alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 20.1

Creation Date Tue Apr  7, 1998  09:28 AM                            Page    1
CMB95A

From: The Chase Manhattan Bank

To:   Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.


                   MONTHLY CERTIFICATEHOLDER'S REPORT
                   ----------------------------------

Due Period 31 Beginning Date                     03/01/1998
Due Period 31 End Date                           03/31/1998
Determination Date                               04/10/1998
Remittance Date                                  04/15/1998


I.    Monthly Principal and Principal Carryover Shortfall to Certificateholders
      (Per $1000 of Original Principal Amount)                  $ 16.6968073330

II.   Monthly Interest and Unpaid Interest to Certificateholders
      (Per $1000 of Original Principal Amount)                   $ 1.0494080798

III.  Monthly Expenses Summary

      A. Servicing Fee Disbursement                                $ 262,411.43
      B. Cash Collateral Account Expense                                 $ 0.00
      C. Total Expenses paid
         (per $1000 of Original Principal Amount)                $ 0.1749013489

IV.   Cash Collateral Account Deposit Amount                             $ 0.00

V.    Outstanding Advance Summary

      A. From Prior Period                                       $ 3,893,019.69
      B. From Current Period                                     $ 3,851,286.08
      C. Change in Amount Between Periods (Lines B - A)            $ -41,733.61

VI.   Pool Factor Information

      A. Certificate Principal Balance                         $ 289,842,829.84
      B. Initial Certificate Balance                         $ 1,500,339,658.38
      C. Pool Factor (Lines A / B)                               0.193184808667

VII.  Available Cash Collateral Account Information for Due Period

      A. Available Cash Collateral Amount                       $ 15,744,685.60
      B. Available Cash Collateral Amount Percentage            4.999999999206%

VIII. Required Cash Collateral Amount

      A. For the Current Collection Period                      $ 15,744,685.60
      B. For the Next Collection Period                         $ 14,492,141.49
မ့တမ့ၢ်ဘၣ်လၢ နကလဲၤမၤန့ၢ်တၢ်အိၣ်ဆူၣ်အိၣ်ချ့

တၢ်ကွၢ်ထွဲအဂီၢ်ဘၣ်န့ၣ်, အိၣ်လၢဟံၣ်တက့ၢ်.

သ့နစုတဖၣ်ခဲအံၤခဲအံၤဒီးဆးပၠၣ်ဒီးထံလၢ

အစှၤကတၢၢ်၂၀ စဲးကီးတက့ၢ်.

မၤကဆှီဒီးမၤသံတၢ်ဃၢ်လၢတၢ်ပီးတၢ်လီဒီး

တၢ်မဲာ်ဖံးခိၣ်လၢတၢ်ထိးဘၣ်ညီနုၢ်အီၤတဖၣ်အလိၤတက့ၢ်.

ဟးဆှဲးတၢ်ထိးဘၣ်နမဲာ်ချံ, 

နါဒ့,ဒီးကိာ်ပူၤတဖၣ်တက့ၢ်. 

ဟးဆှဲးတၢ်အိၣ်ဘူးဒီးပှၤလၢအဆိးက့တဖၣ်တက့ၢ်. 

ဖဲနအိၣ်လၢပှၤကမျၢၢ်အကျါန့ၣ်, 

သိးတၢ်ကံးညာ်မၤဘၢမဲာ်သၣ်

လၢနနါဒ့ဒီးကိာ်ပူၤဖီခိၣ်တက့ၢ်.

ကးဘၢ နတၢ်ကူးမ့တမ့ၢ်တၢ်ကဆဲဒီး

ထံးရှူ, ၀ံၤကွံာ်လီၤထံးရှူဆူ

တဃၣ်ဒၢပူၤတက့ၢ်.

မၤစၢၤတၢ်လၢကဒီသဒၢတၢ်ကသါထီၣ်ကသါလီၤအတၢ်ဆၢဒ်အမ့ၢ်COVID-19 န့ၣ်တက့ၢ်.

ဟးဆှဲး တၢ်ရၤလီၤတၢ်ဆါဃၢ်တဖၣ်

cdc.gov/coronavirus

316351-U April 15, 2020 1:37 PM
# C_2010179EN.01005301.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/53

---

Action brought on 30 April 2010 — Vesteda Groep v Commission

(Case T-206/10)

(2010/C 179/90)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Vesteda Groep BV (Maastricht, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van der Wal and T. Boesman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 15 December 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 15 December 2009;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 26 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 (Netherlands) — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations. The applicant relies on three pleas in law in support of its application.

First, the applicant submits that, at paragraphs 25 to 37 of the contested decision, the Commission erred in law in finding that the Netherlands system of financing social housing and all changes to that system since the introduction of the EEC Treaty constitute existing aid and that, on that basis, the Commission’s assessment is made in the context of Article 108(1) TFEU and Chapter 5 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1) According to the applicant, the Commission made errors of assessment, its examination of the changes to that system was inadequate and it gave insufficient reasons for the contested decision.

