alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 137 (Monday, July 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35190-35191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17111]


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

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 August 13, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Central Bancorp, Inc., Colorado Springs, Colorado; to become a 
bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Farmers and Stockmens Bank of Clayton, Clayton, New Mexico, and The 
Citizens

[[Page 35191]]

National Bank of Akron, Akron, Colorado.
    Applicant also has applied to retain voting shares of Elite 
Properties of America II, Inc.; CB&T Mortgage, LLC; and CB&T Wealth 
Management, all of Colorado Springs, Colorado; CB&T Trust, LLC, Sioux 
Falls, South Dakota, and thereby engage in, extending credit and 
servicing of loans, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1); financial and 
investment advisory activities, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(6)(i) 
and (b)(6)(v); and trust activities, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(5) 
of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 14, 2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-17111 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE: 

MEDCO/EXPRESS SCRIPTS MERGER 

LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 11-4211 (DMC) (MF)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES

This matter having been presented to the Court by Carella, Byrne, Cecchi Olstein, Brody

& Agnello, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, on a

Motion for an Order Awarding Attorneys Fees and Expenses, the Court having reviewed the 

submissions of the parties, having heard argument of counsel, and for good cause shown,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this ___ day of _________, 2012;

1. The Application for an award of $18,000,000 of attorneys fees, plus out of pocket

expenses is DENIED; and

2. The Court will award all counsel representing the class in this case $___________ in attorneys fees plus reasonable out of pocket expenses of _____________. ___________________________

 HON. DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 103-4 Filed 04/02/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 6103
Case 3:10-cr-00128-PGS Document 5 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 21
Case 3:10-cr-00128-PGS Document 5 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 22
Exhibit
32.1




Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of
Title 18 of the United States Code




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of NTR Acquisition Co. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Mario E. Rodriguez, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:




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




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






/s/
      Mario E. RodriguezMario
      E. RodriguezChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      13, 2008




A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has
been provided to NTR Acquisition Co. and will be retained by NTR Acquisition Co.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Richard Eugene Warren, #70974-083, )

) C/A No. 3:10-2087-MBS 

 Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) 

) O R D E R

Darlene Drew, et al., ) 

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

Petitioner Richard Eugene Warren is an inmate in custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

At the time of the underlying events, Petitioner was housed at FCI-Bennettsville in Bennettsville,

South Carolina. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that he was forced to enter into an Inmate Financial Responsibility

Program (IFRP) contract. Petitioner asserts that he is exempt from the IFRP. 

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the within action was

referred to United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey for pretrial handling. On November

30, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he noted that a §

2241 petition must be filed in the judicial district that can acquire in personam jurisdiction over a

petitioner’s warden or other custodian. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004).

Petitioner now is housed at FCI-Fort Dix in Fort Dix, New Jersey. Accordingly, the Magistrate

Judge recommended that the within action be transferred to the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey, where Petitioner currently is confined. Petitioner filed no objections to the

Report and Recommendation. 

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has

no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.

Case 1:11-cv-00809-RMB Document 15 Filed 02/14/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 51
2

Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo

determination of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is

made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by

the Magistrate Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de

novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record

in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,

315 (4th Cir. 2005).

 The court has carefully reviewed the record. The court adopts the Report and

Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is transferred

to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour 

United States District Judge

Columbia, South Carolina

February 11, 2011.

Case 1:11-cv-00809-RMB Document 15 Filed 02/14/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 52
Exhibit 14.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-90730) and related Prospectus of LION bioscience AG of our report dated
May 28, 2003, except for note A.2, as to which the date is April 2, 2004, with respect to the financial statements of LION bioscience AG, Heidelberg, included in its Annual Report on Form 20-F/A (Amendment no.1) for the year ended March 31, 2003,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Mannheim, April 20, 2004



Ernst &
Young

Deutsche Allgemeine Treuhand AG

Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft



|                            |  |                  
|--------------------------- |  | -----------------
|Ketterle                    |  | K. Berger        
|Wirtschaftsprüfer           |  | Wirtschaftsprüfer
|Certified Public Accountant |  |                  







-1-
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Anson Chan, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of OmniVision 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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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):



