alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 33.1





REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA


FOR ASSET-BACKED ISSUERS





AEP Texas Inc. (the "Servicer"), as a party participating in the servicing function under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, hereby reports on its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as follows:





(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the Senior Secured Transition Bonds: (1)(ii) (outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond),  (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (3)(ii) (allocation and remittance), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), (4)(v) (records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(xi) (payments on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements), and (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);





(2) The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;





(3) The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2018 and for the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and





(4) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent  registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Servicer's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2018 and for the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.





Date: March 29, 2019





AEP TEXAS INC.,


as Servicer








/s/ Julia A. Sloat


Name:  Julia A. Sloat


Title: Treasurer and Senior Officer in Charge of


the Servicing Function, AEP Texas Inc., as Servicer
### §12731b. Special rule for members with physical disabilities not incurred in line of duty

(a) In the case of a member of the Selected Reserve of a reserve component who no longer meets the qualifications for membership in the Selected Reserve solely because the member is unfit because of physical disability, the Secretary concerned may, for purposes of section 12731 of this title, determine to treat the member as having met the service requirements of subsection (a)(2) of that section and provide the member with the notification required by subsection (d) of that section if the member has completed at least 15, and less than 20, years of service computed under section 12732 of this title.

(b) Notification under subsection (a) may not be made if—

(1) the disability was the result of the member's intentional misconduct, willful neglect, or willful failure to comply with standards and qualifications for retention established by the Secretary concerned; or

(2) the disability was incurred during a period of unauthorized absence.

(Added Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title VI, §653(b)(1), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 666.)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6070

CAZZIE L. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC D. WILSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:11-cv-00689-JAG)

Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cazzie L. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cazzie L. Williams seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition as 

a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1500 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 56 ) ll-C-8 2 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 8/5/20081:51:29PM

Sheet 56 of 343P. 2

• f r r. i ' 

### A-94-5 2 

# W-C-n / A \

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO N AGENC Y ' ^Sfi2_ I RESEARC H TRIANGL E PARK. N C 2771 1 \ cf



### ° K! ;Q 9 7 O F PLANNIN G iNOARO S Mr . Mik e From«i n Ashland Chemica

l Compan y Pos t Offic e Bo x 221 9 Columbus , Ohi o 4321 6 Dea r Mr . Froman : Than k you fo r discussing method s fo r

determinin g th e cos t

o f switchin g t o lowe

r styren e resin s a t th e Composite s '9 7 conferenc e i n Orlando , Florida . I appreciat e you r willingnes s t o help u s determin e th e cos t

difference iimon

g resin s wit

h variou s monome

r contents . Yo u ha

d agree d t o provid e u s wit

h cost s o f variou s resin type s at

variou s styrene content s upo n receiving awritte n reques t whic h full y detail s th e infonnatio n needed . The purpos e o f thi s lette r i s t o describ e th e information w e need . Th e information needed woul db e th e cos t pe r poundo f resin a t variou s styren e content s for th e resi n type s liste d i

n th e enclosedtable . Becaus e th e cos t per poun do f resi n ofte n depend s o n th e quantit

y purchased , w e hav e indicate dsevera l quantitie s fo

r which w e woul dlik

e costs . I f th e given quantitie s d o no t

effec t th e cost , pleas e provid e th e quantitie s that d o affec t th e cos t pe r pound . I t woul d ds o hel

p i f you coul dprovid e alist , fo r eac h resin type , ofth e VOTOU S (mos t common) composit

e product s fo

r which eac h resi n typ e i s used . Spac e i s provide di n th e Enclosur e fo r you t o includ

e thi s information . W e pla n t o us e th e cos t

information t o develo p a

n equation t o estimat

e th e resin cos t

at differen t styrene contents . Becaus e w e d o no t hav e informatio

n o n th e resin typ e use db y man y composite s manufacturers , w e ma y treat al l resins , except

isophthali c an

dviny l ester resins , a s "genera l purpose " resin s t o d o thi s calculation . W e wouldb e intereste di f yo u hav e an

y other suggestion s on ho w t o estimat e costs .

Interne t Addres s (URL ) • http://www.epa.go v R»cycle<J/Recyclabl s • Printe d wit h Vegetabl e Oi l Base d Ink s o n Recycle d P84tM>

r nur.i.Woul d yo u b e abl e t o provid e thi s informatio n t o u s b y J.anu4ar y 15 , 1998 ? Pleas e cal

l m e at (919 ) 541-238 3 t o discus s thi s timing andan y othe r question s o r

comments reg«ardin

g thi s request . Th.w

k you for you r sissistance . Sincerely ,

Madelein e Stru

m Environment ^ Enginee

r Coatin g an dConsume

r Product s Grou p Enclosure

^Enclosure

Resi n Quantit y Purchase d (Ton s pe r Year) 30 0 1,00 0 1,50 0 Commo n product s for eac h resi n typ e Orthophthali c

i Resr n Cos t Pe r Poun db y Resi n Typ e (Dollars ) Isophthali c Viny

l este r Blen d (Specify )