Second, according to the applicant, the Commission erred in law in the contested decision in accepting on the basis of Article 19 of Regulation No 659/1999 the measures proposed by the Netherlands as referred to in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 659/1999. The appropriate measures accepted by the Commission are inadequate and/or are not suitable for ensuring that the existing aid is compatible with Articles 107 TFEU and 106 TFEU. Furthermore, the Commission applied the requirements of Article 106(2) TFEU incorrectly and gave insufficient reasons for its decision.

Third, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in neglecting to initiate the procedure provided for under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

---
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 3:46 PM 

To: Culligan, Kevin; Harvey, Reid; Stenhouse, Jeb 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj; Elman, Barry 

Subject: a few more comments on the RE document 

Hi Kevin, 

Below are a few more comments on the RE document. I also will have for you some comments on 

the preamble and RIA. The major comments on the RIA, in addition to what you heard earlier 

today about changing the tables, will be edits on the Ch 8 uncertainty language. 

RE Approach TSD: 

Page 3 --- Footnote 6. Change to add: “Existing and new biomass and landfill...” 

Page 6 --- Add section on new and existing biomass. Using the $30/MWH cost from TSD chapter 

6. Provide explanation that those biomass deemed okay in the framework would come online with 

a $30/MWH cost. 

Page 8, footnote 12 --- add “fossil” in front of “generation reported in that state in 2012.” 

Table 1.1 --- It is noticeable that some states have lower 2020/24/29 levels than in 2012. This 

should be explained in the text in more detail. Also, why are the numbers flat or nearly flat for so 

many states? What are the limitations to this approach? Suggest addressing these and adding a 

discussion / conclusion section 

Table 1.7 --- provide 2020 Base case FOR EACH of those RE sectors 

Table 1.8 --- as above for 2025 

Table 1.9 --- as above for 2030 

Table 1.10 --- add tech potential for biomass (called biopower in the NREL document) 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51946.pdf

Table 1.11 --- as above (called wood and wood derived fuels + other biomass in the EIA document) 

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/
§ 115.178 Referrals for prosecution for detainee-on-detainee sexual abuse. ( a ) When there is probable cause to believe that a detainee sexually abused another detainee in a lockup, the agency shall refer the matter to the appropriate prosecuting authority.
( b ) To the extent the agency itself is not responsible for investigating allegations of sexual abuse, the agency shall inform the investigating entity of this policy.
( c ) Any State entity or Department of Justice component that is responsible for investigating allegations of sexual abuse in lockups shall be subject to this requirement.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection  with the Annual  Report of Golden  Enterprises,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form  10-K/A for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Mark W. McCutcheon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.


Dated:  August 20, 2004


/S/MARK W. MCCUTCHEON
---------------------
Mark W. McCutcheon
President and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Golden Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Golden Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

                                       50
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 7 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. POCKET VERSION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 

4 THE UNITED STATES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The 26th edition of the pocket 

6 version of the Constitution of the United States shall be 

7 printed as a Senate document under the direction of the 

8 Joint Committee on Printing. 

9 (b) ADDITIONAL COPIES.—In addition to the usual 

10 number, there shall be printed the lesser of— 

11 (1) 480,500 copies of the document, of which 

12 255,500 copies shall be for the use of the House of 

13 Representatives, 200,000 copies shall be for the use 

14 of the Senate, and 25,000 copies shall be for the use 

15 of the Joint Committee on Printing; or 

16 (2) such number of copies of the document as 

17 does not exceed a total production and printing cost 

18 of $226,250, with distribution to be allocated in the 

19 same proportion as described in paragraph (1), ex-
2 

†SCON 7 ES 

1 cept that in no case shall the number of copies be 

2 less than 1 per Member of Congress. 

3 (c) DISTRIBUTION.—The copies of the document 

4 printed for the use of the House of Representatives and 

5 the Senate under subsection (a) shall be distributed in ac6 cordance with— 

7 (1) a distribution plan approved by the chair 

8 and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

9 House Administration of the House of Representa10 tives, in the case of the copies printed for the use 

11 of the House of Representatives; and 

12 (2) a distribution plan approved by the chair 

13 and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

14 Rules and Administration of the Senate, in the case 

15 of the copies printed for the use of the Senate. 