Date:
June 29, 2011

By:

/s/ ANSON CHANAnson ChanChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


---



QuickLinks
Opinion issued February 11 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 14 - 00980 - CR

——————————— DAVID JAMES CHAPMAN , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e On Appeal from the 183rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1421328
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, David James Chapman, was charged with the offense of evading arrest. T he clerk’s record contains no judgment of conviction because the State moved to dismiss this cause and, on November 12, 2014, the trial court granted the2

motion and dismissed this cause. Thus, there is no adverse ruling and no judgment of conviction from which Chapman may appeal. Having found the record reveals tha t Williams received no adverse rulings and the charge was dismissed , we hold that we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Valencia v. State , No. 05

– 06

– 01727

– CR, 2007 WL 196449, at * 1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Jan. 26, 2007, no pet.) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction where record contained no judgment of conviction and thus, nothing was presented for review)
. W e dismiss the appeal . We deny all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Bland, Brown, and Lloyd. Do not pub lish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).
Case 2:11-cv-00482-WJM Document 2 Filed 02/04/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 6
EX-10.68



 Exhibit 10.68 

 

					
		 	CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED. *********** INDICATES OMITTED MATERIAL THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF A CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE
COMMISSION. THE OMITTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION.	  	

  
 A.N.: 130339

 AMD_00073593.0 
 AMENDMENT 
 Date of Amendment: June 1, 2012 

AMENDMENT to the Index License Agreement for Funds (the “Agreement”), dated as of March 18, 2000, by and between
MSCI Inc. (f/k/a Morgan Stanley Capital International Inc.) (“MSCI”) and BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. (formerly known as Barclays Global Investors, N.A.) (“Licensee”), as previously amended.
Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed in the Agreement. 
  

	 	1.	Exhibit A of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the ***********. For the avoidance of doubt, the terms contained in Exhibit B of the Agreement shall apply to all
Funds based on the ***********; provided that in addition to listing and trading the Funds on an U.S. domiciled exchange, Funds based on the *********** also may be listed and traded on stock or security exchanges domiciled in:


 *********** 

*********** 
 *********** 
 *********** 

 

	 	2.	Licensee shall pay MSCI an annual license fee per Fund *********** of the Fund’s ***********, ***********. For the avoidance of doubt, the terms set forth in this
Section 2 shall apply only to Funds based on the ***********. 

  

	 	3.	All listed Funds must be issued, sold and traded on a public basis in accordance with the applicable securities law. All other terms and restrictions contained in
Exhibit B shall apply. 

  

	 	4.	This Amendment is intended to amend and operate in conjunction with the Agreement and together this Amendment and the Agreement constitute the complete and exclusive
statement of the agreement between the parties and supersede in full all prior proposals and understandings, oral or written, relating to the subject matter hereof. To the extent that any terms of this Amendment conflict with any terms of the
Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall control. No right or license of any kind is granted to Licensee except as expressly provided in the Agreement and this Amendment. 


 

	 	5.	MSCI may terminate this Amendment with respect to the Index in the event that Licensee does not list a Fund based on the Index on an exchange within 1 year of the
date of this Amendment. 

  

	 	6.	This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York without regard to its conflict or choice of laws principles.


  

									
	LICENSEE: BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A.	 	MSCI INC.	 	
				
	By	 	/s/ Timothy M. Meyer	 	By	 	 /s/ David Dalpe

				
	Name 	 	 Timothy M. Meyer
 (printed)
	 	 Name
	 	 David Dalpe
 (printed)

				
	Title	 	 M. Director
	 	Title	 	 Vice President

			
	LICENSEE: BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A.	 		 	
				
