alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14583]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    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 also will 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. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    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 July 17, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Prairieland Bancorp Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, 
Bushnell, Illinois; to acquire additional voting shares, for a total of 
44.62 percent of the voting shares, of Prairieland Bancorp, Inc., and 
thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of Merchants and 
Farmers State Bank of Bushnell, both of Bushnell, Illinois.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 17, 2009.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-14583 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
### Filed 6/27/19 by Clerk of Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2019 ND 150 Michael Aaron Schatz, Appellant

v. North Dakota Department of Transportation, Appellee
No. 20190068 Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Centra l Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Danny L. Herbel, Bismarck, ND, for appellant; submitted on brie f. Michael T. Pitcher, Office of Attorney General, Bismarck, ND, f or appellee; submitted on brief.Schatz v. N.D. Dep’t of Transportation No. 20190068
Per Curiam. [¶1] Michael Schatz appeals from a district court judgment affir ming a North Dakota Department of Transportation (“DOT”) decision suspending his driving privileges. On August 25, 2018, Schatz was pulled over by an of ficer with the Bismarck Police Department and arrested for driving under the i nfluence. Schatz was issued a temporary operator’s permit, and the officer’s “Report and Notice Form” was forwarded to the DOT. Schatz requested an administrative hearin g. Following the hearing, the hearing officer issued findings of fact, conclusio ns of law, and decision suspending Schatz’s driving privileges for 91 days. Schatz arg ues the Report and Notice form did not sufficiently articulate reasonable grounds to believe Schatz was driving under the influence. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). See Sutton v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp. , 2019 ND 132, ¶ 8, 927 N.W.2d 93. [¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Jon J. Jensen Lisa Fair McEvers Daniel J. Crothers Jerod E. Tufte

1
---



Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Martin S. Smiley, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of mPhase Technologies, 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 registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant's 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant'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 registrants' 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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



/s/ Martin S. Smiley



Martin S. Smiley

Chief Financial Officer



November 13, 2006

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         54,642
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,563,496
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,618,138
<PP&E>                                         70,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,758,423
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,799,147
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,343
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,042,495 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,563,496
<SALES>                                        3,127,241
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,127,241
<CGS>                                          2,068,044
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,797,935
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             62,074
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (46,638)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (46,638)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (46,638)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 70,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (116,638)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.35)
        


</TABLE>
#### SPERRY PRODUCTS, Inc., v. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS.

No. 11190.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

July 11, 1941.

Fish, Richardson & Neave, of New York City, and Harold F. Watson, of Washington, D. C., for the plaintiff.

Mann, Brown *&*Cox, of Chicago, 111., and Melvin H. Coulston, of Washington, D. C., for the defendant.

Harold C. Thorne, of Washington, D. C., intervenor.

MORRIS, District Judge.

The plaintiff seeks to enjoin an alleged infringement of a patent by the defendant association. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, challenging the jurisdiction of this Court. Pending action such motion to dismiss, the plaintiff moved the Court to grant leave for the taking of oral depositions before answer. Upon argument had upon that motion, it was insisted by the defendant that the complaint did not aver sufficient facts to show jurisdiction in this Court. Subsequent to the hearing on such motion, the plaintiff filed in this cause a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice in accordance with the provisions of Rule 41(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, no answer having been filed in this action. It also appears that a motion has been filed in this cause by Harold C. Thorne, who seeks to intervene herein, and moves that the dismissal of the cause by the plaintiff be set aside. No hearing has yet been had upon that motion.

