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

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 568

Raising a question of the privilege of the House pursuant to article I,

section 7, of the U.S. Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 27, 2000

Mr. ARCHER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

failed of adoption

RESOLUTION

Raising a question of the privilege of the House pursuant

to article I, section 7, of the U.S. Constitution.

1 Resolved, That the conference report accompanying

2 H.R. 4516, making appropriations for the Legislative

3 Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001,

4 and for other purposes, in the opinion of this House, con5 travenes the first clause of the seventh section of the first

6 article of the Constitution of the United States and is an

7 infringement of the privileges of this House and that such

8 bill be respectfully recommitted to the committee of con9 ference.

Æ
# C_2006179EN.01001001.xml

| 1.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/10

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4009 — CIMC/Burg)

(2006/C 179/05)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004

On 6 February 2006, the Commission of the European Communities received notification of a proposed concentration between China International Marine Containers CO., Ltd. and Burg Industries B.V. On 20 July 2006, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.

---
### Conversion of Corporations
Form of Limited Power of Attorney



 Exhibit 10.24.1 
 Each of the non-employee directors who are signatories to the Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registration Statement on Form S-8 have executed a limited power of attorney in the form set forth below:

 FORM OF LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY 
 KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, the undersigned, a member of the Board of Directors of Callaway Golf Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), with its principal executive offices in
Carlsbad, California, do hereby constitute, designate and appoint each of Steven C. McCracken and Bradley J. Holiday, each of whom are executive officers of the Company, as my true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, each with power of substitution, with
full power to act without the other and on behalf of and as attorney for me, for the purpose of executing and filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission Post Effective Amendments to Registration Statements filed under the Securities Act of
1933 that will have the sole effect of deregistering shares of Company capital stock registered under such Registration Statements as are set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto, and to do all such other acts and execute all such other
instruments which said attorney may deem necessary or desirable in connection therewith. 
 I have executed this Limited Power of Attorney
effective as of May 20, 2008. 
  

	
	  

	 [Name of Director]



  







 EXHIBIT A 
 Registration Statements to be De-Registered 
  

	 	1.	33-98750 


	 	2.	33-92302 


	 	3.	333-27091 


	 	4.	333-05721
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 31, 2014

d0127

Order 

Clerk

January 31, 2014

147523-7 & (82)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147523-7

COA: 300212, 300264,

308204, 308205, 308212

GLEN PATRICK ANTHONY, Wayne CC: 10-000980-FC,

Defendant-Appellant. 09-020264-FC, 09-019855-FC,

09-019858-FC, 09-019866-FC

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the June 11, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals is 

considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of People v Earl (Docket No. 

145677) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may 

resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the 

application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-81 

June 14, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4044(d)(1) Allocation of Assets. Distribution of Residual Assets to Employer 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of May 6, 1976 concerning the return of residual assets of * * * * * * (the "Plan")

to the * * * (the "Company"). 

Section 403(c)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act") provides, in pertinent part,

that: 

"Except as provided in . . . section . . . 4044 (relating to termination of insured plans), the assets of a plan shall never

inure to the benefit of any employer and shall be held for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants in

the plan and their beneficiaries . . ." 

In this regard, § 4044(d)(1) of the Act provides: 

"Any residual assets of a plan may be distributed to the employer [maintaining the plan] if - 

(A) all liabilities of the plan to participants have been satisfied, 

(B) the distribution does not contravene any provision of law, and 

(C) the plan provides for such a distribution in these circumstances." 

Article XI, Section 4 of the Plan provides, in part, that: 

"In the event of termination of this Agreement, . . . the Company may . . . terminate the Plan by action of its Board

of Directors; provided, however, [*2] that no such action shall operate to recapture for the Company any contributions

or payments previously made to the Fund, nor to adversely affect any benefits otherwise payable to retired Employees

. . . to the extent the assets of the Fund are sufficient to provide such benefits . . ." 

 Article XII, Section 6 of the Plan, provides: 

"In the event of the termination of this Agreement, no part of the corpus or income of the Fund can be used for, or

diverted to, purposes other than the exclusive use of the beneficiaries and employees covered by the Plan." 

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the Plan does not provide for a return of residual Plan assets to the

Company. Accordingly, the Act requires that all Plan assets be used for the benefit of Plan participants and their

beneficiaries, and none may revert to the Company. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 333 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 132
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 333

                          [Report No. 106-395]

Agreeing to the conference requested by the Senate on the amendment of 
   the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3064) making appropriations for the 
government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable 
 in whole or in part against revenues of said District for the fiscal 
        year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 18, 1999

    Mr. Linder, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Agreeing to the conference requested by the Senate on the amendment of 
   the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3064) making appropriations for the 
government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable 
 in whole or in part against revenues of said District for the fiscal 
        year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That the House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the 
bill (H.R. 3064) making appropriations for the government of the 
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in 
part against revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, and agrees to the 
conference requested by the Senate thereon.
                                     

                                                 House Calendar No. 132

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 333

                          [Report No. 106-395]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Agreeing to the conference requested by the Senate on the amendment of 
   the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3064) making appropriations for the 
government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable 
 in whole or in part against revenues of said District for the fiscal 
        year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 18, 1999

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### Ramesh Sarva et al., Respondents, v Amitava Chakravorty et al., Appellants.

