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



Exhibit 99.2 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCEPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2004-15 (the Trust) I, Nancy H. Forte, a duly elected and acting officer of Citibank, N.A. (Indenture Trustee),
do hereby certify on behalf of the Indenture Trustee, that: 1. I have reviewed and examined the performance by the Indenture Trustee of the application of
trust money collected by the Indenture Trustee pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section
6.06 of the Indenture pursuant to which the Trusts notes were issued during the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2004 (the Relevant Year); and 2. Based upon my review and examination described in 1 above, and except as provided in the
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Compliance, dated March 15, 2005,
prepared by the Ernst & Young LLP substantially in accordance with Section 4.05 of the Expense and
Indemnity Agreement, to the best of my knowledge, the application of trust money collected by the
Indenture Trustee pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the Indenture was
performed in accordance with the terms of the Indenture throughout the Relevant Year. CITIBANK, N.A., as Indenture Trustee By:
    /s/ Nancy H. ForteName:
    Nancy H. ForteTitle:
    Assistant Vice President Date: March 29, 2005
EXHIBIT 99.4
                                                                    ------------




             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the use of our reports dated February 18, 2005 (which audit report
expresses an unqualified opinion on the financial statements and includes
Comments by Independent Registered Chartered Accountants on Canada-United States
of America Reporting Differences when there has been a restatement of the
financial statements as described in note 23, when there are changes in
accounting principles that have a material effect on the comparability of the
financial statements and changes in accounting principles that have been
implemented in the financial statements such as described in note 3 to the
consolidated financial statements), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 40-F
of Vermilion Energy Trust for the year ended December 31, 2004.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

March 30, 2005
Exhibit 99.2





Report Of Independent


Registered Public Accounting Firm




Board of Directors


Structured Obligations Corporation


New York, New York




We have examined the compliance of Structured Obligations Corporation (Depositor) and U.S. Bank National Association (Trustee) with the Base Trust Agreement and the Select Notes Trust Supplement LT 2004-1 (the Agreements) relating to the administration of the underlying securities and related credit support deposited in or held by the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1 for the year ended December 31, 2014.  Depositor’s management is responsible for compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance with the Agreements based on our examination.




Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about Depositor’s and Trustee’s compliance with those requirements described above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination of Depositor’s and Trustee’s compliance with specified requirements.




In our opinion, Depositor and Trustee complied, in all material respects, with the requirements described above of the Agreements for the year ended December 31, 2014.




This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Depositor, the Trustee, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Certificate Holders of the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1, and is not intended to be, and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties.










/s/ RubinBrown LLP









Overland Park, Kansas


March 25, 2015
#### Frank B. Vennum, appellee, v. Virgil W. Johnston, appellant.

Action of trover for possession of abstract books. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign county; the Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1922.

Reversed and cause remanded.

Opinion filed May 2, 1923.

Dobbins & Dobbins, for appellant. Louis A. Busch and LeForgee, Black & Samuels, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Heard

delivered the opinion of the court.
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.214 Covered Projects. The following types of multifamily and healthcare projects are Covered Projects subject to the requirements of this subpart, provided however that single family projects are excluded from the definition of Covered Projects: ( a ) *FHA insured projects.* A project financed or which is proposed to be financed with a mortgage insured under the National Housing Act, a project subject to a mortgage held by the Secretary under the National Housing Act, or a project acquired by the Secretary under the National Housing Act.
( b ) *Housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities.* Housing for the elderly financed or to be financed with direct loans or capital advances under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, as amended; and housing for persons with disabilities under section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act.
( c ) *Risk Share projects.* A project that is insured under section 542(b) or 542(c) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992(12 U.S.C. 17107 note).
( d ) *Projects subject to continuing HUD requirements.* A project that is subject to a use agreement or any other affordability restrictions pursuant to a program administered by HUD's Office of Housing.
( e ) *Subsidized Projects.* Any project in which 20 percent or more of the units now receive or will receive a subsidy in the form of: ( 1 ) Interest reduction payments under section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1);
( 2 ) Rental Assistance Payments under section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1);
( 3 ) Rent Supplement payments under section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s); or
( 4 ) Project-based housing assistance payment contracts under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) administered by HUD's Office of Housing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Judson, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 693]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.), rendered September 10, 2004, which classified defendant as a risk level m sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes of attempted rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree after he had inappropriate sexual contact with two female relatives, ages 10 and 14. Prior to his release to parole supervision, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended that defendant be classified as a level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C) based upon applicable factors contained in the risk assessment instrument. County Court agreed with the Board’s recommendation, resulting in defendant’s appeal.

Defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based on our review of the sparse record, we disagree. The People bore the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the risk level determination *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]; *People v Arotin,*19 AD3d 845, 847 [2005]). Defendant contested the portion of the risk assessment instrument assigning him points for a continuing course of conduct, but the record does not contain any proof on that issue. Accordingly, as at least one nonfrivolous issue exists, we will assign defendant new counsel to address any issues that the record may disclose.

