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

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|

**REG      AB 1123 Statement of Compliance**

| a)   | A                review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and                of its                performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made                under                my supervision. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| b)   | To                the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth                below                IndyMac                Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the agreement in                all                material respects                throughout the reporting                period. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| c)   | None |
|----------------|------|

|                  By:              |  /s/  Robert              M. Abramian |
|---------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |  Robert              M. Abramian                |
|                                        |  First              Vice President              |
|                                        |  Home              Loans Servicing              |
|                                        |  Investor              Reporting                |
|                                        |  IndyMac              Bank                      |
|                                        |                                                 |
|                                        |                                                 |
|                    By:  |  /s/  Bart              Vincent       |
|                                        |  Bart              Vincent                      |
|                                        |  First              Vice President              |
|                                        |  HLS-Finance                                    |
|                                        |  Financial                                      |
|                                        |  IndyMac              Bank                      |

|  Prepared              for: |  LaSalle              Bank            |
|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                             |                                       |
|  Date:                      |  February              28, 2007       |
|                             |                                       |
|  Ref:                       |  MLMI              2006-HE5  431 |

----
Exhibit










EXHIBIT 10.3


EXHIBIT A


PDC ENERGY, INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


PLAN FREEZE AMENDMENT 


THIS PLAN FREEZE AMENDMENT to the PDC Energy, Inc. Amended and Restated Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) is adopted on this 7th day of December, 2017 (the “Effective Date”). 


PREAMBLE


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of PDC Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) has the general authority to amend, modify, or terminate the Plan pursuant to Section 10.7 of the Plan; and


 WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Plan as set forth herein to implement a Plan freeze, effective as of the Effective Date.


NOW THEREFORE, the Board hereby amends the Plan as follows:


AMENDMENT


1.Terms of Amendment.  As of the Effective Date, a new Article XII is added to the Plan, to read as follows:


“ARTICLE XII
PLAN FREEZE


Section 12.1 Implementation of Plan Freeze.  The Plan is hereby frozen effective as of December 7, 2017 (the “Effective Date”).  On and after the Effective Date, (i) no new Participants shall be permitted in the Plan, (ii) no new Deferred Compensation Elections shall be permitted under the Plan, and (iii) any Deferred Compensation Elections that would otherwise roll forward and apply automatically in respect of future Plan Years shall be deemed null and void with respect to such future Plan Years.  Nothing in this Article XII shall affect Deferred Compensation Elections in effect as of the Effective Date.  Participant Accounts shall continue to be administered and shall be distributed in accordance with the remaining provisions of the Plan.”  
                    
2.    Remaining Provisions of Plan Unaffected.  All terms and conditions of the Plan other than those specifically amended herein shall be unaffected by this Amendment and shall continue in full force and effect.  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, by its duly authorized officer, has executed this Plan Freeze Amendment as of the date first indicated above.















PDC ENERGY, INC.
A Delaware corporation




     
By:  Daniel W. Amidon    
Its:   SVP General Counsel and Secretary
### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CLYDE LACY RATTLER, ) ) Petitioner, ) 

# FILED JUl 1 9 2010 Clerk. U.S. District &Bankru tc Courts for the District of

### CO'U~bra

) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 

# 10 1213 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ) ) Respondent. )


### MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on review ofpetitioner's application to proceed 

### in forma pauperis and.his

### pro sepetition for a writ ofmandamus. The Court will grant the

application and deny the petition. Mandamus reliefis proper only if"(l) the plaintiffhas a clear right to relief; 

### (2) the defendant has a clear dutyto act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to plaintiff." 

### Council of and for the Blind of Delaware County Valley v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521,1533 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (enbanc). The party seeking mandamus has the "burden ofshowing that [his] right to issuance ofthe writ is 'clear and indisputable.'" 

### GulfstreamAerospace Corp. v. 

### Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citing

### Bankers Life & 

### Cas. Co. v. 

### Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384 (1953)). Where the action petitioner seeks to compel is discretionary, hehas no clearright to reliefand mandamus therefore is not an appropriate remedy. 

### See, e.g., Heckler v. 

### Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984). Petitioner does not establish any ofthese elements. Petitioner alleges that he submitted an application for benefits under the Federal Labor Compensation Act, CompI.**~** 3, and that the defendant failed to process it, 

### id.**~** 4. According to

### petitioner, the defendant has a "ministerial duty and honor to except [sic] and process [the] application," id.**~** 

### 5, yet has refused to do so, see id.**~** 

### 7. He demands a court order compelling the defendant to accept and to process his application, and he demands an award "inthe amount ofan unlimited sum ofmoney." Id.**~** 

### 9. Based on these conclusory allegations, the Court concludes that petitioner fails to show his clearright to relief, the Labor Department's clear duty to act, and the lack ofany otherremedy. His petition will be denied. An 

### Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this
same date.



