alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 94 (Monday, May 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11484]



[[Page 23189]]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire 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 office 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 June 2, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Michael D. Fahrbach, Haven, Kansas; to acquire voting shares of 
Wheatland Investments, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting 
shares of BankHaven, both in Haven, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 13, 2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-11484 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 11709 and # 11710] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 1. 

      ( print page 22764)    

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Minnesota (FEMA—1830—DR), dated 04/10/2009 . 

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms and Flooding.                     

*Incident Period:*                         03/16/2009 and continuing.                     

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         05/06/2009.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         06/09/2009.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         01/11/2010.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to:  U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota , dated 04/10/2009 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: 

*Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*                     Beltrami, Marshall, Polk.                 

*Contiguous Counties:*                     (Economic Injury Loans Only):                 

Minnesota: Cass, Clearwater, Hubbard, Itasca, Kittson, Koochiching, Lake of the Woods, Pennington, Red Lake, Roseau. 

North Dakota: Grand Forks, Pembina, Walsh. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

 [FR Doc. E9-11277 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
##### 



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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Thomas P. Richards

Thomas P. RichardsChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ David W. Wehlmann

David W. WehlmannExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# Commercial GEOINT Strategy

          -  Home 
          -  Resources 
          -               Commercial GEOINT Strategy            

Evolving to embrace new opportunities, NGA continues to employe the best mix of sources to satisfy mission needs. This Commercial GEOINT Strategy focuses community efforts to complement existing imagery sources with access to non-traditional commercial data sets and geospatial analytic services.

Working with our partners, NGA will assure informed decisions enable the United States Government to secure competitive advantage. These documents offer a framework to connect commercial GEOINT activities and inform missions.

# Associated Document(s)

** Download                        ** Open in a New Tab                         

** Download                        ** Open in a New Tab
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11851]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,308]


Edscha North America, Centerpoint Administrative Offices, 
Pontiac, MI; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 19, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed on behalf of workers at Edscha North America, 
Centerpoint Administrative Offices, Pontiac, Michigan.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 22nd day of April 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-11851 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ADAM LOPICCOLO, : :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

: v. : NO. 10-CV-3131 : AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, : et al., :

: Defendants. :

ORDER AND NOW, this 29th day of March, 2011, upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), (3), and (6) of Defendants American University, the Board of Trustees of American University, and Robert Acunto (Doc. No. 9), Plaintiff’s response in opposition thereto (Docs. Nos. 15, 17), and the Defendants’ reply in further support thereof (Doc. No. 20), as well as Defendant Mark Cody’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction, Improper Venue and for Failing to State a Claim for Which Relief Can Be Granted (Doc. No. 10), Plaintiff’s response in opposition thereto (Docs. Nos. 16, 18), and Defendant Cody’s reply in further support thereof (Doc. No. 19), and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss are DENIED but that, venue being improper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the case is TRANSFERREDto the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

BY THE COURT:

s/J. Curtis Joyner J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.
#### Manville *v.*Battle Mountain Smelting Co.

*(Circuit Court, D. Colorado.*

June 27, 1883.)

1. Pkactice—Foem ob Pbocess— Constitutional Pbovision not Followed by Statute.

The legislature of a state may prescribe the form of process, but in so doing the provisions of the constitution must be observed; and where the constitution provides that every summons shall run in the name of the people, a summons in the form given in the statute, but not in the name of the people, is deficient.

2. Same—Summons Betubnable—Gaenishment.

A garnishee in Colorado is entitled to 10 days in which to appear and answer, “ as in other summons in courts of record: ” and when the summons is made returnable *within*10 days from the date of service, it is a fatal defect

At Law.

*Mr. Campbell,*for plaintiff.

*Henry T. Rogers,*for garnishee.

Hallett, J.,

*(orally.)*Manville recovered a judgment against the Battle Mountain Company in the district court of Lake county, and took out execution, and procured the Belden Mining Company to be *127summoned as garnishee. That company entered a motion to quash the summons and the return of the sheriff thereon, and removed the cause into this court. The motion has been presented here.

Objection is made that the summons does not run in the name of the people, as required by the constitution of the state, article 6, § 30. And the objection seems to be well taken. Unquestionably the legislature may prescribe the form of process, but in doing so the provisions of the constitution must be observed. This process appears to be in the form given in the statute, (2 Sess. 3 879,) but it is deficient in that it does not run in the name of the people, as required by the constitution. That it is not in the form of other process used in law actions is not important, and the circumstance that it was issued by the sheriff, rather than the clerk, is not important. In these particulars the authority of the legislature cannot be denied; but the constitution cannot be disregarded.

The statute also provides that in courts of record “the summons shall be made returnable, and be served the same as other summonses in courts of record;” and this seems to require that the time for answering shall be the same as in actions at law. In this instance the summons was made returnable within 10 days from the date of service. This is a fatal defect. The garnishee was entitled to 10 days in which to appear and answer, and if service was not made in the county w'here the judgment remained, then to a longer time.

The motion will be allowed, and the cause dismissed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BILAL AHDOM,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

S. LOPEZ, Chief Medical Officer at Kern

Valley State Prison; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 16831

D.C. No. 1:09

- cv

- 01874

- AWI

BAM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2017 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,

Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Bilal Ahdom appeals pro se from the district court’s

order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining

order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We rev iew for an

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a )(2). 