Cardona, PJ., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that tbe decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.
#### Hat Corporation of America v. Byer-Rolnick Hat Corporation et al.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Noonan, JJ.
### **CHAPTER 16—SALE AND DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC LANDS**

Sec.
671 to 687b–5. Repealed.
687c.
Alaskan land leases for fur farming; citizenship; acreage limitation; period; terms and conditions; laws applicable to mineral resources; reservations.
687c–1.
Execution of provisions of section 687c; authority of Secretary of the Interior.
688 to 700. Repealed.
EXHIBIT 99.7



VERMILION
ENERGY INC.
CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



Pursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code



In connection with the annual report of
Vermilion Energy Inc. (the “Corporation”) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lorenzo Donadeo, Chief Executive Officer of
the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



| | 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 Corporation.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated at Calgary, Alberta, Canada this 6th
day of March 2015.



| | (“Lorenzo Donadeo”)                     
| | ----------------------------------------
| | [Signature]                             
| |                                         
| | Lorenzo Donadeo, Chief Executive Officer











EXHIBIT 99.7



VERMILION
ENERGY INC.
CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



Pursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code



In connection with the annual report of
Vermilion Energy Inc. (the “Corporation”) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curtis Hicks, Chief Financial Officer of the
Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



| | 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 Corporation.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated at Calgary, Alberta, Canada this 6th
day of March 2015.



| | (“Curtis Hicks”)                     
| | -------------------------------------
| | [Signature]                          
| |                                      
| | Curtis Hicks, Chief Financial Officer
### §8278. Authorization of appropriations

For the purposes of this part, there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary not to exceed $98,000,000 for the period beginning October 1, 1978, and ending September 30, 1981.

(Pub. L. 95–619, title V, §569, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3282.)
#### BUTLER, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF OXFORD, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 4, 1905.)

Action hy Polly Butler against the village of Oxford.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

SMITH, J., dissents.
#### SOKOLSKI, Respondent, v. BUTTENWIESER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 23, 1903.)

Action by Ray Sokolski against Joseph L. Buttenwieser, impleaded. H. W. Unger, for appellant. E. W. S. Johnston, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### Triangle Pacific Building Products Corp., Respondent, v National Bank of North America, Respondent, and Jacqueline Carvelli, Appellant.

In a turnover proceeding, the appeal is from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 28, 1977, which granted petitioner’s motion for a turnover order, and (2) a further order of the same court, dated November 28, 1977, as amended December 8, 1977, which denied appellant’s motion (a) for reargument and (b) to be made a party to the proceeding. Appeal from so much of the order of November 28, 1977, as amended December 8, 1977, as denied the branch of appellant’s motion which sought reargument dismissed. No appeal lies from the denial of a motion for reargument. Order dated October 28, 1977 reversed, and order dated November 28, 1977, as amended December 8, 1977, otherwise reversed, the branch of appellant’s motion which sought leave to intervene is granted, and the proceeding is remanded to Special Term for a hearing and determination of the various interests in the joint bank account and for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Appellant is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements, payable by petitioner-respondent, to cover both appeals. Although appellant was not named in this special proceeding, we hold that she was "aggrieved” by the orders of the trial court and, accordingly, has standing to pursue this appeal (see CPLR 5511; see, also, *Hobart v Hobart,*86 NY 636, 637; *People v Dobbs Ferry Med. Pavillion,*40 AD2d 324; *Ryder v Cue Car Rental,*32 AD2d 143). Appellant’s clear interest in the joint account is not disputed on this appeal. She is, minimally, the presumptive owner of one half of the account proceeds, or "moiety” (see Banking Law, § 675; *Matter of Kleinberg v Heller,*38 NY2d 836, 838, [Fuchsberg, J., concurring]). On the basis of the statutory presumption and the allegations of the parties, we find that a bona fide question of fact exists as to the ownership of the joint account. Accordingly, a turnover order which will consume the entire account, including appellant’s funds, necessarily renders her an aggrieved person. Since appellant’s property rights are to be substantially affected by the court’s determination, she has standing to participate in the proceedings leading to that determination. Because ownership of the joint account is in dispute, a hearing to determine the adverse interests therein prior to issuance of a turnover order is required. CPLR 5225 (subd [b]), which provides for use of a special proceeding, must be read *in pari materia*with CPLR 409 (subd [b]) and CPLR 410. Those sections mandate a trial of issues of fact which cannot be disposed of by summary determination upon the pleadings. Additionally, Special Term abused its discretion in denying appellant’s application to intervene in the proceeding *1018and thereby determine her adverse interest in the property (see CPLR 5225, subd [b]; CPLR 5239; *First Small Business Inv. Corp. v Zaretsky,*46 Misc 2d 328, 330, revd on other grounds 28 AD2d 874; see, also, *Cirlin v Riverbay Corp.,*NYLJ Feb. 9, 1976, p 9, col 3). Latham, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Peter Muench, Respondent, v. John L. Schoenfeld Co., Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The claimant was employed for 32 years as a linotype operator. As such he worked about two feet from a pot of molten lead and he was exposed to the fumes from it as well as from similar ones on the other linotype machines in the room. These fumes were particularly acute in the morning in that the two exhaust fans were turned off overnight while the lead was molten 24 hours a day. Claimant testified that the fumes caused him to cough and the coughing became progressively worse so that in May, 1956 he consulted a doctor. His condition forced him to stop work on October 14, 1957. Claimant’s medical specialist testified that he had emphysema and chronic bronchitis caused by the inhalation of fumes in the course of his employment. He also indicated that irritative bronchitis is a disease found among linotype operators. The appellant’s doctor was of the opinion that claimant’s emphysema was caused by a pre-existing funnel-breast which was possibly congenital in origin.’’ The board found that the claimant had an occupational disease in the nature of emphysema and bronchitis caused by the inhalation of fumes in his employment. There is substantial evidence in this record to support the finding of occupational disease. The board was presented with a conflict in the medical testimony and it was free to accept the opinion of the claimant’s medical expert who stated that the claimant’s disabling condition was caused by the fumes to which he was exposed in his work over the course of 32 years. Certainly the constant presence and inhalation of those fumes from the molten lead provide the recognizable link between the disease *848and a distinctive feature of the claimant’s job. This is a hazard to which other workers in the claimant’s occupation are exposed and there is some evidence here indicating that other workers in the same occupation contract the same disease. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an equal 

opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Program Aid No. 2237-1 • Issued March 2019

Help keep U.S. pigs free of this deadly disease! 

Understand how the virus spreads, and 

do your part to protect against it.

Need more info? www.aphis.usda.gov

 REPORT

SICK PIGS

1-866-536-7593

PIG

PELLETS

PIG

PELLETS

G

TS

INTERNATIONAL 

TRAVELERS

CONTAMINATED 

VEHICLES & 

EQUIPMENT

CONTAMINATED

FEED

GARBAGE

FEEDING

FERAL 

SWINE

SICK PIGS

CONTAMINATED 

CLOTHING & SHOES

AFRICAN SWINE FEVER

African swine fever (ASF) 

is a virus that affects 

both domestic and wild 

pigs. It spreads very 

quickly and kills most 

pigs that get it. ASF 

has never been found 

in the United States. 

Humans cannot get 

ASF, but they can 

carry it on clothing, 

shoes, and equipment. 

An outbreak in the 

United States would 

have devastating 

economic effects on 

the swine industry. 

Don’t Spread 

This Deadly Disease

It’s easy to spread ASF—without even knowing it. 

The virus can stay on clothing and equipment 

and survive for months in pork products. Be aware of 

these potential pathways and consider them when 

creating or updating biosecurity plans.
### §121. Discontinuance of land offices by President

Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior, the President may order the discontinuance of any land office and the transfer of any of its business and archives to any other land office within the same State or Territory.

(R.S. §2252; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §2252 derived from act May 30, 1862, ch. 86, §5, 12 Stat. 409.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out under section 1451 of this title.

Words "the Commissioner of the General Land Office, approved by" omitted on authority of section 403 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1946. See note set out under section 1 of this title.

#### Delegation of Functions

For delegation to Secretary of the Interior of authority vested in President by this section, see Ex. Ord. No. 10250, June 5, 1951, 16 F.R. 5385, set out as a note under section 301 of Title 3, The President.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 2027

JOSEPHAT MUA , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND; VERJEANA M. JACOBS, Individually and as Board Chairperson of Prince George’s Public Schools; DR. WILLIAM R. HITE, JR. , I ndividually and as superintendent; ROGER COLE THOMAS, Esquire; SYNTHIA SHILLING; MONICA GOLDSON, Individually and as Associates superintendent of Prince George ’ s Public Schools; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFSCME; ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES/AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES; PIERRE DICKSON, Individually and as agent of the Boar d of Education of Prince George’ s County; DR. KEVIN MAXWELL, Individually and as superintendent of Prince George ’ s Public Schools; DR. ALVIN CRAWLEY, Individually and as superintendent; ROBERT J. GASKIN, Individually and Chief Human Resources of Prince George ’ s Public Schools; DR. LILLIAN M. LOWERY; ARDRA MO NIQUE O’ NEAL; ABBEY G. HAIRSTON , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv
- 02249

- PJM )

Submitted : February 22, 2018 Decided: February 26, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se. Judith E. Rivlin, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, Washington, D.C.; Mark James Murphy, MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublishe d opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Josephat Mua app eals the district court’s order denying his self

- styled motion to reopen his civil case against several defendants , and also challenges the district court’s
decision to retu rn to Mua a subsequently filed motion for reconsideration

. Mua has also
filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis , to exceed the length limitations for his informal brief, and to file amended and supplemental brief s
. We have reviewed the
record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the pending motions and
affirm the district court ’s order

. * See Mua v. Bd . of Educ. of Prince George’s C ty., Md. , No. 8:1 5

- cv
- 02249

- PJM (D. Md. Aug. 2 , 2017 ). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* We discern no reversible error in the district court’s refusal to entertain Mua’s motion for reconsideration.