[826 NYS2d 74]

*439In an action to recover on a mortgage note, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered January 11, 2006, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $196,950.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the record fails to establish a clear and unequivocal acceleration of the mortgage debt by the plaintiffs in this case. While the plaintiff mortgagee Ramesh Sarva testified regarding his belief that he sent a letter to the defendant mortgagor Kamal Chakraverty in June 1988 expressing his desire “to get paid in full,” no such letter was admitted into evidence at trial, and Chakraverty adamantly insisted that he never received the letter or any other communication accelerating the debt. Moreover, it is undisputed that the defendants continued to make, and the plaintiffs continued to accept, periodic installment payments on the note for years after June 1988, thereby negating the contention that the debt had been accelerated. Accordingly, this action to recover on the note was timely commenced within six years after the note matured, and the trial court properly denied the defendants’ application to dismiss the action as time-barred *(see*CPLR 213 [4]).

The defendants’ remaining contention is improperly raised for the first time on appeal *(see Sandoval v Juodzevich,*293 AD2d 595 [2002]), and we decline to reach it since the plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to present opposing evidence with regard to the effect of the partial payments made by the defendants *(see Orellano v Samples Tire Equip. & Supply Corp.,*110 AD2d 757 [1985]; *see generally Education Resources Inst., Inc. v Piazza,*17 AD3d 513 [2005]; *Costantini v Bimco Indus.,*125 AD2d 531 [1986]; *Bernstein v Kaplan,*67 AD2d 897 [1979]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 MEMORY PHARMACEUTICALS CORP. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Each of the undersigned officers of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. (the
Company) hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Companys quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ TONY SCULLION  
 /s/ DENNIS KEANE  
 *A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp.
and will be retained by Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This written
statement accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and will not be incorporated by
reference into any filing of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. under the Securities
Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
H. Res. 605

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 24, 2000.

Whereas communities should implement an emergency alert

plan such as the Amber Plan to expedite the recovery of

abducted children;

Whereas the Amber Plan, a partnership between law enforcement agencies and media officials, assists law enforcement, parents, and local communities to respond immediately to the most serious child abduction cases;

Whereas the Amber Plan was created in 1996 in memory of

9-year-old Amber Hagerman who was kidnapped and

murdered in Arlington, Texas;

Whereas in response to community concern, the Association

of Radio Managers with the assistance of area law enforcement in Arlington, Texas, created the Amber Plan;

Whereas, to date, the Amber Plan is credited with saving the

lives of at least 9 children nationwide;

Whereas the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children endorses the Amber Plan and is promoting the use

of such emergency alert plans nationwide;

Whereas the Amber Plan is responsible for reuniting children

with their searching parents: Now, therefore, be it
2

•HRES 605 EH

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Amber Plan is a powerful tool in fighting child abductions and should be used across the United States.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 31.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Wei Shi, certify that:





1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Toyota Auto Receivables 2012-A Owner Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on the information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as indenture trustee of the issuing entity, and Wells Fargo Delaware Trust Company, National Association, as owner trustee of the issuing entity.





March 25, 2015
By:  /s/ Wei ShiWei Shi

President

Toyota Auto Finance Receivables LLC, as Depositor

(Senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### § 700.85 Owner.

The term owner means the person who holds any interest in habitations and improvements to be acquired by the Commission pursuant to section 15(a) of the Act, which the Commission determines warrants consideration of ownership.
# C_2006303EN.01008701.xml

| 13.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/87

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4402 — UCB/Schwarz Pharma)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 303/30)

On 21 November 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4402. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4402. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-44 

March 25, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4041(a) Termination by Plan Administrator. Filing of Notice of Intent to Terminate 

OPINION: 

 We have received from you a copy of your letter of March 19, 1976 to * * * who constitute the Pension Committee

of the Pension Plan of the * * * (hereinafter the "Plan"). Your letter indicates that * * * as trustee of the trust established

under the Plan, intends to discontinue monthly benefit payments commencing with the payment due on April 1, 1976

unless * * * is otherwise advised. I am writing to you in order to clarify the position of the Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation (hereinafter "PBGC") with respect to the Plan. 

PBGC first became involved in the affairs of the Plan in January, 1976 when counsel for the plan administrator, *

* * contacted PBGC to discuss the status of the Plan. At our request, * * * furnished to us information concerning * *

* and the Plan. Based on that information, it appears to us that the Plan is a tax qualified, defined benefit plan covered

by § 4021(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (hereinafter "ERISA"). * * * through its counsel,

* * * indicated that it wished to terminate the Plan as part of its efforts to reorganize * * * affairs [*2] under Chapter XI

of the Bankruptcy Act. Consequently, we have invited * * * to submit a Notice of Intent to Terminate the Plan under

§ 4041(a) of ERISA and 29 C.F.R. Part 2604. On March 23, 1976, * * * informed us that such a Notice had been mailed

the previous day. 

The filing of a Notice of Intent to terminate will not deprive * * *, as plan administrator, or the Pension Committee

established by the Plan of the power to continue the normal operation of the Plan, including the pay-of monthly benefits

to retirees already in pay status and the placing of eligible participants who retire in pay status. The filing of such a

Notice does, however, impose the restrictions that the plan administrator may pay no amount pursuant to the termination

procedure provided in the Plan for a period of 90 days following the proposed date to termination specified in the Notice,

unless PBGC issues a notice of sufficiency. ERISA, § 4041(a). Consequently, we see no obstacle to the continuance

of the normal operation of the Plan until such time as the Plan is terminated. 

I trust that the foregoing has been of assistance to you. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel

free to [*3] contact * * * of this Office at (202) 254-4873. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, April 20, 2011.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, April 20, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Audrey Jenkins. For more information, please contact Ms. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: February 18, 2011.

Shawn Collins,

Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2011-4315 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### STATE v. OUTLAW

No. 543P89

Case below: 96 N.C.App. 192

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 February 1990.