' 4 j 1
i : Blend (Specify )



# ^ P

T J
#### Hillcrest Coatings, Inc., Appellant, v Northland Insurance, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 750]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered April 18, 2006 in a declaratory judgment action. The judgment denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and declared that defendant has no obligation to defend or indemnify plaintiff for claims arising from the motor vehicle accident at issue.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present—Hurlbutt, A.PJ, Scudder, Gorski, Centra and Green, JJ.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:See attached file(s) as requested by Tyneka Thomas
# C_2013329EN.01000201.xml

| 13.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/2

---

Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 329/02

| Member State | Italy |
| --- | --- |
| Routes concerned | Elba Marina di Campo–Pisa and vice versa; Elba Marina di Campo–Florence and vice versa; Elba Marina di Campo–Milan Linate and vice versa |
| Period of validity of the contract | 30 March 2014-29 March 2017 |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | 90 days from the date of publication of this notice |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligations can be obtained | For further information, please contact:





  Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile (ENAC) |
| Direzione sviluppo trasporto aereo |
| Viale Castro Pretorio 118 |
| 00185 Roma RM |
| ITALIA |
| Tel. +39 0644596564 |
| Fax +39 0644596591 |
| E-mail: osp@enac.gov.it |
| Internet: http://www.mit.gov.it |
| http://www.enac.gov.it |

Member State

Italy

Routes concerned

Elba Marina di Campo–Pisa and vice versa; Elba Marina di Campo–Florence and vice versa; Elba Marina di Campo–Milan Linate and vice versa

Period of validity of the contract

30 March 2014-29 March 2017

Deadline for submission of tenders

90 days from the date of publication of this notice

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligations can be obtained

For further information, please contact:

Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile (ENAC)

Direzione sviluppo trasporto aereo

Viale Castro Pretorio 118

00185 Roma RM

ITALIA

Tel. +39 0644596564

Fax +39 0644596591

E-mail: osp@enac.gov.it

Internet: http://www.mit.gov.it

http://www.enac.gov.it

---
The MANE-VU Low-Sulfur Fuel Strategy calls for the following:

Reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 0.05 % sulfur by weight (500 ppm) by no later than 2014, of #4 residual oil to 0.25-0.5% sulfur b y weight by no later than 2018, and of #6 residual oil to no greater than 0.5% sulfur by weig ht by no later than 2018, and to reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil further to 15 ppm by 2018.

Proposed revisions to:

CHAPTER Env-A 1600 FUEL SPECIFICATIONS

PART Env-A 1604 SULFUR CONTENT LIMITATIONS FOR LIQU ID FUELS

Env-A 1604.01 Maximum Sulfur Content Allowable in L iquid Fuels. (a) The sulfur content of No. 2 oil and JP-4 aviation f uel shall not exceed 0.40 percent sulfur by weight. (b) The sulfur content of No. 4 oil shall not exceed 1. 00 percent sulfur by weight. (c) The sulfur content of No. 5 oil, No. 6 oil, and cru de oil shall not exceed the following limits: (1) Where such fuel is used in Coos county, 2.20 p ercent sulfur by weight; and (2) Where such fuel is used anywhere else in the s tate, 2.00 percent sulfur by weight. (d) The sulfur content of aviation gasoline shall not e xceed 0.05 percent sulfur by weight. (e) The sulfur content of kerosene-1 oil shall not exce ed 0.04 percent sulfur by weight. (f) The sulfur content of kerosene-2 oil and Jet A, A-1 , B, and JP-8 aviation fuels shall not exceed 0.30 percent sulfur by weight. (g) The sulfur content of used oil shall not exceed 2.0 0 percent sulfur by weight. (h) Beginning on July 1, 2013, and ending on June 30, 2 017, the sulfur content of No. 5 oil, No. 6 oil, used oil, and crude oil shall not exceed 1.00 percent sulfur by weight. (i) Beginning on July 1, 2013, and ending on June 30, 2 017, the sulfur content of No. 2 oil shall not exceed 0.05 percent sulfur by weight. (j) On or after July 1, 2017, the sulfur content of No. 2 oil shall not exceed 0.0015 percent sulfur by weight. (k) On or after July 1, 2017, the sulfur content of No. 4 oil shall not exceed 0.25 percent sulfur by weight. (l) On or after July 1, 2017, the sulfur content of No. 5 oil, No. 6 oil, used oil, and crude oil shall not exceed 0.50 percent sulfur by weight.

[proposed changes in italics ]

Draft 01/25/10
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Maritime Preposition Ships Squadron 3 Joins Typhoon Relief in Saipan

By Ensign Andy Wang, Commander,Task Force 73 Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News/Articles
----

----

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

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

| Date:      May 15,      2008                                                                            |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                                    |   |   |
| /s/      Anthony J. Branca                                                                              |   |   |
| Anthony      J. Branca                                                                                  |   |   |
| Chief      Financial OfficerICON      Capital Corp.General      Partner of ICON Income Fund Eight AL.P. |
Exhibit
10.1


 


FINANCING
TERM SHEET


BY


PROVECTUS
BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


DATED
EFFECTIVE: August 13, 2021


 


The
following is a summary of the terms and conditions of a proposed financing plan (the “Plan”) developed by Provectus
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”). The Plan was approved by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”)
on August 13, 2021.