Passed the Senate February 28, 2019. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 7 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the printing of the 26th edition of the 

States. pocket version of the Constitution of the United
§ 1308.32 Prehearing procedures. ( a ) Unless otherwise provided in this part, prehearing procedures, including discovery, shall be conducted in accordance with Rules 6, 7(b), 16, 26, 28-37, and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except that the Hearing Officer may modify those Rules to meet the needs of the parties in a particular case.
( b ) The term *court* as used in those Rules shall be deemed to mean “Hearing Officer”; the term *plaintiff* shall be deemed to mean “Contractor”; the term *defendant* shall be deemed to mean “TVA”; and the term *action* shall be deemed to mean the pending appeal.
( c ) Discovery subpoenas are subject to Subpart E.
( d ) The party giving notice of a deposition is responsible for securing a reporter.
( e ) No appeal of counterclaim may be dismissed except by order of the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer may order at any time, with or without a motion by a party, that an appeal or counterclaim, or any part thereof, be dismissed because the matter has been settled, because the party no longer desires to pursue the matter, or because of the party's failure to prosecute the matter or to comply with the regulations in this part or with any order of the Hearing Officer. Any dismissal under this paragraph operates as an adjudication on the merits of the matter which is dismissed, and is a decision within the meaning of § 1308.23, but does not affect the Hearing Officer's jurisdiction over any matter not so dismissed.
[44 FR 29648, May 22, 1979. Redesignated at 44 FR 30682, May 29, 1979, and amended at 49 FR 3845, Jan. 31, 1984]
# C_2012303EN.01000602.xml

| 6.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/6

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2012 — Rügen Fisch AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Schwaaner Fischwaren GmbH

(Case C-582/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1) and (2) - Community trade mark - Word mark SCOMBER MIX - Absolute ground for invalidity - Descriptive character)

2012/C 303/11

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Rügen Fisch AG (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Schwaaner Fischwaren GmbH (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and T. Bösling, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 September 2011 in Case T-201/09 Rügen Fisch v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 230/2007-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Rügen Fisch AG and Schwaaner Fischwaren GmbH — Breach of Articles 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Descriptive character of the word sign SCOMBER MIX

Rügen Fisch

OHIM

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed;

| 2. | Rügen Fisch AG is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rügen Fisch AG is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

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


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         5,703
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         500
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               7,845
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    64,224
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           0
<LOANS>                                        76,538
<ALLOWANCE>                                    643
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,423
<DEPOSITS>                                     123,815
<SHORT-TERM>                                   0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1,101
<LONG-TERM>                                    18,124
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          17
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     17,366
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 160,423
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                4,798
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              2,388
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               387
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               7,573
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             2,985
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,552
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          4,021
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  80
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             448
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                3,716
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,184
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1,184
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   774
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 7.33
<LOANS-NON>                                    412
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               577
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  21
<RECOVERIES>                                   7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              643
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           630
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        13
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DENNIS MADDREY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 109 MM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of August, 2020, the “Application for King’s Bench 

Authority/Extraordinary Relief” is DENIED.
# C_2011113EN.01000803.xml

| 9.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/8

---

Action brought on 11 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-64/11)

2011/C 113/17

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by adopting Article 17(1) of Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March approving the consolidated text of the Law on Corporation Tax, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by adopting Article 17(1) of Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March approving the consolidated text of the Law on Corporation Tax, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;

| — | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The provision at issue introduces special treatment for unrealised capital gains on assets of companies that transfer their residence to another Member State of the European Union, cease their activity in Spain in order to continue it in another Member State or transfer their activities to another Member State. In those cases, Spain taxes the unrealised capital gains at the time of exit, so that the affected companies must settle a tax debt in respect of unrealised and hypothetical revenues which may never be realised. That regime amounts to an exception to the normal rule according to which tax is levied on revenue actually obtained by the taxable person during the taxable period.

The Commission submits that that aspect of the Spanish legislation is incompatible with the TFEU and with the EEA Agreement, since it is a discriminatory measure, and in any event a disproportionate restriction on the freedom of establishment. The Spanish rule could discourage movements of companies or assets which would result in a better distribution of economic resources.

The Commission considers that companies must have the right to transfer their registered office or individual assets to another Member State without being subject to excessively complex and onerous procedures. According to the Commission, there is no justification for the immediate charging of taxes on unrealised capital gains when a Spanish company is transferred to another Member State or when a permanent establishment ceases activity in Spain or transfers its assets from Spain to another Member State, if that kind of taxation is not found in comparable national situations.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Document Search 
-  DCOI Strategic Plan 

# DCOI Strategic Plan

## About this document and download

SBA’s 2021 DCOI Strategic Plan pdf file and the CIO Certification Letter.

  Download  .zip

**Effective**
Exhibit 99.2
                              C.F.O. Certification




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  Crescent  Moon,  Inc.  (Formerly
Cherokee  Investments,  Inc.) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2002,
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Robert Denome,  Chief  Executive  Officer (acting Chief Financial
Officer) of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss 1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.



 /s/ Robert Denome
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Denome
Chief Executive Officer
(Acting Chief Financial Officer)
September 3, 2002
HomeLatest FilingsPrevious Page

    - SEC Home  »
    - Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System  »
    - Company Search  »
    - Current Page

103 BELLEVUE PARKWAYWILMINGTON DE 19809         

103 BELLEVUE PARKWAYWILMINGTON DE 19809         856-528-3500

Polen Credit Opportunities Fund CIK#: 0001965985 (see all company filings)
State location: DE | State of Inc.: **DE** | Fiscal Year End: 0430Get **insider transactions** for this **issuer**.File Number: **812-15472**

||
||