alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 35.2

SERVICERS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Re: Assessment of compliance for services provided pursuant to the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated February 27, 2007, the Series Supplement,
dated March 10, 2015, the US$ Note Trust Deed, dated March 10, 2015, and other transaction documents relating to SMART ABS Series 2015-1US Trust (collectively, the Agreements).

The undersigned hereby certifies that:



| | 1. | I, Russell Piggott, am a Director of Macquarie Securities Management Pty Limited (the Manager).
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | A review of the Managers activities during the period from April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance under each of the Agreements has been made
under my supervision.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Manager has fulfilled all of its obligations under each of the Agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|Date: 17 June 2016                         
|                                           
|/s/ Russell Piggott                        
|Russell Piggott
Director                   
|                                           
|Macquarie Securities Management Pty Limited
##### 



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
    
    EXHIBIT 32.1REGARDING FORM 10-Q FOR QUARTER ENDINGMARCH
31, 2004, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 I, Nello Gonfiantini III, Chairman of the Board, President and Secretary
of Specialty Trust, Inc. (the Company), hereby state, certify and attest in
this written statement that: (a) The quarterly report of the Company filed on form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (b) The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ Nello Gonfiantini III
    
    Dated this 17th of May, 2004Name: Nello Gonfiantini IIITitle
: Chairman of the Board, President and Secretary(Chief Executive Officer)
 This
certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose. 31
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Cognitive DevelopmentConstructivism (Learning)Elementary Secondary EducationEpistemologyHigher EducationInservice Teacher EducationPreservice Teacher EducationTheory Practice Relationship

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

74-17 

November 14, 1974 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(a) Plans Covered. Requirements of Coverage

4021(b)(1). Plans covered. Individual Account Plans

4021(b)(12) Plans Covered. Partial Individual Account Plans

4021(b)(13) Plans Covered. Professional Service Employer Plans 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your recent letter raising the following questions: (1) which defined benefit plans must pay

the Termination Insurance premiums? (2) Are "Professional Service Corporations" excluded from coverage under

Section 4021(b)(13) of the Act? (3) Are assumed (target) benefit plans excluded from coverage on the basis that they

are "in essence individual account plans even though they are calculated similar to defined benefit plans"? 

All defined benefit plans which meet the requirements of Sec tion 4021(a) of the Act are covered. If the plan

provides a benefit, a portion of which is defined and a portion of which is based on the individual's "separate account"

(as defined in Section 3(17) of the Act), then the benefit is excluded from coverage to the extent the benefit is based on

the "separate account." (Section 4021(b)(12)). 

Those plans meeting the requirements of Section 4021(b)(13) are excluded from coverage. The latter section

requires that [*2] the plan be "established or maintained by a professional service employer" and have no more than 25

active participants after the date of enactment. The professional service employer must be owned or controlled by

"professional individuals." 

As regards "target benefit" plans, the latter are covered if the defined benefit objective is the subject of a minimum

guarantee; however, if no benefit is guaranteed upon the occurrence of inadequate contributions to satisfy the "target

benefit," then the plan is not covered by the plan termination insurance program. 

Henry Rose 

Acting General Counsel
Opinion issued April 19 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 15
- 01016
- CV

——————————— JAMES E. PHILLIPS AN D VERONICA JOHNSON , Appella nt s V. MALAK ENTERPRISES, I NC. , Appell e e
Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No . 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1061166

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant s, James E. Phillips and Veronica Johnson, ha ve neither established indigence, nor paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk ’ s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence), 37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of appeal if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s2

fault). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant s did not adeq uately respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal). We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss all pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Huddle.
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.18 What happens if a proposal is not declined within 90 days after it is received by the Secretary?

A proposal that is not declined within 90 days (or within any agreed extension under § 900.17) is deemed approved and the Secretary shall award the contract or any amendment or renewal within that 90-day period and add to the contract the full amount of funds pursuant to section 106(a) of the Act.
#### Helen Wrzosek *v.*City of New Haven et al.

House, C. J., Shapiro, Loiselle, MacDonald and Bogdanski, Js.

Argued June 5

decision released July 2, 1974

*592
      *Vincent Villano,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Thomas F. Keyes, Jr.,*for the appellee (named defendant).

*Peter C. Dorsey,*for the appellees (defendant The New Haven Parking Authority et al.).

