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit 32(a)





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 EnviroStar, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael S. Steiner, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge:





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





(2)
The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





September 26, 2011








/s/ Michael S. SteinerMichael S. SteinerPrincipal Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1


                       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):July 29, 1998


                       DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



DELAWARE                        0-25400                        75-2421746
(State or other                 (Commission                    (I.R.S. Employer
jurisdiction of                 File Number)                   Identification
incorporation)                                                 Number)


500 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, PLANO, TX                        75074
(Address of principal executive offices)                       (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (972) 881-4700

                                      NONE
         (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)
<PAGE>   2
ITEM 5.  OTHER EVENTS

         On July 29, 1998, the Registrant issued the press release filed 
herewith as Exhibit 99.


ITEM 7.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS

         (a)      Financial statements of business acquired
         
                  Not applicable
         
         (b)      Pro forma financial information
         
                  Not applicable
         
         (c)      Exhibits
         
                  99.  Press Release dated July 29, 1998.



                                     -2-
<PAGE>   3
                                   SIGNATURE


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

                                           DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION



Dated: July 29, 1998              By:   /s/ THOMAS J. MADDEN
                                           Thomas J. Madden
                                           Chief Financial Officer,
                                           Chief Accounting Officer,
                                           Vice President - Finance





                                      -3-
<PAGE>   4
                               INDEX TO EXHIBITS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
EXHIBIT                                                                                             PAGE
  NO.                         EXHIBIT                                                              NUMBER
-------                       -------                                                              ------  
 <S>                   <C>                                                                        <C>
 99.                   Press Release dated July 29, 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . .                     5
</TABLE>
#### Jno. P. Billingsley *v.*R. C. Gwarthney.

Appeal — Amendment of Warrant.

Appellants should not be allowed on appeal to amend a defective warrant in a proceeding for forcible entry and detainer, in order to escape the consequences of the judgment appealed from, and thereby to tax appellee with the costs of the proceeding on the warrant.

APPEAL FROM McCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

June 15, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Upon the trial the jury found appellant not guilty of the forcible detainer complained of. Whether this finding was warranted by the proof of course we can not determine, nor is that question material. It is certain that had the finding been different appellant would have had the right to have it set aside upon the ground that the warrant, the basis or foundation of the proceeding, showed no right of recovery in the appellee.

It results therefore that when the parties appeared in the court of common pleas, appellee as the case stood had no right to demand a trial of the traverse, much less a verdict and judgment in his favor.

The motion to quash the defective warrant could not be overruled, and when it was sustained it seems to us that appellee was out of court altogether. Whether such a warrant may be amended in the circuit court under any circumstances is a matter of very grave doubt, as was intimated in the case of *Powers v. Sutherland,*1 Duvall 151.

In a case like this where the party complaining has been defeated in the county, to allow him to amend a defective warrant upon an appeal in order to escape the consequences of the judgment appealed from, and thereby to tax his adversary with the costs of all the proceedings on the warrant, is carrying the liberal provision *2of the Code of P'ractice allowing amendments to an extent not calculated to promote the ends of justice. The power, of the court to allow amendments ought only to be exercised in furtherance of justice. Sec. 161, Civil Code. The amendment allowed in this case has worked injustice in compelling appellant to pay the costs incurred on the trial before the justice of the peace, which before trial, as before stated, resulted properly in a judgment in his behalf.

