alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 45



		

			Exhibit 4.5

		




		
			
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			March 15, 2018
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Securities and Exchange Commission 
		

		
			100 F Street, NE
		

		
			Washington, D.C. 20549
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Re: Central Federal Corporation —Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Ladies and Gentlemen:
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Central Federal Corporation, a Delaware  corporation, is today filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") its Annual Report on Form 10-K of Central Federal Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.
		

		
			Pursuant to the instructions relating to the Exhibits in Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, Central Federal Corporation hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon request, copies of instruments defining the rights of holders of long-term debt and of the long-term debt of its consolidated subsidiaries, which are not being filed as exhibits to Central Federal Corporation’s 2017 Annual Report on Form 10-K.  None of such long-term debt exceeds 10% of the total assets of Central Federal Corporation and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.
		

		
			Very truly yours,
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			CENTRAL FEDERAL CORPORATION
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			/s/Timothy T. O’Dell
		

		
			Timothy T. O’Dell
		

		
			President and Chief Executive Officer
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                      10,967,994
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               39,264,516
<ALLOWANCES>                                   457,247
<INVENTORY>                                 11,340,714
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            64,874,838
<PP&E>                                      49,417,377
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,726,272
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             103,890,664 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       24,449,863  
<BONDS>                                      9,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,033
<OTHER-SE>                                  69,785,965
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               103,890,664
<SALES>                                     98,080,821
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            98,080,821
<CGS>                                       39,688,701
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               39,688,701
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (207,753)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             622,315
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             19,753,338
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,814,902
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         12,938,436
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                12,938,436
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
        

</TABLE>
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MAY 10, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16887 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 4 3 - CR- O C- 1 0 - G RJ U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R A N D A L L S C O T T K I M B R E L L , a .k .a . M y s tiic k , a .k .a . G r im 9 , a .k .a . X e o x an , a .k .a . A lp h a ly c a o n , a .k .a . S h a d e , a .k .a . L y c a o n s h a d e , D e f e n d an t- A p p e llan t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 10, 2007)2

B efo re A N D E R S O N , W IL S O N an dP R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E RC U R I A M: T h o m a s H . O s tr an d e r , E s q ., ap p o in te dc o u n s e l f o rR an d a ll S c o tt K im b r e ll, h a s f ile dam o tio n to w ith d r aw o n ap p e a l s up p o rte db yab r ie f p r e p ar e dp u r s u an t to A nde r s v. C a l i f

orni a , 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 493 ( 1967) . O ur i nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of

the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s c ouns e l ’ s a s s e s s m e ntof the r e l a t i ve m e r it o f th e ap p e a l is c o rr e c t. I n d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o ar g u ab le is s u e s o f

m e r it, th e r e f

o r e , c o u n s e l’s m o tio n to w ith d r aw is G R A N TED , and K i m brel l ’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence ar e A FFI R M ED .
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 339 

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing 

activities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2005 

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, 

and Mr. ENSIGN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain 

hunting and fishing activities. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reaffirmation of State 

5 Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and 

6 Fishing Act of 2005’’. 

7 SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF 

8 CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—It is the policy of Congress that 

10 it is in the public interest for each State to continue to 
2 

•S 339 IS

1 regulate the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife 

2 within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regu3 lations that differentiate between residents and non4 residents of such State with respect to the availability of 

5 licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish 

6 or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that 

7 may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with 

8 issuance of licenses or permits for hunting or fishing. 

9 (b) CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE.— 

10 Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to 

11 impose any barrier under clause 3 of Section 8 of Article 

12 I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the ‘‘com13 merce clause’’) to the regulation of hunting or fishing by 

14 a State or Indian tribe. 

15 SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS. 

16 Nothing in this Act shall be construed— 

17 (1) to limit the applicability or effect of any 

18 Federal law related to the protection or management 

19 of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce; 

20 (2) to limit the authority of the United States 

21 to prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the 

22 lands owned by the United States; or 

23 (3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, super24 sede or alter any treaty-reserved right or other right 

25 of any Indian tribe as recognized by any other 
3 

•S 339 IS

1 means, including, but not limited to, agreements 

2 with the United States, Executive Orders, statutes, 

3 and judicial decrees, and by Federal law. 

4 SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED. 

5 For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘State’’ includes 

6 the several States, the District of Columbia, the Common7 wealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Amer8 ican Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mar9 iana Islands. 

Æ
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10836

Conference Calendar

 

CLINTON CUMMINGS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOE DONALDSON, Dr., Employee, Texas

Department Criminal Justice Jordan Unit,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:94-CV-11

- - - - - - - - - - - -

April 8, 1998

Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Clinton Cummings, Texas prisoner # 637608, appeals the

district court’s denial of his motion for the entry of judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. He alleged that the

district court did not enter a final judgment in a separate

document as required by Fed. Rs. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a). He moves

this court for an extension of time to file his brief, for a

transcript of his trial at government expense, and for 
No. 97-10836

- 2 -

appointment of appellate counsel. 