Pee Cubiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover for damages she allegedly sustained as the result of a fall on George Street in the city of New Haven. She claims to have fallen at a curb where a garage ramp crossed the public sidewalk. The plaintiff joined, as defendants, the city of New Haven, The New Haven Parking Authority and The Airport Company of America, Inc., alleging that the condition where she fell constituted a hazard and a defect and was a public nuisance.

The case was tried to a jury. As to the actual fall, the plaintiff testified that she was walking on the sidewalk “and then all of a sudden I just stepped off where I thought there was going to be a sidewalk, and there wasn’t anything, and I just fell. . . . I went to put my foot down to take another step, and I just stepped off into space. I thought there was the sidewalk still there.”

At the conclusion of the trial, the court directed a verdict for the defendants, telling the jury “there is absolutely nothing from which a jury could possibly find either the existence of a defect or the *593maintenance of a nuisance.” The plaintiff has appealed, assigning as an error the court’s direction of a verdict.

The evidence as printed in the appendix to the plaintiff’s brief and disclosed in the photographs admitted as exhibits fully supports the ruling of the court for the reasons it stated. In addition, there was no evidence which would have supported a finding by the jury that the alleged condition was a proximate cause of the injuries which the plaintiff sustained.

There is no error.
§ 115.3 Corporations, labor organizations, membership organizations, cooperatives, and corporations without capital stock. ( a ) Corporations, labor organizations, membership organizations, cooperatives, and corporations without capital stock to which this part applies may expend treasury monies to establish, administer, and solicit contributions to any separate segregated fund subject to the provisions of part 114. Each specific prohibition, allowance, and duty applicable to a corporation, labor organization, or separate segregated fund under part 114 applies to a corporation, labor organization, or separate segregated fund to which this part applies.
( b ) The question of whether a professional organization is a corporation is determined by the law of the State in which the professional organization exists.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Sophie Marchais La Grave, Respondent, to Examine Frank J. Herbert and Others, Expected Parties to an Action About to *913be Brought in this Court under Section 870 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Francis P. Bent, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on the authority of *Cherbuliez*v. *Parsons,*decided herewith (123 App. Div. 814). Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.
**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”) herebycertifies to his knowledge that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 30, 2005 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.      /s/ James R. Sulat     JAMES R. SULAT  President and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)  August 12, 2005     /s/ Joseph M. Donabauer     JOSEPH M. DONABAUER  Vice President & Controller  (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)  August 12, 2005   *A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 has been provided to Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. and will be retained by MemoryPharmaceuticals Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest. This written statement accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission, and will not be incorporated by reference into anyfiling of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8(Nos. 333-137217, 333-125139, 333-111253, 333-97891, 333-67790, 333-93407,333-93413, 333-69761, 333-69765, 333-39189, 333-39213, 333-30771 and 333-26797)and Form S-3 (No. 333-137237) of Vital Images, Inc. of our report dated March14, 2007 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears inthis Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopersLLPMinneapolis, MinnesotaMarch 14, 2007

 

1

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 11288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4685]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

National Science Board; Sunshine Act Meetings; Notice

    The National Science Board's Task Force on Merit Review (MR), 
pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science 
Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in 
the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the 
scheduling of a meeting held by teleconference for the transaction of 
National Science Board business and other matters specified, as 
follows:

DATE AND TIME: March 8, 2011, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

SUBJECT MATTER: Discussion of Guiding Principles for Assessing Merit 
Review Criteria and Chairman's remarks.

STATUS: Open.

LOCATION: This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National 
Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22230. Room 130, Stafford Place I, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230 will be available 
for the public to listen-in to this meeting held by teleconference. All 
visitors must contact the Board Office [call 703-292-7000 or send an e-
mail message to [email protected]] at least 24 hours prior to 
the teleconference and provide name and organizational affiliation. All 
visitors must report to the NSF visitor desk located in the lobby at 
the 9th and N. Stuart Streets entrance on the day of the teleconference 
to receive a visitor's badge.

UPDATES AND POINT OF CONTACT: Please refer to the National Science 
Board Web site http://www.nsf.gov/nsb for additional information and 
schedule updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) may 
be found at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/. Point of contact for this 
meeting is: Kim Silverman, National Science Board Office, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-7000.

