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 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 will also 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.

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 January 15, 2015.

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

                    1.                     *Level One Bancorp, Inc.,*                     Farmington Hills, Michigan; to merge with Lotus Bancorp, Inc., Novi, Michigan; and thereby indirectly acquire Lotus Bank, Novi, Michigan.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 16, 2014.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2014-29771 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       8,770,643
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  432,886
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,230,339
<PP&E>                                         198,679
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,495,752
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,661,012
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        91,764
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,742,976
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,495,752
<SALES>                                      1,075,961
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,075,961
<CGS>                                          611,772
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  611,772
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,231,685
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (90,872)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (676,624)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (676,624)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (676,624)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-94309) pertaining to the Radio Unica Communications Corp. 1998 Stock
Option Plan, as amended, of our report dated February 23, 2001, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Radio
Unica Communications Corp. included in Radio Unica Communications Corp.'s Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Miami, Florida
March 21, 2001




                                       63
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Whitehall Limited, Inc. (the Company),
hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

/s/ Judith Zeman
Judith Zeman
November 14, 2002
#### George McLeod’s Adm’r *v.*Henry Ament’s Adm’r.

County Court Jurisdiction — Administrator De Bonis Non.

When the county court has appointed an administrator de honis non of an estate, he has exhausted his power, and cannot make an order • on a day thereafter appointing a co-administrator.

Administrator De Bonis Non.

An administrator de honis non not interested in the estate as an heir or creditor has no sufficient interest in the funds to be allowed to raise a question as to whether the former executor had proper authority to use a part of the trust funds to enclose the graveyard where the decedent is buried.

APPEAL FROM BOURBON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 13, 1874.

*Marshall & McLeod, for .appellant.*

*Cunningham,*Tourney, *for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Cofer :

The comity court exhausted its power to appoint an administrator *de bonis non*of Henry Ament, by the appointment of appellee; and the order made on a subsequent day, appointing appellant a co-administrator, was void.

As administrator of Henry Ament, the. appellant had a right to recover the unexpended balance of the fund set apart for inclosing the grave yard and erecting monuments over the graves of the testator and his relatives.

Whether the court erred in directing a part of the. fund to be used in enclosing the graveyard, and the residue to be distributed, is a matter in which appellant does not appear from the record to have such an interest as to entitle himl to question the correctness of that part of the judgment. As administrator of the former executor, he clearly has no such. interest. If he had an interest in the fund as distributee, he should have set forth such facts 'as would have shown that interest; and not having done so, the only question on. the appeal is whether the judgment against him for the money was right. He and his ancestor had kept this fund in their hands for about twenty years, and he is charged with simple interest only, and was not, therefore, entitled to commission on the fund.

Perceiving no error in the judgment, it is *affirmed.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tironda Dineen VINING Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-3068.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 1, 2001.

Before NELSON and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; FEIKENS, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable John Feikens, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

*ORDER*

Tironda Dineen Vining appeals her judgment of conviction and sentence. The case has been referred to this panel pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. We unanimously agree that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Vining pleaded guilty to a one-count indictment that charged her with harboring and concealing a person from arrest, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071. The district court sentenced her to six months of imprisonment to be followed by two years of supervised release.

In this timely appeal, Vining’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Vining was served with the brief and the motion. Rule 101(f), Sixth Circuit Supplemental Procedural Rules. She has filed no response.

The motion to withdraw will be granted as it reflects that counsel has reviewed the entire record and proceedings and has submitted the following issue for review: whether Vining’s conviction was entered in conformity with the apposite constitutional provisions, statutes, and Sentencing Guidelines. Counsel asserts this issue, but recognizes that the appeal lacks merit.

The record reflects that the district court properly accepted Vining’s guilty plea. A plea of guilty is valid if entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently under the totality of the circumstances. *North Carolina v. Alford,*400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970); *Brady v. United States,*397 U.S. 742, 749, 90 *271S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970). The court explained to Vining the rights she was waiving, the five-year statutory maximum sentence involved, and the application of the Sentencing Guidelines. Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1), (c)(3). Vining acknowledged her guilt of the crime charged. Accordingly, the record reflects that Vining entered a constitutionally valid plea.

The district court also properly sentenced Vining. The guidelines did not provide an offense level for the underlying crime of the individual whom Vining concealed; therefore, pursuant to USSG § 2X5.1, the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) provided the general framework for sentencing Vining within the zero-to-sixty-month statutory range of § 1071. The parties did not object to the application of this framework at sentencing. Thus, the parties waived appellate review of any adverse guideline sentencing decision. *United States v. Lewis,*991 F.2d 322, 324 (6th Cir.1993).

Lastly, we have reviewed the record and conclude that no other nonfrivolous issue exists.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the district court’s judgment of conviction and sentence. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES
CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of BTU International, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify
that to his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2011 (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 for the periods
covered by the Report.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Peter J. TallianPeter J. TallianChief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)


Dated: May 10, 2011
Exhibit
10.26 (d)
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO
TRANSITION AND SUCCESSION AGREEMENT
     1.
    