The record shows that the district court entered a final

judgment in a separate document from its order stating its

findings of fact. Cummings’ appeal is frivolous and entirely

without merit and is DISMISSED in accordance with 5th Cir. R.

42.2. His motions are DENIED.

DISMISSED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

January 26, 2007

NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY

To: Attorney Sydney Albert Smith

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: U.S.A. vs. Henry Erik Yapias

Case Number: 3:06cr204-MEF

Referenced Pleading: Motion to Continue and Motion for a Psychiatric Exam

 Documents #30 & #31

The above referenced pleadings filed by electronic means on 1/25/07 do

not contain your electronic signature on the signature page or the

certificate of service page as required by the Criminal Administrative

Procedures.

Please file a signature page and certificate of service page by

conventional means for the referenced pleadings with your electronic

signature as soon as possible.

Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
|  |  | [if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have  reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection  (FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the  FDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's  suite of cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S.  Government Publications.
 
Title: Truck  crash profile [electronic resource]: the national picture.
SuDoc Number: TD 2.315:
Item Number:  0689-A-12 (online)
1996
1997
1998
 
 
A service of the Superintendent of Documents,  U.S. Government Printing Office..

 

Last updated:  January 17,  2017  Page Name:  https://permanent.fdlp.gov/gpo8291/index.htm
  |
|--|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### § 993.347 Assessment rate.

On and after August 1, 2022, an assessment rate of $0.33 per ton of salable dried prunes is established for California dried prunes.

[88 FR 14484, Mar. 9, 2023]
#### §§ 1041.131-1041.139 [Reserved]
#### Cooper *v.*Bowen.

May 15, 1913.

Equitable petition, etc. Before Judge Martin. Dodge superior court. July 30, 1912.

*W. M. Clements*and *W. L. & Warren Grice,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. M. Morrison*and *Eschol Graham,*contra.

Evans, P. J.

1. A plaintiff, alleging herself to be the surviving partner-of a partnership, brought a suit in trover to recover property as belonging to'the firm. Subsequently the same plaintiff filed a suit in equity against the same defendant to recover other property of the partnership, praying for an accounting, a receiver, and a merger of the trover suit in the equitable action. *Held,*that it was not error to consolidate the former suit with the equitable action.

2. A verdict rendered in the equity suit in favor of the plaintiff for “$750 with interest” is not void. There being no specific allegations in the pleadings for the recovery of any particular stun with interest from a particular time, which would serve to impress the verdict as having relation to fixing interest on the amount recovered from a particular date, the verdict will be construed as a recovery of interest from the date of the verdict.

3. A defendant can not complain that the plaintiff’s verdict is for a les-, amount than that authorized by the evidence.

4. The verdict is supported by the evidence.

5. Assignments of •error upon the rulings on demurrer and the allowance of an amendment were not discussed in the brief, .and will be treated as abandoned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
**Exhibit 31**

**SEMT 2012-6**

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d)Certification. 

I, Christopher J. Abate, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-6 (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicingagreements in all material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, Ihave reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Corelogic Tax Services, LLC, Assurant, Inc., Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, PHH Mortgage Corporation as Servicer, Wells FargoBank, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent. 

Date: April 1, 2019 

/s/ Christopher J.Abate                                                             

Signature 

Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Financial Officer 

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Exhibit








 Exhibit 10.2


CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENTS


Richard J. Christensen
Michel C. Cadieux
Mark de Vere White
Thomas L. Deitrich
R. Bruce Douglas
Barbara J. Doyle
Dennis Faerber
Joan S. Hooper
Robert G. Hrivnak
Darren K. Lacey
Charles McAtee
Philip C. Mezey
Sharelynn F. Moore
Simon Pontin
Russell E. Vanos
Shannon M. Votava
§ 983.152 Failed lots/rework procedure. ( a ) *Inshell rework procedure for aflatoxin.* If inshell rework is selected as a remedy to meet the aflatoxin regulations of this part, then 100% of the product within that lot shall be removed from the bulk and/or retail packaging containers and reworked to remove the portion of the lot that caused the failure. Reworking shall consist of mechanical, electronic, or manual procedures normally used in the handling of pistachios. After the rework procedure has been completed, the total weight of the accepted product and the total weight of the rejected product shall be reported to the committee. The reworked lot shall be sampled and tested for aflatoxin as specified in § 983.150, except that the lot sample size and the test sample size shall be doubled. If, after the lot has been reworked and tested, it fails the aflatoxin test for a second time, the lot may be shelled and the kernels reworked, sampled, and tested in the manner specified for an original lot of kernels, or the failed lot may be used for non-human consumption or otherwise disposed of.
( b ) *Kernel rework procedure for aflatoxin.* If pistachio kernel rework is selected as a remedy to meet the aflatoxin regulations in § 983.150, then 100% of the product within that lot shall be removed from the bulk and/or retail packaging containers and reworked to remove the portion of the lot that caused the failure. Reworking shall consist of mechanical, electronic, or manual procedures normally used in the handling of pistachios. After the rework procedure has been completed, the total weight of the accepted product and the total weight of the rejected product shall be reported to the committee. The reworked lot shall be sampled and tested for aflatoxin as specified in § 983.150.
[74 FR 56531, Nov. 2, 2009]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., )

