alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00165]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  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 January 26, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, 
Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. Jeffry Anderson and Bruce A. Anderson, both of Lakota, North 
Dakota; each to retain voting shares of Lakota Bank Holding Company, 
Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares State Bank of Lakota, 
both in Lakota, North Dakota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 6, 
2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-00165 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT TO THE FORM OF INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT




ADVANCIS PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION




     This Amendment to the Form of Incentive Stock Option Agreement is provided by Advancis
Pharmaceutical Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), to notify holders of stock
options granted under the Amended and Restated Advancis Pharmaceutical Corporation Stock Incentive
Plan (the “Amended Stock Incentive Plan”) that pursuant to Section 19 of the Form of Incentive
Stock Option Agreement (the “Option Agreement”), the Company’s Board of Directors has amended the
Option Agreement as follows:



Section 3. Vesting




     (a) Vesting Schedule. The Options vest in accordance with the vesting schedule set forth
on the Stock Option Notice (the “Vesting Schedule”), so long as the Participant is in the
continuous employ of, or in a service relationship with, the Company from the Grant Date through
the applicable date upon which vesting is scheduled to occur, except as specified in paragraph (b)
of this Section 3. The extent to which the Options are vested as of a particular vesting date
specified in the Vesting Schedule is rounded down to the nearest whole share. However, vesting is
rounded up to the nearest whole share with respect to the last vesting date reflected on the
Vesting Schedule. No vesting will accrue to any Options after the Participant ceases to be in
either an employment or other service relationship with the Company, except as specified in
paragraph (b) of this Section 3.



     (b) Vesting upon Change in Control. Unless the Options have earlier terminated, the
unvested Options become fully vested upon a Change of Control.



     (c) Vesting upon Death or Disability. Unless the Options have earlier terminated, the
unvested Options become fully vested upon termination of the Participant’s employment or other
service relationship with the Company as a result of the Participant’s Total and Permanent
Disability or death.



     All of the remaining terms of this agreement remain in full force and effect.



     Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the respective meanings ascribed to
them in the Form of Incentive Stock Option Agreement.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Advancis Pharmaceutical Corporation

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Edward M. Rudnic, Ph.D. 	 
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
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 this Amendment No. 2 to the annual report on Form 10-KSB of
      Promotions On Wheels Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December
      31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the “Report”), I, Rowland W. Day II, Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, do hereby 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.




By:
            */s/
                Rowland W. Day****II*Rowland
                W. Day IIChief
                Executive Officer




Dated:
      October 6, 2008





This
      certification accompanies this report on Form 10-KSB pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
      by
      such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, another document
      authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Promotions On Wheels Holdings, Inc. and
      will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its
      staff upon request.
[907 NE2d 683, 879 NYS2d 805]

#### Jane Doe et al., Respondents, v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester et al., Appellants.

Argued February 12, 2009;

decided March 26, 2009

*765APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Harris Beach PLLC,*Pittsford *(Philip G. Spellane, A. Vincent Buzará*and *Laura W. Smalley*of counsel), for Bishop Matthew H. Clark and another, appellants.

*Christopher S. Ciaccio,*Rochester, for Peter M. DeBellis, appellant.

*Christina A. Agola, Attorneys and Counselors at Law, PLLC,*Rochester *(Christina*A. *Agola*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint in the entirety should be granted and the certified question should be answered in the negative.

Plaintiffs were congregants of Our Mother of Sorrows Church, where defendant Father Peter DeBellis was a priest. Plaintiff Jane Doe alleges that in November 2000, she began counseling with Father DeBellis. Soon thereafter, plaintiff maintains that they began a sexual relationship that lasted for more than three years. Both the counseling and the sexual relationship continued despite repeated complaints to the Diocese by plaintiff husband, John Doe, and DeBellis’s subsequent transfer to another church. Plaintiffs commenced this action asserting, as relevant here, a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Father DeBellis, and claims for negligent supervision and retention against the Diocese.

As we recently reaffirmed, a fiduciary relationship must exhibit the characteristics of “de facto control and dominance” *(Marmelstein v Kehillat New Hempstead: The Rav Aron Jofen Community Synagogue,*11 NY3d 15, 21 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Specifically, we held that in order to demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary duty between a cleric and a congregant involved in a formal counseling *766relationship, “a congregant must set forth facts and. circumstances in the complaint demonstrating that the congregant became uniquely vulnerable and incapable of self-protection regarding the matter at issue” (Marmelstein, 11 NY3d at 22).