Without regard to whether or not the dismissal filed by the plaintiff herein is effective to accomplish that result, it will be treated as an abandonment of the motion for leave to take depositions.
April 5, 1972

Hon. JimWallace, Chairman Interim Committee to Study Opinion No.M-1116 The System of Licensing and Examining Boards Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Re: Necessity for licensing of avoluntary nonprofit community group to conduct crimewatch activities. Dear Mr. Wallace: This is in response toyour inquiry concerning the applicability of the Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies Act (Article 4413 (29bb) Vernon's Civil Statutes) to the activities of anorganizatjon known as the "Greater Houston Civic Council" (hereinafter referred to as "Council"), aswell as its subsidiary groups known as "Neighborhood Security Patrols" (hereinafter referred to as "Patrol")o The pamphlet which you have furnished (apublication purporting tobe ageneral outline ofmethods fororganizing and operating aneighborhood security patrol) indicates that the Council is avoluntary non-profit association of citizens interested inbetter law enforcement in the city of Houston and that the Patrols are subsidiary voluntary non-profit associations of citizens formed to carry out a specific program of the Council, As set forth in thepamphlet,members of aPatrol will go about the public areas (streets, etc,) of their particular community to carry out organized surveillance and to report suspicious or unusual activities toproper authorities (i.e.,police, sheriff, etc.)e This office will not comment upon the legality of the various suggested activities proposed for the Patrols other than to say thatwe know of no lawor body of law thatwould prevent such a group from doing on an organized basis just somuch as, andnomore than, an individual might legally do under similar circumstances.

-5442-Hon. JimWallace, page 2 (M-1116)

It is therefore our opinion that anon-profit voluntary association of citizens maymaintain observance frompublic streets of activities in their own community but limited in the samemanner and to the same extent as an individual citizen without first obtaining a license under the Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies Act. SUMMARY Anon-profit voluntary association.of citizens may maintain observance frompublic streets of activities in their own community but limited in the samemanner and to the same extent as an individual citizen without first obtaining a license under the Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies Act. Your; very truly, 

# :

Prepared by Howard M. Fender Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Chairman w. E.Allen, Co-Chairman Bart Boling Jim Hackney Jack Sparks Bob Lattimore SAMUEL D.MCDANIEL Staff Legal Assistant ALFRED WALKER Executive Assistant NOLA WHITE First Assistant

-5443-
94-902.

#### Columbus Bar Assn. v. Streifender.

On April 29,1994, movant, Columbus Bar Association, filed an amended motion, requesting this court to issue an order directing respondent, Christopher M. Streifender, a.k.a Christopher Meade Streifender, to show cause why he should not be found in contempt. On May 26, 1994, the court granted the motion. Respondent filed a response to the court’s order on June 15, 1994, and movant filed a memorandum contra respondent’s response on June 24, 1994. On July 29, 1994, the court found respondent in contempt and ordered that if he did not purge himself of contempt within ten days, he would be immediately suspended. On September 12, 1994, respondent filed a notice of compliance with the court’s order and motion for termination of sanctions, and on September 16,1994, movant filed a response. On September 26, 1994, this court suspended respondent until he purged himself of contempt. On March 12, 1997, respondent filed a motion to dissolve contempt issued by court. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion be, and is, hereby, denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, *sua sponte,*by the court, that within ninety days of the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have been awarded against the respondent by the Clients’ Security Fund pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7XF). It is further ordered, *sua sponte,*by the court that if, after the date of this order, the Clients’ Security Fund awards any amount against the respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), the respondent shall reimburse that amount to the Clients’ Security Fund within ninety days of the notice of such award.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, *sua sponte,*that service shall be deemed made on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, by certified mail to the most recent address respondent has given to the Attorney Registration Office.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, *sua sponte,*that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as *1501provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1).

Douglas, J., would grant the motion to dissolve contempt, dismiss the cause, and assess costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              10
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,661,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,863,543
<PP&E>                                       2,112,552
<DEPRECIATION>                                 423,762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,904,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,428,148
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,100,000
<COMMON>                                     1,205,225
<OTHER-SE>                                    (735,927)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,904,126
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               541,499
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,133,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   473
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,940
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (592,577)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (592,577)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  $(0.054)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(0.054)
        

</TABLE>
CROWN OIL COMPANY c/o David N. Beal 2520 S. State Street - Suite 202 S

Salt Lake City, Utah

To the Stockholders:

The Board of Directors of Crown Oil Company, at a special meeting held on
April 18, 1968, have considered a letter of intent proposal made to Crown
Oil Company by the Bagdad Chase Mining Company, a Nevada corporation, and
by a unanimous vote accepted it subject to the stockholders r approval.
Copy of this proposal is enclosed.