### Date:

# MIf)I 02 '010
# 22.403-2 Copeland Act.

The Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act (18 U.S.C.874 and 40 U.S.C.3145) makes it unlawful to induce, by force, intimidation, threat of procuring dismissal from employment, or otherwise, any person employed in the *construction* or repair of public buildings or public works, financed in whole or in part by the *United States*, to give up any part of the compensation to which that person is entitled under a contract of employment. The Copeland Act also requires each contractor and subcontractor to furnish weekly a statement of compliance with respect to the *wages* paid each employee during the preceding week. Contracts subject to the Copeland Act *shall* contain a clause (see 52.222-10) requiring contractors and subcontractors to comply with the regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor under the Copeland Act.

**Parent topic:**22.403 Statutory, Executive Order, and regulatory requirements.
§ 625.6 Establishing priority for enrollment in HFRP. ( a ) *Ranking considerations.* Based on the specific criteria set forth in a sign-up announcement and the applications for participation, NRCS, in coordination FWS and NMFS, may consider the following factors to rank properties: ( 1 ) Estimated conservation benefit to habitat required by threatened or endangered species listed under section 4 of the ESA;
( 2 ) Estimated conservation benefit to habitat required by species not listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the ESA but that are candidates for such listing, State-listed species, or deemed of greatest conservation need under a State wildlife action plan, or species identified by the Chief for special consideration for funding;
( 3 ) Estimated improvement of biological diversity, if enrolled;
( 4 ) Potential for increased capability of carbon sequestration, if enrolled;
( 5 ) Availability of contribution of non-Federal funds;
( 6 ) Significance of forest ecosystem functions and values;
( 7 ) Estimated cost-effectiveness of the particular restoration cost-share agreement, contract, or easement, and associated HFRP restoration plan; and
( 8 ) Other factors identified in a HFRP sign-up notice.
( b ) NRCS may place higher priority on certain forest ecosystems based regions of the State or multi-State area where restoration of forestland may better achieve NRCS programmatic and sign-up goals and objectives.
( c ) Notwithstanding any limitation of this part, NRCS may enroll eligible lands at any time in order to encompass project areas subject to multiple land ownership or otherwise to achieve program objectives. Similarly, NRCS may, at any time, exclude otherwise eligible lands if the participation of the adjacent landowners is essential to the successful restoration of the forest ecosystem and those adjacent landowners are unwilling to participate.
( d ) If available funds are insufficient to accept the highest ranked application, and the applicant is not interested in reducing the acres offered to match available funding, NRCS may select a lower ranked application that can be fully funded. In cases where HFRP funds are not sufficient to cover the costs of an application selected for funding, the applicant may lower the cost of the application by changing the duration of the easement or agreement or reducing the acreage offered, unless these changes result in a reduction of the application ranking score below that of the score of the next available application on the ranking list.
[75 FR 6546, Feb. 10, 2010, as amended at 84 FR 19703, May 6, 2019]
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:02-cr-00022-MP-AK

THAD M PEMBERTON,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 535, Motion Terminate Supervised Release, by

Thad M Pemberton. After consultation with the government and the probation office, the Court

determines that the motion should be granted. It is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The Supervised Release of Thad Pemberton is terminated and Mr. Pemberton is no

longer subject to supervised release.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of March, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:02-cr-00022-MP Document 536 Filed 03/26/09 Page 1 of 1
----

|   | (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q      of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange      Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));  and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

|   | (2) | the information contained in the      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition      and results of operations of theCompany. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      May 14, 2008 |   | /s/      ANDREW A. FARINA |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|                     |   | Andrew A. Farina          |
|                     |   | Principal      Financial Officer    |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. CASE NO. 5:99-cr-4/RS

PHYNERRIAN MANNING,

Defendant. 

_________________________________________ /

UORDER

The Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant’s Motion Requesting Defendant’s 

Presence at Hearing (Doc. 214) and Motion to Supplement Record and Make Arguments 

at Hearing (Doc. 215) not later than April 21, 2011. 

ORDERED on April 14, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
May 18, 2015

Dear Sir or Madam: Precision Unmanned Aerial would like to formally request the removal of closed - set filing from our proposed operation on petition ID# FAA- 2015 - 0288. If yo u have any other question don’ t hesitate to contact me. Ph.305 - 218 - 5954 Email rswakon@flypua.com Ryan Swakon / Managing Member Precision Unmanned Aerial, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:88cr05040-01/RV

KUNTA ALLAH MUWWAKIL 

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on September 11, 2008

Motion/Pleadings: Motion to Reduce Sentence (re Retroactive Application of Sentencing

Guidelines to Crack Cocaine Offense 18 USC 3582) 

Filed by Defendant on 4/16/2008 Doc.# 232

RESPONSES:

 United States on 4/24/2008 

 

 Doc.# 233 

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 13th day of

 November , 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) The Defendant’s Sentencing Guideline Range is not affected by 

Amendment 706.

 /s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 5:88-cr-05040-RV-EMT Document 239 Filed 11/13/08 Page 1 of 1
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 5 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 5 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 2
#### § 653.2 Technical standards and criteria.