*I. Q. A. King, for appellant.*

*L. D. Husbands, for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0411

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CATHIE WARREN

a/k/a CATHIE ODEGAARD,

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 June 29, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 23 2022

05/23/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0411
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Statistics Report 

NTEP - A1 

Appendix A 

NTEP Statistics Report 

General NTEP Statistics Last Year This Year Grand Total 

10/01/12 – 9/30/13 10/01/13 – 6/30/14 10/1/00 – 6/30/14 

Total Applications 

Processed (8) 255 (32) 251 (184) 3538 

Applications Completed 252 230 3436 

New Certificates Issued 253 214 3062 

Active NTEP Certificates 

on 6/30 1977 1887 

 ( ) = Reactivations 

Assignments to Labs per 

Year 10/1/12 – 9/30/13 10/1/13 – 6/30/14 10/1/00 – 6/30/14 

California (1) 38 29 (17) 475 

Canada 2 1 (4) 46 

GIPSA-DC 1 0 17 

GIPSA-KC 9 6 102 

Maryland (7) 50 (2) 35 (46) 453 

New York (2) 10 7 (19) 180 

NIST Force Group 4 4 (1) 96 

North Carolina 8 20 (4) 140 

Ohio 62 37 (28) 876 

NTEP Staff (2) 70 109 (12) 1019 

Applications Not Yet 

Assigned to a Lab 6 

( ) = Reassignments from another lab

Process Statistics 2013 - 2014 2000 - 2014

Average Time to Assign an 

Evaluation 3.8 Days 8.6 Days 

Average Time to Complete 

an Evaluation 131.2 Days 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Statistics Report 

NTEP - A2 

Report on Evaluations in Progress 

Evaluations in Progress 0-3 Months 3-6 Months 6-9 Months 9-12 Months 

Over 1 

Year Total 

June 30, 2010 37 12 11 13 24 97 

October 30, 2010 40 30 8 8 20 106 

December 31, 2010 39 25 22 5 20 111 

March 31, 2011 37 27 13 19 17 107 

June 30, 2011 47 20 7 7 21 102 

September 30, 2011 42 28 11 5 19 105 

December 31, 2011 37 19 23 5 17 101 

March 31, 2012 40 17 7 21 14 99 

June 30, 2012 41 21 10 6 20 98 

September 30, 2012 50 30 15 7 19 121 

December 31, 2012 32 24 17 7 18 98 

March 31, 2012 36 12 14 12 18 92 

June 30, 2013 53 18 6 6 19 102 

September 30. 2013 44 32 5 4 21 106 

December 31. 2013 41 25 24 2 24 116 

March 31, 2014 53 23 13 17 11 117 

June 30, 2014 55 30 14 8 19 126 

 

In Progress by Lab 0-3 Months 3-6 Months 6-9 Months 9-12 Months 

Over 1 

Year Total 

California 7 6 5 0 7 25 

Canada 0 1 0 0 0 1 

GIPSA-DC 0 0 0 0 1 1 

GIPSA-KC 4 2 0 1 1 8 

Maryland 6 5 3 1 1 16 

New York 1 1 1 0 0 3 

NIST Force Group 1 0 2 2 2 7 

North Carolina 6 8 2 1 1 18 

Ohio 9 2 1 3 6 21 

NTEP Staff 16 4 0 0 0 20 

Unassigned 5 1 0 0 0 6 

 Total 

Pending: 126 
Report on Applications Received by Quarter 

 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-

Oct – Dec 81 59 59 58 47 55 56 76 71 58 59 

Jan – Mar 99 62 55 62 74 63 54 105 42 69 75 Apr – Jun 54 76 68 65 71 64 54 64 61 82 71 Jul - Sep 38 59 44 70 48 64 63 61 56 65 75 

Total 272 256 226 255 240 246 227 306 230 274 280 2

Average Per Quarter Overall: 65.1 Average Per Quarter This FY: 83.7 

NTEP– A3
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Statistics Report 

NTEP - A4 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000837596
<NAME> REDHEADS, INC.
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         170,168
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  595,483
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     81,312
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               846,963
<PP&E>                                       5,361,853
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,788,309
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,785,774
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,209,092
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    460,815
<COMMON>                                         2,386
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,785,774
<SALES>                                      2,389,652
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,389,852
<CGS>                                          730,166
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  729,151
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,361,009
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,820
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (437,495)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (437,495)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (437,495)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered July 1 6 , 202 1