    The following sentence is hereby added to the end of Section 5(a) of the Agreement:
  2.
    
    The following shall be added as a new Section 13(g):
 Conditions to Payment and Acceleration; Section 409A of the Code




---



##### 



provided however
 3.
    
    This Amendment shall be governed by, interpreted under and construed in accordance with the
laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
 4.
    
    Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement is hereby confirmed in all respects.
  MYLAN INC./s/ Rodney L. PiattBy: Rodney L. PiattTitle: Chairman, Compensation Committee/s/ Edward J. BorkowskiEdward J. Borkowski
 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6423
ROBERT S. MARKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM C. DUNCIL, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-95-304-3) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert S. Marks, Appellant Pro Se. Silas Bent Taylor, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed therecord and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause; to the extent thata certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Marks v. Duncil , No. CA-95-304-3 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 13, 1996). 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
<Page>

Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-94309) pertaining to the Radio Unica Communications Corp. 1998 Stock
Option Plan, as amended, of our report dated March 5, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Radio
Unica Communications Corp. included in Radio Unica Communications Corp.'s Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Miami, Florida
March 25, 2002

                                       85
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of National Computer Systems,  Inc. of our report dated March 6, 2000,  included
in the 1999 Annual Report to Stockholders of National Computer Systems, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in:

Registration Statement No. 33-9830 on Form S-3 (Selling Shareholder),
Registration  Statement  No.  33-21511 on Form S-8 (1986  Employee  Stock Option
Plan),
Registration  Statement No.  333-00377 on Form S-8 (1989  Non-Employee  Director
Stock Option Plan),
Registration  Statements  No.  33-48509 and 333-00381 on Form S-8 (1990 Employee
Stock Option Plan),
Registration  Statement  No.  333-00379  on Form S-8 (1990  Long-Term  Incentive
Plan),
Registration  Statement No.  33-48510 on Form S-8 (1992  Employee Stock Purchase
Plan),
Registration  Statement  No.  33-68854  on  Form  S-8  (Option  held  by  former
director),
Registration  Statement No.  333-00383 on Form S-8 (1995  Employee  Stock Option
Plan),
Registration  Statement  No.  333-25523 on Form S-3 (VUE Selling  shareholders),
Registration Statement No. 333-25343 on Form S-8 (NCS/VUE Stock Option Plan),
Registration Statement No. 333-51053 on Form S-8 (Oswald Stock Option Plan),
Registration  Statement  No.  333-58947  on Form S-8 (1997  Long-Term  Incentive
Plan),
Registration  Statement No.  333-58949 on Form S-8 (1998 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan),
Registration  Statement No.  333-58951 on Form S-8 (1997  Employee  Stock Option
Plan), and
Registration   Statement  No.  333-75165  on  Form  S-8  (Supplemental  Deferred
Compensation Plan)

of our report  dated March 6, 2000 with  respect to the  consolidated  financial
statements of National  Computer  Systems,  Inc. and  subsidiaries  incorporated
herein by  reference  in this Annual  Report  (Form  10-K) of National  Computer
Systems, Inc. for the year ended January 29, 2000.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 25, 2000
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 11.1




                        FIDUCIARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P.


                        STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF NET
                          INVESTMENT INCOME PER LIMITED
                                PARTNERSHIP UNIT



<Table>
<Caption>
                                                        For the Three Months                    For the Six Months
                                                            Ended June 30,                        Ended June 30,
                                                -----------------------------------     -----------------------------------
                                                      2001               2000                2001                2000
                                                ---------------     ---------------     ---------------     ---------------
<S>                                             <C>                 <C>                 <C>                 <C>
Net Investment Loss                             $       (78,286)    $       (94,218)    $      (122,383)    $      (163,305)

Percentage Allocable to Limited Partners                    115%                100%                110%                100%
                                                ---------------     ---------------     ---------------     ---------------

Net Investment Loss Allocable
   to Limited Partners                          $       (90,038)    $       (94,218)    $      (134,135)    $      (163,305)
                                                ===============     ===============     ===============     ===============

Weighted Average Number of Limited
   Partnership Units Outstanding                        930,725           1,026,273             930,725           1,026,273
                                                ===============     ===============     ===============     ===============

Net Investment Loss Per Limited
   Partnership Unit                             $         (0.10)    $         (0.09)    $         (0.14)    $         (0.16)
                                                ===============     ===============     ===============     ===============

</Table>
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Janet Mathews,certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-K of Gaiam, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

   (a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

   (c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

   (a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

   (b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | March  1, 2005           |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |                     |
|   | /s/  Janet Mathews       |   |
|   | Janet  Mathews           |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----