 


	Total
    Financing Commitment	 	This
    Financing Term Sheet (the “2021 Term Sheet”) envisions that the Company shall use its best efforts to arrange
    for a financing of a maximum of $5 million (the “2021 Financing”), which amounts may be provided in several tranches.
	 	 	 
	Structure
    of the Financing	 	The
    structure of the 2021 Financing shall be in the form of an unsecured convertible loan (the “Loan”) from various
    investors (collectively, the “Investors”). The Loan shall be evidenced by one or more convertible promissory notes
    (the “2021 Notes”) from the Company to each Investor.
	 	 	 
	 	 	The
    2021 Notes may be paid back, convert into shares of Series D-1 Convertible Preferred Stock of the Company, or convert into Company
    equity securities and/or debt instruments of any future financings on or before twelve (12) months after the issue date of a 2021
    Note, subject to certain exceptions.


 


	 	 	In
    addition to customary provisions, the 2021 Notes shall contain the following provisions:


 


	 	(i)	that
    the Loan will bear unsecured;
	 	 	 
	 	(ii)	that
    the Loan will bear interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum on the outstanding principal amount of the Loan that has
    been funded to the Company;
	 	 	 
	 	(iii)	that
    in the event there is a change of control of the Company’s Board, the term of the 2021 Note shall be accelerated and
    all amounts due under the 2021 Note shall be immediately due and payable at the Investor’s option; and
	 	 	 
	 	(iv)	that
    the principal amount of the Loan and interest payable under the Loan, at the Investor’s option, shall be paid pack, converted
    into shares of the Company’s Series D-1 Convertible Preferred Stock, a series of preferred stock designated by the Board, at
    a price per share equal to $2.8620 (where the preferred stock shall be convertible into ten [10] shares of the Company’s Common
    Stock), or, in the event there is a future financing of the Company, converted into the equity securities and/or debt instruments
    of such financing.


 


Use
of Proceeds The proceeds from the 2021 Financing shall be used to fund the Company’s drug discovery and development
program, as currently constituted and envisioned, and to fund the Company’s general and administrative expenses
#### § 152.21 Sale or exchange of tribal land.

Certain tribal land may be sold or exchanged pursuant to the Acts of February 14, 1920 (41 Stat. 415; 25 U.S.C. 294); June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 464); August 10, 1939 (53 Stat. 1351; 25 U.S.C. 463(e)); July 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 1214); June 4, 1953 (67 Stat. 41; 25 U.S.C. 293(a)); July 28, 1955 (69 Stat. 392), as amended August 31, 1964 (78 Stat. 747; 25 U.S.C. 608-608c); June 18, 1956 (70 Stat. 290; 25 U.S.C. 403a-2); July 24, 1956 (70 Stat. 626); May 19, 1958 (72 Stat. 121; 25 U.S.C. 463, Note); September 2, 1958 (72 Stat. 1762); April 4, 1960 (74 Stat. 13); April 29, 1960 (74 Stat. 85); December 11, 1963 (77 Stat. 349); August 11, 1964 (78 Stat. 389), and pursuant to other authorizing acts. Except as otherwise provided by law, and as far as practicable, the regulations in this part 152 shall be applicable to sale or exchanges of such tribal land.
### §1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles

(a) Waiver Authorized.—The Secretary of Defense may waive the deductible payable for medical care provided under the TRICARE program to an eligible dependent of—

(1) a member of a reserve component on active duty pursuant to a call or order to active duty for a period of more than 30 days; or

(2) a member of the National Guard on full-time National Guard duty pursuant to a call or order to full-time National Guard duty for a period of more than 30 days.

(b) Eligible Dependent.—As used in this section, the term "eligible dependent" means a dependent described in subparagraph (A), (D), or (I) of section 1072(2) of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title VII, §714(a), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 689; amended Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title X, §1087(a)(7)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–290; Pub. L. 108–375, div. A, title VII, §704, Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 1983.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–375 substituted "more than 30 days" for "less than one year" in pars. (1) and (2).

2000—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106–398 substituted "subparagraph" for "subparagraphs".
#### James Nicholson v. The State.

No. 22794.

Delivered March 15, 1944.

The opinion states the case.

*Polk Shelton,*of Austin, for appellant.

*Ernest S. Goens,*State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of felony theft, and awarded a term of five years in the penitentiary, and upon proper application his sentence was suspended, from which sentence he attempts to appeal.

Prior to the 47th Legislature this court consistently held that no appeal would lie from a suspended sentence until the same was revoked. See recent case of Lamkin v. State, 136 S. W. (2d) 225, and authorities there cited. However in 1941 the 47th Legislature amended Art. 779, C. C. P. and obliterated the right of appeal from a suspended sentence at any time, which act was within the power of the Legislature to so provide. See Millican v. State, 167 S. W. (2d) 188.

This appeal is therefore dismissed.