Daniel A. Lauretano,
Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2011-4685 Filed 2-25-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```
Extended Employment Agreement of William Davis



 Exhibit 10.2 
 May 22, 2008 
 William A. Davis 
 210 Acacia
Terrace 
 Celebration, FL 34747 
 Re:
Employment Agreement – Option 
 Dear Bill: 
 Pursuant
to your Employment Agreement dated October 1, 2006 under which you have been employed as President & Chief Operating Officer we hereby exercise our option to extend the term for two (2) years, commencing on October 2, 2008
and continuing until October 1, 2010, such employment to be on all the same terms and conditions presently applicable to your employment. 
 Please
acknowledge your receipt of this letter and agreement to the foregoing additional term of your Employment Agreement by signing and returning one original of this letter to me. 
 Very truly yours, 
 UNIVERSAL ORLANDO 
 By: Thomas L. Williams 
 ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED: 
  

							
	 /s/ William A. Davis
	 		  	May 22, 2008	 	
	William A. Davis	 		  	        Date
§ 5.44 Testimony and production of documents prohibited unless approved by appropriate Department officials. ( a ) No employee, or former employee, of the Department shall, in response to a demand or request, including in connection with any litigation, provide oral or written testimony by deposition, declaration, affidavit, or otherwise concerning any information acquired while such person is or was an employee of the Department as part of the performance of that person's official duties or by virtue of that person's official status, unless authorized to do so by the Office of the General Counsel, or as authorized in § 5.44(b).
( b ) No employee, or former employee, shall, in response to a demand or request, including in connection with any litigation, produce any document or any material acquired as part of the performance of that employee's duties or by virtue of that employee's official status, unless authorized to do so by the Office of the General Counsel or the delegates thereof, as appropriate.
### §8211. Navy Regulations

United States Navy Regulations shall be issued by the Secretary of the Navy.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 375, §6011; Pub. L. 97–60, title II, §204(a)(2), Oct. 14, 1981, 95 Stat. 1007; renumbered §8211, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(b)(7), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1834.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6011 | 34 U.S.C. 591. | R.S. 1547. |

So much as pertains to the "orders, regulations, and instructions issued by the Secretary of the Navy prior to July 14, 1862" and the alterations thereto is omitted as executed, and the section is worded to preserve the remaining requirement that Navy Regulations must be issued with Presidential approval. The words "United States Navy Regulations" are substituted for the words "regulations of the Navy" to preserve the distinction between the permanent regulations of general applicability falling within this statute and the many other regulations issued by the Secretary alone under specific statutes and under his power to administer the Department.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 8211, acts Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 501; Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85–861, §1(162), 72 Stat. 1514, prescribed authorized strength of Regular Air Force in officers in each regular grade on each of promotion lists authorized by former section 8296 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 96–513, title II, §202, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2878, effective Sept. 15, 1981. See section 521 et seq. of this title.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6011 of this title as this section.

1981—Pub. L. 97–60 struck out "with the approval of the President" after "Secretary of the Navy".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.

#### Navy Regulations Issued Before October 14, 1981

Pub. L. 97–60, title II, §204(b), Oct. 14, 1981, 95 Stat. 1007, provided that: "United States Navy regulations issued under section 6011 of title 10, United States Code, before the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 14, 1981] shall remain in effect in accordance with their terms until amended or revoked by the Secretary of the Navy."

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Delegation of Functions

For delegation to Secretary of Defense of authority vested in President by section 591 of former Title 34, see Ex. Ord. No. 10621, July 1, 1955, 20 F.R. 4759, set out as a note under section 301 of Title 3, The President.
# C_2007096EN.01000802.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Spain

(Case C-219/05) (1)

1

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Treatment of urban waste water - Agglomeration of Sueca, its coastal districts and certain municipalities of La Ribera - Discharge in a sensitive area without treatment)

(2007/C 96/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Braquehais and I. del Cuvillo Contreras, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Urban waste water of Sueca, its coastal agglomerations and certain municipalities of La Ribera — Discharge in a sensitive area without adequate treatment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that, by 31 December 1998, the urban waste water of the agglomeration of Sueca, its coastal districts (El Perelló, Les Palmeres, Mareny de Barrequetes, Playa del Rey and Boga de Mar) and also certain municipalities of the region of La Ribera (Benifaió, Sollano and Almussafes) is treated appropriately before being discharged in an area declared sensitive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 3(1) and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, the latter provision being read together with Article 4(4) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that, by 31 December 1998, the urban waste water of the agglomeration of Sueca, its coastal districts (El Perelló, Les Palmeres, Mareny de Barrequetes, Playa del Rey and Boga de Mar) and also certain municipalities of the region of La Ribera (Benifaió, Sollano and Almussafes) is treated appropriately before being discharged in an area declared sensitive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 3(1) and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, the latter provision being read together with Article 4(4) of that directive.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182 of 23.7.2005.

1

---