A deficiency under Paragraph 2 of said letter of intent proposal, of
approximately $20, 000 in the amount of cash necessary to be owned by Crown
Oil Company, must be corrected before the transaction can be finalized.
The Board of Directors are of the opinion that they can eliminate this
deficiency by their loan or loans to the Company, provided that the
proposal of the Bagdad Chase Mining Company, which has been accepted by
the Board, is now ratified and approved by the stockholders.

In addition the Board also seeks ratification and approval by the
stockholders of its resolution to dissolve Crown Oil Company, whether or
not the Bagdad Chase, Inc. deal is approved. This will entail the
distribution to the stockholders of the corporation's assets as a
return of capital or liquidating dividend - and therefore would not be
considered taxable income - followed by formal dissolution of the
corporation pursuant to Utah statutes.

In the event the resolution of the Board of Directors accepting the letter
of intent proposal of Bagdad Chase Mining Company is ratified and approved,
the liquidating dividend will consist of the distribution to the
stockholders of Crown Oil Company of the 80, 000 shares of Bagdad Chase
Mining Company stock which Crown Oil Company received from the sale of its
assets, or one share for each ten shares of Crown Oil Company held.

In the event the resolution of the Board of Directors accepting the letter
of intent proposal of the Bagdad Chase Mining Company is not ratified and
approved, then the liquidating dividend will consist of the distribution
to the stockholders of Crown Oil Company of its present assets, the only
one of which of any value at the present time is its cash, amounting to
approximately $6000. After deducting the costs of liquidation the amount
of cash remaining would approximate $5000. Distribution of this amount
to the stockholders would mean that each holder of 100 shares of Crown
Oil Company would receive 62-1/2 cents.

The enclosed return addressed envelope is for your convenience in
forwarding your proxy.

April 25, 1968

Richard M. Lade
Secretary
exh_101.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 



July 17,  2013

















James P. Hackett


901 44th St., SE


Grand Rapids, MI  49508







Dear Jim,







You have notified the Board of Directors of your intention to retire from Steelcase Inc. effective February 27, 2015.  I am pleased to offer you the position of Vice Chair effective March 1, 2014, with responsibility for assisting the incoming CEO with the transition of relationships with external groups, engagement with shareholders and other assignments as requested by me or the Board.  In this position you’ll report directly to me, and you will remain an employee of Steelcase Inc., but you will no longer be a corporate officer.  Nothing herein is intended to alter the at-will employment relationship between you and Steelcase.







This letter is to confirm, in writing, your compensation package for this new position beginning March 1, 2014.







Base Salary



	
-  

	
Annual salary will continue at $1,000,000 ($38,461.53 bi-weekly).








	
-  

	
Your base salary will not be eligible for merit increases.












Annual Incentive Compensation



	
-  

	
You will continue to participate in the Steelcase Inc. Management Incentive Plan (MIP).








	
-  

	
Your annual bonus target for FY15 will be 60% of base salary, down from 100%.












Long-term Incentive Compensation



	
-  

	
You will not receive a long-term incentive award in FY15.








	
-  

	
Your existing long-term incentive awards will remain in place.












Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan



	
-  

	
You will continue to participate in the Steelcase Inc. Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan.












Stock Ownership Guidelines



	
-  

	
You will not be subject to ownership guidelines.












Executive Severance Plan



	
-  

	
You will no longer be a participant in the Steelcase Inc. Executive Severance Plan.









  





  











  






James P. Hackett


July 17, 2013


Page 2




 








Jim, I’m looking forward to working with you in this new role.  Please let me know if you have any questions.







Sincerely,


 


 


/s/ Robert C. Pew III







Robert C. Pew III


Chair of the Board of Directors


Steelcase Inc.












 


I accept and agree to the terms offered in this letter.














	
/s/ James P. Hackett

	
July 17, 2013

	 
	
James P. Hackett

	
Date