# FILED

MAY 31 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 16831

abuse of discretion. Religious Tech. Ctr., Church of Scientology Int’ l, Inc. v. Scott

,

869 F.2d 1306, 1309 (9th Cir. 1989)

. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ahdom’s requests

for preliminary injunctive relief because Ahdom failed to demonstrate that he

would likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested relief

. See id

.

(“[A]n injunction cannot issue merely because it is possible that there will be an

irreparable injury to the plaintiff; it must be likely that there will be .” ( citation

omitted)) ; Stuhlbarg Int’ l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co. , 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7

(9th Cir. 2001) (standards for issuing a temporary restraining order and a

preliminary injuncti on are “substantially identical ”)

.

We reject as unsupported by the record A hdom’s various contention s

regarding alleged perjury committed by defendant Dr. Ashby

.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher A. Doku, Appellant.

Decided September 17, 2009

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no civil appeal lies from an order of City Court entered in a criminal action or proceeding *(see*NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b]; CPLR 5601; CPL 450.90).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Hunter, 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 (Richard D. Carruthers, J), rendered on or about February 27, 2012, 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 appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur—Gonzalez, PJ, Friedman, Abdus-Salaam, Román and Clark, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7098

WILLIAM ALLEN LEGG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ARCHIE C. GEE, Warden; DOCTOR TOMASINO; DOCTOR

GRAIG; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DICKUS; NURSE

CAMPFIELD; NURSE GRAY; THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-895-DKC)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 6, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Allen Legg, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within

which to file in the district court notices of appeal from

judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the

time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on April 3, 1998;

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on July 23, 1998, which is

beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         2914564 
<SECURITIES>                                   1698478 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1052360 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0       
<INVENTORY>                                    0       
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0       
<PP&E>                                         2344343
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1541023)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 14459341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        1047164
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    11400
<COMMON>                                       1100286
<OTHER-SE>                                     7774338
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   14459341
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2766197
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2698979
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             28077
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                39141
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            39141
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   39141
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.00
        


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JORGE ROJO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-15708 

D.C. Nos.

2:16-cv-01440-LDG 

2:12-cr-00216-LDG-VCF-3 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. 

Jorge Rojo appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Hill, 915 F.3d 

669, 673 (9th Cir. 2019), we affirm. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-15708 

Rojo contends that his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) 

must be vacated because aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery is not a qualifying 

predicate crime of violence. We need not reach this argument because we agree 

with the government that Rojo’s claim is barred by the collateral attack waiver in 

his plea agreement. Rojo argues that the waiver is not enforceable because his 

attack on his § 924(c) conviction and sentence falls within the illegal sentence 

exception discussed in United States v. Torres, 828 F.3d 1113, 1125 (9th Cir. 

2016). However, this exception does not apply where, as in this case, the 

challenge is to a purportedly illegal conviction. See United States v. Goodall, 21 

F.4th 555, 562-65 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that the illegal sentence exception to 

appellate waivers does not apply to challenges to illegal convictions). Because the 

collateral attack waiver forecloses § 2255 relief, we affirm the denial of Rojo’s 

motion. See White v. Klitzkie, 281 F.3d 920, 922 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e can affirm 

the district court on any ground supported by the record.”).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                               SECOND AMENDMENT TO
                        GREASE MONKEY HOLDING CORPORATION
                            1994 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


          THIS SECOND AMENDMENT ("Amendment") is made as of this 10th day of
June, 1997 to the Grease Monkey Holding Corporation ("Company") 1994 Stock
Incentive Plan ("Plan").  In the event of any conflict between the terms of this
Amendment and the terms of the Plan, the terms of this Amendment shall control. 
All capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment shall have their respective
meanings set forth in the Plan.

          The Plan is amended as follows:

          by amending the first sentence of Section 3 so that as amended the
first sentence of Section 3 reads as follows:

          "3.       STOCK SUBJECT TO THE PLAN.  The number of shares of the
          Company's Common Stock which may be optioned or awarded under this
          Plan is 1,000,000 shares."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused its duly authorized officer
to execute this Amendment effective as of the date first set forth above.


                                 GREASE MONKEY HOLDING CORPORATION,
                                 a Utah corporation



                                 By: /s/ Charles E. Steinbrueck   
                                    ------------------------------------
                                 Charles E. Steinbrueck,
                                 President and Chief Executive Officer
Order entered July 13, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01383-CV

ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P. AND ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS 

OPERATING LLC, Appellants

V.

ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P. AND ENERGY TRANSFER FUEL, L.P.,

Appellees

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-12667

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s July 9, 2015 unopposed motion for extension of time to file 

reply brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than August 19, 2015.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
[922 NE2d 869, 895 NYS2d 283]

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Howard Glenn Blake, Alleged to be Larry Wayne Barnett, Appellant, v George E. Pataki, as Governor of the State of New York, Respondent.

Decided January 12, 2010

*913APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Harry H. Kuttner, Jr.,*Mineóla, for appellant.

*Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney,*Riverhead *(Michael Blakey*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. The certified question should not be answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

Once a governor of an asylum state has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus must decide “(a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive” *(Michigan v Doran,*439 US 282, 289 [1978]). A fugitive is one who, “having committed a crime in a demanding State, is present in an asylum State when a demanding State seeks to prosecute the offense” *(People ex rel. Strachan v Colon,*77 NY2d 499, 502-503 [1991]). Relator is a fugitive because he was convicted of a crime in South Carolina and escaped from incarceration. If, in 1993 or thereafter, South Carolina determined that it no longer sought to classify relator as a fugitive, it could have granted relator a pardon. Hence, relator’s equitable arguments are more appropriately posited to South Carolina.

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

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.