alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                      Section 906 Certification of the CEO

                            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 Quarterly Report of Firearms Training Systems,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Ronavan Mohling, Chairman of the Board of Directors and 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:

         (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.



                                         /s/ Ronavan Mohling
                                         ======================================
                                         Ronavan Mohling
                                         Chairman of the Board of Directors and
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         November 6, 2002
Exhibit 99.2









Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Management of Protective Life Insurance Company and The Bank of New York, as Indenture Trustee of Protective
Life Secured Trust 2004-B, (collectively the "Management")
and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee of Protective Life Secured Trust 2004-B (the "Trust"):

We have examined Management's assertion, included in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)," that the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to the noteholders has occurred as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee during the year ended December 31, 2004.  Management is responsible for the assertion.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion 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 supporting management's assertion and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, Management's assertion referred to above is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the criteria defined in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)."



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, AlabamaMarch 30, 2005











Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust
Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)





Management of the Trust asserts that it has collected payments on the funding agreements and distributed payments to the noteholders as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee for the year ended December 31, 2004.  This assertion is based on the following criteria:

1. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2004, are included in Protective Life's Secured Trusts P & I Payments: 1/1/04 through 12/31/04 (P & I Payments report).
2. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2004, are included in the Indenture Trustee's History of Transactions List.
3. The amounts due on the Notes are reported as a component of the charges from Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company, on the Indenture Trustee's Payment Obligation Report System (PORS Report).
4. Charges from Cede & Co. are included in the Indenture Trustee's screen prints titled The Depository Trust Company Activity History Details, which represent the charge confirmations to Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LUIS RIVERA,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 164, 2017

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. 1102017217

§

§

§

Submitted: May 9, 2017

Decided: May 11, 2017

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.

ORDER

This 11th day of May 2017, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On April 13, 2017, the Court received the appellant’s notice of appeal. 

The notice failed to attach or provide the date of the order on appeal. In a letter 

dated April 13, 2017, the Senior Court Clerk told the appellant that the notice did 

not state the date of the order on appeal, the Superior Court docket reflected the 

appellant’s motion for correction of sentence was denied on December 27, 2016, 

and the Supreme Court could not assume the appellant wished to appeal the 

December 27, 2016 order. The Senior Court Clerk directed the appellant to file an 

amended notice of appeal with the correct date of the order by April 28, 2017 if he 

wished to appeal the Superior Court’s December 27, 2016 order. 
2

(2) The appellant did not respond to the letter. On May 1, 2017, the Chief 

Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing the appellant to show cause why this appeal 

should not be dismissed for his failure to file an amended notice of appeal by April 

28, 2017. In his response to the notice to show cause, the appellant argues the 

merits of his appeal. He does not identify the Superior Court order he wishes to 

appeal. 

(3) Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review a final 

judgment in a criminal case.1 The appellant has not identified a judgment in his 

notice of appeal. An appeal of the most recent orders on the Superior Court 

docket, a June 26, 2015 order (docketed on June 26, 2015) denying his motion for 

postconviction relief, and a December 23, 2016 order (docketed on December 27, 

2016) denying his motion for correction of sentence would be untimely.

2

 A notice 

of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the 

applicable time period in order to be effective.3 Under these circumstances, this 

appeal must be dismissed.

 

1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).

2 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv) (providing notice of appeal from postconviction order must be filed within 

thirty days of entry of order upon the docket).

3 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a); Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 482 (Del. 2012).
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
#### § 203.499 Effect of amendments.

The regulations in this subpart may be amended by the Secretary at any time and from time to time, in whole or in part, but such amendment will not adversely affect the interests of a mortgagee under the contract of insurance on any mortgage or loan already insured, and will not adversely affect the interest of a mortgagee on any mortgage or loan to be insured for which either the Direct Endorsement or Lender Insurance mortgagee has approved the mortgagor and all terms and conditions of the mortgage or loan, or the Secretary has issued a firm commitment. In addition, such amendment will not adversely affect the eligibility of specific property if such property is covered by a conditional commitment issued by the Secretary, a certificate of reasonable value issued by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or an appraisal report approved by a Direct Endorsement or Lender Insurance underwriter.