Technical standards and criteria have been established for all conservation practices. They provide the guidance and direction needed to assure that the practices meet the intended purpose and are of the quality needed to assure lasting for the design life. Standards and criteria are developed in consultation with universities, research institutions, and individual industrial and private firms and individuals. Research information and practical experience are used in setting standards. Changes and new technical standards and criteria are prepared in the same manner as set out above.
52.222-16 Approval of Wage Rates.

As prescribed in 22.407(b), insert the following clause:

Approval of Wage Rates (May 2014)

All straight time wage rates, and overtime rates based thereon, for laborers and mechanics engaged

in work under this contract must be submitted for approval in writing by the head of the contracting

activity or a representative expressly designated for this purpose, if the straight time wages exceed

the rates for corresponding classifications contained in the applicable Construction Wage Rate

Requirements minimum wage determination included in the contract. Any amount paid by the

Contractor to any laborer or mechanic in excess of the agency approved wage rate shall be at the

expense of the Contractor and shall not be reimbursed by the Government. If the Government

refuses to authorize the use of the overtime, the Contractor is not released from the obligation to

pay employees at the required overtime rates for any overtime actually worked.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.222 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs. Case No: 5:98cr8/LAC 

CARLOS DEGLACE

ORDER

The defendant has filed a motion to appeal and a request for a certificate of

appealability of the court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment. (Doc. 412

and 413). Because the defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right, his request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

No motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis has been filed. Even if one had

been filed, because the court finds that the appeal is not taken in good faith, defendant

would not be entitled to so proceed. Defendant shall pay the $255.00 filing fee within thirty

days.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of July, 2005.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:98-cr-00008-LC-MD Document 415-2 Filed 07/06/05 Page 1 of 1
Certificate of Formation of Carrizo (Marcellus) LLC



 Exhibit 4.10 
 CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION 
 OF 
 CARRIZO (MARCELLUS) LLC 
 This Certificate of Formation of Carrizo (Marcellus)
LLC (the “Company”) is being executed and filed by the undersigned authorized person for the purpose of forming a limited liability company under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act. 
 Article One 
 The name of the Company
is Carrizo (Marcellus) LLC. 
 Article Two 
 The address of the registered office of the Company in the State of Delaware is 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, New Castle County, Delaware 19801, and the Company’s registered agent at that address is The
Corporation Trust Company. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Formation this 3rd day of September, 2008.

  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Jason A. Rocha

		 	Jason A. Rocha
		 	Authorized Person
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MARCELLE ANN ANGALL-LEONCE 

and ROMANUS SYLVESTER LEONCE, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. Case No.: 1:20-cv-127-AW-GRJ

ON POINT TRANSPORT, INC., and 

JOSEPH MISATULI LEIA

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

VERDICT

We, the jury, return the following verdict:

1. Was there negligence on the part of Defendant, JOSEPH MISATULI LEIA, which 

was a legal cause of loss, injury or damage to the Plaintiff, MARCELLE ANN ANGALLLEONCE?

ANSWER: YES NO

If your answer to question 1 is NO, your verdict is for the Defendants, and you should not proceed 

further, except to date and sign this verdict form and return it to the courtroom. If your answer to 

question 1 is YES, please answer question 2.

2. What is the amount of any damages sustained by Plaintiff, MARCELLE ANN 

ANGALL-LEONCE, for medical expenses, 

a. in the past? $

b. in the future? $

Please answer question 3.

3. What is the amount of any damages sustained by the Plaintiff, MARCELLE ANN 

ANGALL-LEONCE, for lost earnings or earning ability, 

a. in the past? $

b. in the future? $

c. Total of the above damages (add lines 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b) $

Please answer question 4.
4. Were any of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff, MARCELLE ANN ANGALLLEONCE, as a result of this crash, in whole or in part, permanent, within a reasonable degree of 

medical probability?

ANSWER: YES NO

If your answer to question 4 is NO, you should not proceed further except to date and sign this 

verdict form and return it to the courtroom. If your answer to question 4 is YES, please answer 

question 5.

5. What is the total amount of Plaintiff, MARCELLE ANN ANGALL-LEONCE’s 

damages for pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, 

inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical defect and loss of capacity for the enjoyment 

of life sustained in the past and to be sustained in the future?

a. in the past? $

b. in the future? $

c. Total of the above damages (add lines 5a and 5b): $

Please answer question 6.

Total of the above damages (add lines 3c and 5c): $

SO SAY WE ALL, this day of April, 2021.

FOREPERSON
Exhibit 31  PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Boris Rubizhevsky, certify that:  (1)    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of BioCube, Inc.;  (2)    Based on my knowledge, this annual report 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 with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  (3)    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;  (4)     I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and I have:  (a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the issuer is made known to me by others within the entity, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  (b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon based such evaluation; and  (c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;  (5)    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management, consultants or other employees who have or had a significant role in the issuer's internal controls over financial reporting.  Dated: May 16, 2013By:/s/ Boris RubizhevskyBoris Rubizhevsky
Chief Executive and Financial Officer