P.C. d/b/a THE PAIN CENTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv711-MHT

) 

SKILSTAF, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., )

P.C. d/b/a THE PAIN CENTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv728-MHT

) 

SKILSTAF, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the above-styled cases are not

consolidated on the merits.

DONE, this the 18th day of October, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 31 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 1 of 1
# South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley D rive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.aqmd.gov

Ms. Carol Sutkus, Manager South Coast Air Quality Planning 

### Air Resources Board 1001 I Street P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 Re: SIP Submittal: 

### Ru.L e 1130

- Graphi c A rts Dear Ms. Sutkus: July 21,2014

Attached you will find information pertaining to Rule 1130 which was amended by the South Coast 

### Air Quality Management District Governing Board on May 2 , 2014
. We are requesting that upon your review and concurrence the attached information be provided to EPA for its review and inclusion in the S IP
. If you have any questions on this submittal, please contact 

### Mr. Naveen Berry, Planning & Rules Manager, VOC Rules, at (909) 396

-2363.

EC:PF:NB:DO:DH Attachments: SIP Completeness Checklist APCD/AQMD Rule Evaluation Form Clean Copy of Amended Rule Strikeout Copy of Amended Ru le Proof ofPublication Signed Board Resolution/Minutes Sincerely,

# ~~~ /J Elaine Chang, DrPH Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources

StaffReport (includes public comments & responses)
cc: Andrew Steckei!U.S. EPA Region IX (w/o attachments) Mary Leonard/SCAQMD (w/o attachments) Philip Fine/SCAQMD (w/o attachments) Naveen Berry/SCAQMD (w/o attachments) David Ono/SCAQMD (w/o attachments) SIP File (w/attachments) 

# Cleaning the air that 

# •ve breathe ... '
Exhibit
      32.2
 
 Section
      1350 Certification
 
 In connection with the quarterly report
of China Industrial Waste Management, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), I, Guo Xin, 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:
 
 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.
 November
      12, 2009
                  
                  /s/ Guo
      XinGuo
      XinChief
      Financial Officer
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### VAUGHAN, Respondent, v. VAUGHAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 11, 1914.)

Action by Charlotte Vaughan against Edward Vaughan. W, L. Bunnell, of New York City, for appellant. A. J. Hiers, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to renew as stated in order. Order filed.
#### § 959.100 Order.

Order means Order No. 959 (§§ 959.1 to 959.92; 26 FR 704) regulating the handling of onions grown in South Texas.
#### Caroline Morgenstern, Respondent, v. Emanuel B. Morgenstern, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 27, 1966, modified, on the law and the facts, (a) by deleting from the first decretal paragraph the words “ void in its entirety *ah initio,*and of no force and effect ” and (b) by substituting therefor the words “ ineffectual and unenforcible insofar as it purports to waive plaintiff’s right to support and counsel fees incurred by her in enforcing that right.” As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. The following findings of facts are reversed: “ 8 ” insofar as it ascribes certain facts to the “ urging of the defendant ”; “ 17 ” insofar as it refers to Moyse as a friend of defendant; “20” insofar as it includes the statement “ without a similar release ” by defendant; and “21” insofar as it states that “no consideration passed from defendant to plaintiff” for the separation agreement. In our opinion, the parts of the separation agreement herein adjudged ineffectual and unenforcible are separable from the rest of the agreement; and their ineffectuality does not require a striking down of the entire agreement *(Schiff*v. *Sehiff,*270 App. Div. 845; *Matter of Brenner,*44 N. Y. S. 2d 447, affd. 268 App. Div. 1001; *Hoops*v. *Hoops,*266 App. Div. 512; *Stahl*v. *Stahl,*16 A D 2d 467; *Matter of Frisch,*49 Misc 2d 898; *Matter of Lee,*6 Misc 2d 799; *Cohen*v. *Cohen,*88 N. Y. S. 2d 483). We do not reach the question of the validity of any other provision in this agreement, as that question is not now before us for determination. Beldoek, P. J., TJghetta, Christ, Hill and *Benjamin,*JJ., concur.