[62 FR 30227, June 2, 1997]
§ 52.8 How does the Secretary provide states an opportunity to comment on proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development? ( a ) Except in unusual circumstances, the Secretary gives state processes or directly affected state, areawide, regional and local officials and entities— ( 1 ) At least 30 days from the date established by the Secretary to comment on proposed Federal financial assistance under: ( i ) A covered mortgage insurance program,
( ii ) the Urban Development Action Grant Program, or
( iii ) the Housing Development Grant Program.
( 2 ) At least 60 days from the date established by the Secretary to comment on proposed Federal financial assistance other than under a program covered by paragraph (a)(1).
( b ) This section also applies to comments in cases in which the review, coordination, and communication with the Department have been delegated.
( c ) Applicants for programs and activities subject to section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Act shall allow areawide agencies a 60-day opportunity for review and comment.
[48 FR 29216, June 24, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 24653, June 14, 1984]
§ 58.75 Permissible bases for objections. HUD (or the State), will consider objections claiming a responsible entity's noncompliance with this part based only on any of the following grounds: ( a ) The certification was not in fact executed by the responsible entity's Certifying Officer.
( b ) The responsible entity has failed to make one of the two findings pursuant to § 58.40 or to make the written determination required by §§ 58.35, 58.47 or 58.53 for the project, as applicable.
( c ) The responsible entity has omitted one or more of the steps set forth at subpart E of this part for the preparation, publication and completion of an EA.
( d ) The responsible entity has omitted one or more of the steps set forth at subparts F and G of this part for the conduct, preparation, publication and completion of an EIS.
( e ) The recipient or other participants in the development process have committed funds, incurred costs or undertaken activities not authorized by this part before release of funds and approval of the environmental certification by HUD (or the state).
( f ) Another Federal agency acting pursuant to 40 CFR part 1504 has submitted a written finding that the project is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of environmental quality.
[61 FR 19122, Apr. 30, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 56130, Sept. 29, 2003]
### §40703. Effective date of rates

Notwithstanding section 40501(e) of this title and except for service contracts, a rate, charge, classification, rule, or regulation of a controlled carrier may not become effective, without special permission of the Federal Maritime Commission, until the 30th day after publication.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §7, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1536.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 40703 | 46 App.:1708(c) (1st sentence). | Pub. L. 98–237, §9(c) (1st sentence), Mar. 20, 1984, 98 Stat. 76; Pub. L. 102–100, §5(b), Aug. 17, 1991, 105 Stat. 492; Pub. L. 105–258, title I, §108(8), Oct. 14, 1998, 112 Stat. 1908. |

Section
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Nathan Caruso and Jennifer Donner, 

Appellant

No. 06-18-00081-CV v.

Nathaniel Young, Appellee

Appeal from the 200th District Court of 

Travis County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. D-1-GN15-000993). Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of prosecution. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Nathan Caruso and Jennifer Donner, pay all costs of 

this appeal.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 9, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
### §716. Repealed. Aug. 24, 1954, ch. 904, §2, 68 Stat. 792

Section, R.S. §2385, related to size of lots or plat varying from general rule.
#### § 905.106 Compliance.

PHAs or owner/management entities or their partners are required to comply with all applicable provisions of this part. Execution of the CF ACC Amendment, submissions required by this part, and disbursement of Capital Fund grants from HUD are individually and collectively deemed to be the PHA's certification that it is in compliance with the provisions of this part and all other Public Housing Program Requirements. Noncompliance with any provision of this part or other applicable requirements may subject the PHA and/or its partners to sanctions contained in § 905.804 of this part.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 666

_____________________________
B RA N DON M. L EWIS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Elijah Smiley , Judge

. February 5, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OWE , M AKAR , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public Defender
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Daniel R. Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General
, for Appellee.
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF CELLU TISSUE HOLDINGS, INC.

|Name of Subsidiary                        |  | State of Incorporation/Organization
|----------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|Cellu Tissue Corporation-Natural Dam      |  | Delaware                           
|Cellu Tissue Corporation-Neenah           |  | Delaware                           
|Cellu Tissue LLC                          |  | Delaware                           
|Coastal Paper Company                     |  | Virginia                           
|Interlake Acquisition Corporation Limited |  | Nova Scotia, Canada                
|Menominee Acquisition Corporation         |  | Delaware                           
|Van Paper Company                         |  | Mississippi                        
|Van Timber Company                        |  | Mississippi                        

---
___________

No. 96-1259

___________

Roy C. Henderson, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Marvin Evans, Eddie Yarbrough, *

Ivan King and Luther Alexander, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellants. *

___________

 Submitted: September 9, 1996

 Filed: September 17, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roy C. Henderson, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction,

brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against several prison officials,

alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment. Ultimately a jury returned

a verdict in Henderson's favor against one of the defendants and awarded

Henderson $500 in damages. Judgment was entered in accordance with the

jury verdict. In addition, the District Court granted a motion filed by

Henderson's court-appointed attorney for attorney fees and expenses in the

total amount of $10,487.80.

The state appeals, arguing that the court abused its discretion in

failing to reduce the amount of fees and expenses requested by Henderson's

counsel, considering that Henderson prevailed against only one of the

defendants and on less than all
-2-

of his claims. Having reviewed the case, we conclude that no abuse of

discretion occurred. Given the circumstances of the case, we cannot say

that the award of fees and expenses is unreasonable in amount.

AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### subpart e—general provisions
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year
ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ JAMES A. CALDERJames A. CalderChief Financial Officer
§ 964.415 Resident board members. ( a ) *General.* Except as provided in §§ 964.405(b) and 964.425, the membership of the governing board of each public housing agency must contain not less than one eligible resident board member.
( b ) *Resident board member no longer directly assisted.* ( 1 ) A resident board member who ceases to be directly assisted by the public housing agency is no longer an “eligible resident” as defined in § 964.410.
( 2 ) Such a board member may be removed from the PHA board for that cause, where such action is permitted under State or local law.
( 3 ) Alternatively, the board member may be allowed to complete his/her current term as a member of the governing board. However, the board member may not be re-appointed (or re-elected) to the governing board for purposes of serving as the statutorily required resident board member.
( c ) *Minimum qualifications for board membership.* Any generally applicable qualifications for board membership also apply to residents, unless the application of the requirements would result in the governing board not containing at least one eligible resident as a member. Further, PHAs and localities may not establish eligibility requirements for board membership that are solely applicable to residents.
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION


I, JOHN P. GRAZER, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
 periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Ameriquest
 Mortgage Securities, Inc. 2004-R7:

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, does 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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling
and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion is included in these
reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement and based upon my
knowledge and the annual compliance required under that agreement, and except
as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
that agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
report provided by and independent public account, after conducting a review
in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company.

<page>



Date: March 1, 2005

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC.


/s/: John P Grazer
John P Grazer
CFO
```

                                         NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
                                           AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
                       ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BY-LAWS

       The following documents of Navistar International Corporation are incorporated herein by reference:

     3.1  Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Navistar International  Corporation effective July 1, 1993, filed
          as Exhibit 3.2 to Annual Report on Form 10-K dated October 31, 1993,  which was filed on January 27, 1994,
          Commission File No. 1-9618, and amended as of May 4, 1998.

     3.2  The By-Laws of Navistar  International  Corporation  effective  February 14, 1995, filed as Exhibit 3.2 on
          Annual  Report on Form 10-K dated  October 31, 1995,  which was filed on January 26, 1996,  on  Commission
          File No. 1-9618.

                                                        E-1
```
Ken Lloyd, Denver Regional Air Quality Council (Colorado)

February 24, 2016

Summary of USB estimates

(2 pages)
US Background Ozone

Percent Contribution to 2017 Design Valu

Ken Lloyd, Executive Director

Source: EPA Implementation of the 2015 Primary Ozone NAAQS: Issues Associated with Background Ozone White Paper for Discussion, Dec. 22, 2015

55% 57%

90%

70% 69%

52% 49% 44% 42% 53% 47% 41%

35% 31% 37% 37% 33% 30% 30

10% 11%

4%

10% 14%

6%

2%

6%

3%

7%

3% 15%

19%

40% 25% 29%

49%

32%

23

35% 32%

6%

20% 17%

42%

49% 50% 55%

40%

50%

44% 46%

29%

38% 34%

18%

38%

47

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

West California East
2017 Contributions to Ozon

Chatfield Monitor (Douglas County, Colora

US

Background

47.3 ppb

61%

Colorado

17.8 ppb

23%

Interstate

12.4 ppb

16%

Ken Lloyd, Executive Director

Source: Denver 2011/2017 Modeling Update, Ramboll Environ and Alpine Geophysics, February 8, 2016

2017 Des

77.6
# United States Court **of Appeals** 
**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 11114 Summary Calendar

**Khue Nguyen,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant
**,**

versus

**Hai Phu Nguyen; Mai Tuyet Nguyen; Que Dang Nguyen; Anh Kim Nguyen; Hoa Thi Ta Le; Hien The Ta; Lai Xuan**  **Ta; Ngo Thi Ngoan; Does 1**

**- 5,** 

Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern D istrict of Texas USDC No. 4:20

- CV

- 120

Before **Clement** , **Haynes** , and **Higginson** , Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 7, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-11114 Document: 00516227401 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2022No. 21

- 11114

2 Appellant fails to present any non

- frivolous arguments on appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED.** See **5th**
**Cir. R.** 47.6. Case: 21-11114 Document: 00516227401 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2022
§ 1217.10 Providing records during an audit. ( a ) ONRR or an authorized State or Tribe may specify the method an auditee must use to provide records for all audits conducted under this chapter, statute, or agreement. The methods may include one or more of the following: ( 1 ) Inspect records at an auditee's place of business during normal business hours;
( 2 ) Send records using secure electronic means. When requesting that records be provided electronically, ONRR or the authorized State or Tribe will specify the format in which the records shall be produced, directions for electronic transmission, and instructions to ensure secure transmission; or
( 3 ) Deliver hard copy records using the U.S. Postal Service, special courier, overnight mail, or other delivery service to an address specified by ONRR or an authorized State or Tribe.
( b ) [Reserved]