The complaint in this case, although drafted prior to our decision in *Marmelstein,*falls short of what is necessary to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The bare allegation that Jane Doe was “a vulnerable congregant” is insufficient to establish that plaintiff was particularly susceptible to Father De-Bellis’s influence. Nor does the complaint provide any other allegations to show that the parties had a relationship characterized by control and dominance.

Plaintiffs’ claims for negligent supervision and retention against the Diocese likewise fail.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.
----

----

|   | 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/  Samuel      J. Alderson                                    |   |   |   |
| Samuel      J. AldersonChief      Financial OfficerFebruary      27, 2008 |   |   |   |

----
#### Toppan *et al. v.*Tiffany Refrigerator Car Co.

*(Circuit Court,*N. *D. Illinois.*

August 3, 1889.)

Patents for Inventions—Infringement.

If the owner of a patent-right which infringes another patent licenses others to use his device, and furnishes to his licensees and those constructing his articles plans and drawings requiring the use of the prior device, without procuring, or intending to procure, the consent of the owner of such prior patent, he is an infringer, and liable in damages.

In Equity. Bill for infringement of patent.

Bill by James S. Toppan and others against The Tiffany Refrigerator Car Company, to restrain the infringement of letters patent and for an accounting.

*W. Zimmerman,*for complainants.

*F. A. Woodbury,*for defendant.

Gresham, J.

This suit was brought by the plaintiffs as assignees oi letters patent No. 228,241, granted to 'Arnold W. Zimmerman on June 1,1880, against the defendant as an infringer. The patent describes and claims a device or mechanism for securely bolting or closing car and other doors, and for opening the same. The validity of the patent is not disputed, and the invention need not be more particularly described. The defendant is the owner of a number of patents for improvements in refrigerator cars, and the bill charges that the defendant has made, used, and *421sold, and caused others to make, use, and sell, refrigerator cars supplied with the Zimmerman improvement. The alleged infringing device, in principle and mode of operation, is the same as the Zimmerman improvement. The real controversy in the case is one of fact. The evidence clearly shows that the defendant’s licensees and others have appropriated the invention described in the plaintiffs’ patent without right, and the only question is whether the defendant was a party to the trespasses. The defendant claims that since July, 1880, its solo business has been that of licensing othors to use the improvements covered by its patents, which improvements relate to a. refrigerator system, and have no connection whatever with the Zimmerman invention, or the running-gear, brakes, buffers, or car-couplings; and that, if any of the licensees have appropriated the Zimmerman device, they did it upon their own authority and responsibility, and that they alone are guilty as trespassers. The evidence, however, shows that, if the defendant did not own or use the refrigerator cars with the plaintiff’s improvement attached to the doors, it furnished its licensees or car-builders with working plans and drawings of cars showing and requiring the Zimmerman device, and that this was done with no thought or expectation that the owmer’s consent would be obtained for such use. The usual decree will be entered in favor of the plaintiff.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MARK P. JONES, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 07-00009-WS-B

 :

KEVIN McKINNEY, :

 :

Defendant. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file

deemed relevant to the issue raised, and there having been no

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion

of this court. It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the

Court's Order.

DONE this 7th day of April, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00009-WS-B Document 30 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Ingham *et al. v.*Pierce *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, W. D. Michigan, S. D.*

July 30, 1888.)

Costs—Attorneys’ Fees eor Depositions.

Bev. St. U. S. § 824, allowing solicitors $2.50 ices “lor each deposition taken and admitted in evidence in a cause,” includes as well depositions taken in the ordinary way under equitv rule 07 as those taken otherwise. Overruling *Tuck*v. *Olds,*29 Fed. Eep. 883.

Appeal frqm Taxation of Costs in District Court.

In this case, a decree having been entered dismissing the bill with costs to the defendants, the clerk, on the application of the defendants being required to tax them, disallowed an item for solicitor’s fees of “23 depositions at 82.50, §57.50,” on the authority of *Tuck*v. *Olds,*29 Fed. Rep. 883. The depositions were taken at various places, some within and some without the district, before notaries public, under a stipulation that they should be treated as of tho same force and effect as if taken under the sixty-seventh rule before regularly appointed special examiners. An appeal having been taken from this disallowance, the district judge, then presiding, reserved the question until the circuit judge should be in attendance.

*Boss Shinn, (Dryenforth & Dryenforth,*of counsel,) for complainants^

*Taggart & Denison,*for defendants.