	By	 	 /s/ Jenni A. Lee
	 		 	
				
	Name	 	 Jenni A. Lee
 (printed)
	 		 	
				
	Title	 	 Director
Case 3:11-cv-04071-MAS-TJB Document 50 Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 203
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 BROOKSIDE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS CORP
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) / 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB/A of Brookside Technology Holdings
Corp.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15e for the small business issuer and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidating subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small
business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of
directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting.
  By:
Name:
    
    /s/ Michael Nole

Michael NoleTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
EX-10.70




 Exhibit 10.70 

 

							
		  		  	 




	  	 111 Eighth Avenue
 7th Floor
 New York, NY 10011
 212.624.3700


 As of November 14, 2012 
 Steven Zatz, M.D. 
 c/o WebMD Health Corp. 
 111 Eighth Avenue, NY 10011-5201 
 Dear Steve: 

Reference is made to the grant of a nonqualified option to purchase 80,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock made to you on
November 14, 2012 (the “2012 Option”) as evidenced by the Option Agreement dated November 14, 2012 (the “Option Agreement”). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Option Agreement, in the event of
the termination of your employment by the Company without Cause or by you for Good Reason (as such terms are defined in your Employment Agreement with the Company dated as of July 14, 2005, as amended), in either case within twelve
(12) months following a Change of Control of WebMD (as defined in the WebMD Amended and Restated 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan), the 2012 Option, to the extent unvested, shall remain outstanding and continue to vest as if you remained in the
employ of the Company until the first anniversary of such date of termination, subject to a release of claims (as described your Employment Agreement) being executed by you and becoming effective and your continued compliance with the restrictive
covenant agreements you have signed in connection with your employment. 
 Except as set forth herein, the Option Agreement
remains in full force and effect. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Douglas W. Wamsley
	 Douglas W. Wamsley

EVP-General Counsel


  

	
	Agreed to:
	
	/s/ Steven Zatz
	Steven Zatz, M.D.
#### James NALDER, Guardian Ad Litem on behalf of Cheyanne Nalder and Gary Lewis, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. James Nalder, Guardian Ad Litem on behalf of Cheyanne Nalder and Gary Lewis, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. United Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 11-15010, 11-15462.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 7, 2012.

Filed Dec. 17, 2012.

Thomas Christensen, Esquire, David F. Sampson, Esquire, Christensen Law Offices, LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Matthew John Douglas, Esquire, Douglas M. Rowan, Esquire, Thomas E. Winner, Esquire, Atkin Winner & Sherrod, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs James Nalder, guardian *ad litem*of his daughter Cheyanne Nalder, and Gary Lewis appeal from the district court’s grant of Defendant United Automobile Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. United Automobile Insurance Company cross-appeals from the district court’s denial of United Automobile Insurance Company’s *702motion for attorney’s fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse in part and affirm in part.

We reverse the district court’s grant of United Automobile Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment with respect to whether there was coverage by virtue of the way the renewal statement was worded. Plaintiffs came forward with facts supporting their tenable legal position that a reasonable person could have interpreted the renewal statement to mean that Lewis’s premium was *due*by June 30, 2007, but that the policy would not *lapse*if his premium were “received prior to expiration of [his] policy,” with the “expiration date” specifically stated to be July 31, 2007. We remand to the district court for trial or other proceedings consistent with this memorandum. The portion of the order granting summary judgment with respect to the statutory arguments is affirmed.

United Automobile Insurance Company’s cross-appeal regarding attorney’s fees is moot in light of our disposition. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees. *Electro Source, LLC v. Brandess-Kalt-Aetna Grp., Inc.,*458 F.3d 931, 941 (9th Cir.2006).

Each party shall bear its own costs.

REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case 2:11-cv-03614-FSH-PS Document 1-5 Filed 06/20/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 23
Case 2:11-cv-03970-CCC-JAD Document 10 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 136
Case 2:11-cv-03970-CCC-JAD Document 10 Filed 11/17/11 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 137
Case 2:11-cv-03970-CCC-JAD Document 10 Filed 11/17/11 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 138
Case 2:11-cv-03970-CCC-JAD Document 10 Filed 11/17/11 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 139
Case 2:11-cv-03970-CCC-JAD Document 10 Filed 11/17/11 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 140
Case 2:11-cv-03970-CCC-JAD Document 10 Filed 11/17/11 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 141
Case 2:11-cv-03970-CCC-JAD Document 10 Filed 11/17/11 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 142
Case 2:11-cv-03970-CCC-JAD Document 10 Filed 11/17/11 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 143
Case 2:11-cv-03970-CCC-JAD Document 10 Filed 11/17/11 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 144