In The



### Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

of

No. 05

- 20

- 00741

- CR

JEFRY SAUL ZUNIGALAINEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the C riminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F19

- 22628

- H

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s July 13, 2021 motion for an extension of time

to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief received with the

motion f i led as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, James W. Bernau, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Willamette Valley
Vineyards, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the small
business issuer and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: May 15, 2007
/s/ James W. Bernau
    James W. Bernau,
    Chief Executive Officer
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Faustino Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), rendered December 5, 2012, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated per se, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), rendered December 5, 2012, affirmed.</p><p>Since defendant waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement of a misdemeanor complaint (<a href="../2014/2014_04038.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Dumay</i>, 23 NY3d 518</a>, 522 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was legally sufficient to charge defendant with driving while intoxicated per se (<i>see</i> Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 1192[2]), the offense to which defendant ultimately pleaded guilty. In this connection, the factual portion of the accusatory instrument alleged, inter alia, that defendant was in an automobile accident that caused "severe damage" to another vehicle; that he left the scene of the accident and "continued driving" his vehicle in an "intoxicated condition," exhibiting "watery and bloodshot eyes," slurred speech, the "odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath;" and that his blood alcohol level was tested and "indicated that defendant had 0.168% of one per centum by weight of alcohol in defendant's blood." These factual allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (<i>People v Casey</i>, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), are sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of driving while intoxicated per se (<a href="../2015/2015_50293.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Hernandez</i>, 46 Misc 3d 151</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50293[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015], <i>lv denied </i>26 NY3d 1109 [2016]).</p><p>In any event, the accusatory instrument contained a facially sufficient charge of driving while intoxicated (<i>see</i> Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 1192[3]; <a href="../2014/2014_02243.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Fiumara</i>, 116 AD3d 421</a> [2014], <i>lv denied </i>23 NY3d 1036 [2014]). Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 1192(9) specifically permits a conviction of driving while intoxicated per se on an accusatory instrument charging driving while intoxicated (<i>see People v Farmer</i>, 36 NY2d 386, 390 [1975]). We affirm on this basis as well. </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: January 20, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

135510 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. THOMAS MULCAHY and MARY ALICE Stephen J. Markman, MULCAHY, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 135510 COA: 275325 Wayne CC: 05-530565-CH JOHN VERHINES and BRENDA VERHINES, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 25, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0319 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 26, 2008

Clerk
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50733 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHN LEON ROBINETTE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-97-CA-138 USDC No. W-88-CR-130-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 12, 2000 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * John Leon Robinette was convicted of, inter alia , operating a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(a). See United States v. Devine , 934 F.2d 1325 (5 th Cir. 1991). He appeals the district court’s denial of relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on his claim that his sentence on the CCE conviction should have been determined by the Sentencing Guidelines, and counsel was ineffective at sentencing for not objecting to the use of pre-guidelines law to arrive at a life sentence for the CCE conviction.No. 98-50733 -2-The issue underlying Robinette’s ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claim, i.e., whether the CCE fell under the guidelines for purposes of sentencing, was decided by this court on appeal of the denial of Robinette’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion, in which he made the same argument he makes now. This court concluded that there was no basis for the district court to sentence Robinette under the Sentencing Guidelines as he was already in custody and incapable of further offense conduct when the guidelines took effect. United States v. Robinette , No. 95-50290 (5 th Cir. Nov. 15, 1995)(unpublished). Robinette does not challenge this factual finding. It is therefore the law of this

case. See Free v. Abbott Lab., Inc. , 164 F.3d 270, 272 (5 th Cir. 1999). Because this court has determined that the guidelines were inapplicable to Robinette’s CCE conviction, counsel’s failure to raise this issue at sentencing did not constitute deficient performance and did not prejudice Robinette. See Smith v. Puckett , 907 F.2d 581, 585 n.6 (5 th Cir. 1990). The denial of § 2255 relief on this claim is therefore AFFIRMED.