.Before Jackson and Severens, JJ.

Jackson, J.,

*(orally.)*The district judge, in deciding the present point in *Tuck*v. *Olds,*29 Fed. Rep. 883, followed the course of practice indicated by Judge Treat in *Strauss*v. *Meyer,*22 Fed. Rep. 467. In the latter case the language employed by the judge ivas somewhat wider than the decision. We do not think it is necessary to criticise that case, however, for it is made to appear to us that throughout this circuit, at least, and a.s it would seem in the others generally, the practice has been, and is, to allow such costs in like circumstances. Rev. St. § 824. And among the reported cases, see *Jerman*v. *Stewart,*12 Fed. Rep. 271; *Stimpson*v. *Brooks,*3 Blatchf. 456; *Factory*v. *Corning,*7 Blatchf. 16; *Wooster v. Handy,*23 Blatchf. 112, 23 Fed. Rep. 49. Without examining the question on its original merits, we arc satisfied that the practical interpretation of the statute in the other direction has been generally in the courts of this circuit so long established, and for the sake of uniformity, as well, we should overrule the decision in *Tuck*v. *Olds*in this particular, and allow this item to he taxed. Ordered accordingly.

Severens, District Judge, desires that I should express his concurrence in this opinion.
From: The District Court of the 8th Judicial District. County of Cascade.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DARIN GUCKEEN, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. CDC-07-106 DECISION

On November 25, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to five (5) years in the Montana State Prison for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence for the offense of Assault with a Weapon, a felony. The Court recommended that the Defendant phased into Connections Corrections prior to release.

On February 12,2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification of the term of the sentence are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

However, medical issues as far as the defendant’s head injury and the resulting safety issues which were in existence at the time of sentencing but not brought to the attention of the sentencing judge would require that the sentence be modified so that the defendant be committed to the Department of Corrections for a period of five (5) years to allow the Department of Corrections to consider medical and safety issues in any type of placement.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division and that the term of the sentence shall be affirmed. The *8Sentence Review Division further recommends alternative placement of the Defendant by the Department of Corrections.

Done in open Court this 12th day of February, 2009.

DATED this 27th day of February, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Akuudo Petrie, Appellant.

[964 NYS2d 55]

—An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), rendered on or about June 8, 2011, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so ap*431pealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur—Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.
#### Ramirez v. Golden Corral

Case below: 176 N.C. App. 190

No. 112P06

Defs’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA05-587)

Denied 01/25/07
UNITEDSTATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

Washington,D.C. 20549

 

**Form10-Q**

** **

(Mark One)

[X]   QUARTERLYREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

 ACT OF 1934

 

For thequarterly period ended****March 31, 2009

 

or

 

[ ]   TRANSITIONREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE

ACT OF 1934

 

For thetransition period from __________ to __________

 

Commission file number0-10673

 

 

**REALESTATE ASSOCIATES LIMITED III**

(ExactName of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

 

 

55Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina 29602

(Addressof principal executive offices)

 

(864)239-1000

(Registrant’s telephonenumber)

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days.  [X] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporateWeb site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted andposted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of this chapter) duringthe preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant wasrequired to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.  See the definitionsof “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reportingcompany” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of theExchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
ANNUAL
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
 Pooling
and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2007 (the "Pooling and Servicing
Agreement" ), by and among Bane of America Commercial Mortgage Inc.,
as Depositor,
Bank of America, National Association, as Master Servicer, LaSalle Bank National
Association, as Trustee and REMIC Administrator and LNR Partners, Inc., as Special
Servicer
 BACM
2007-1
 I, Susan
K. Chapman, a Vice President of LNR Partners, Inc. as Special Servicer under the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement, on behalf of the Special Servicer and not in my
individual capacity, hereby certify that:
 1.
                I
      have reviewed the activities performed by the Special Servicer under the
      Pooling and
      Servicing Agreement during the period commencing on January 1, 2007 and
      ending
      on October 18, 2007 (the "Reporting
      Period") and the Special Servicer's performance
      under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision;
      and
 
 
 2.
                To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has
      fulfilled
      its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material
      respects
      throughout the Reporting
Period.
 
 
 LNR
PARTNERS, INC.
  /s/ Susan K.
Chapman
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000462 15-APR-2020 07:48 AM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Malik Brown, Appellant.

[964 NYS2d 55]

—An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on or about March 16, 2011, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur—Andrias, J.P, Moskowitz, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.