alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 20.4

                           [WFS FINANCIAL LETTERHEAD]

January 24, 1997


Chase Manhattan Bank of Delaware              Standard & Poor's Ratings Services
1201 Market Street                            A division of McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Wilmington, Delaware  19801                   25 Broadway
                                              New York, NY  10004

Bankers Trust Company                         Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
4 Albany Street                               99 Church Street
New York, New York 10015                      New York, NY  10007

Financial Security Assurance Inc.
350 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022


Re:        Annual Statement as to Compliance for
           WFS Financial 1996-C Owner Trust

Dear Sir or Madam:

                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE

Pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement ("Agreement") dated
as of September 1, 1996, the undersigned officers of WFS Financial Inc (the
"Master Servicer") certify that:

           (i) a review of the activities of the Master Servicer since the
closing date and of its performance under this Agreement has been made under
such officers' supervision, and

           (ii) to the best of such officers' knowledge, based on such review,
the Master Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement
throughout such year and that no default under this Agreement has occurred.


/s/  LEE A. WHATCOTT                                /s/  MARK OLSON
----------------------------                        ----------------------------
     Lee A. Whatcott                                     Mark Olson
     Executive Vice President &                          Controller
     Chief Financial Officer

cc:        A. Katz, Esq.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1372

In Re: PETER ROUKIS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and HARRIS, Circuit 

Judges.

Petition dismissed without prejudice by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Peter Roukis, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Peter Roukis filed a petition for an original writ of habeas 

corpus seeking reassignment to a military correctional facility 

and challenging his confinement, which he alleges violates Article 

12 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 812 (2012). 

This court ordinarily declines to entertain original habeas corpus 

petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), see Fed. R. App. P. 22(a),

and this case provides no reason to depart from the general rule. 

Moreover, we conclude that the interest of justice would not be 

served by transferring the case to the district court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1631 (2012). Accordingly, we deny Roukis leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis and dismiss the petition without prejudice to 

Roukis’ right to file a petition in the appropriate district court 

after exhaustion of his administrative remedies on his Article 12 

claim. 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. 

PETITION DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
No. 10-11096.

#### Julian *v.*Louisiana.

Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.
#### § 102-75.130 If hazardous substance activity took place on the property, what specific information must an agency include in the title report?

If hazardous substance activity took place on the property, the reporting agency must include information on the type and quantity of such hazardous substance and the time at which such storage, release, or disposal took place. The reporting agency must also advise the disposal agency if all remedial action necessary to protect human health and the environment with respect to any such hazardous substance activity was taken before the date the property was reported excess. If such action was not taken, the reporting agency must advise the disposal agency when such action will be completed or how the agency expects to comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in the disposal. See §§ 102-75.340 and 102-75.345.
EXHIBIT 13.1

RULE 13a-14(b) CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code ) each of the undersigned officers of National Grid plc, a public limited company incorporated under the laws of
England and Wales (the Company), hereby certifies to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ending
31 March 2016 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|----------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: 7 June 2016 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ John Pettigrew     
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | John Pettigrew         
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | Title: Chief Executive 
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | National Grid plc      
|                  |  |  | 
|Date: 7 June 2016 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Andrew Bonfield    
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | Andrew Bonfield        
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | Title: Finance Director
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | National Grid plc
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23159-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HIVE BAKERY & CAFE, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of Entire 

Case with Prejudice, ECF No. [15] (“Stipulation”), filed on November 30, 2022. The Court has 

carefully reviewed the Stipulation, the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Stipulation, ECF No. [15], is APPROVED;

2. The above-styled case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

3. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs;

4. To the extent not otherwise disposed of, all pending motions are DENIED AS

MOOT and all deadlines are TERMINATED;

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on November 30, 2022.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-23159-BB Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 1 of 1
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 843

To amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to correct

a high priority highway project for Ann Arbor, Michigan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1999

Ms. RIVERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to correct a high priority highway project for Ann

Arbor, Michigan.

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

3 SECTION 1. CORRECTION OF HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT

4 FOR ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN.

5 Item 1135 of the table contained in section 1602 of

6 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112

7 Stat. 298) is amended by striking ‘‘Replace Barton Road/

8 M 14 interchange, Ann Arbor’’ and inserting ‘‘Conduct

9 a study of all possible alternatives to the current M–14/

10 Barton Drive interchange in Ann Arbor, including reloca-
2

•HR 843 IH

1 tion on M–14/U.S. 23 from Maple Road to Plymouth

2 Road, mass transit options, and other means of reducing

3 commuter traffic and improving highway safety’’.

Æ
#### § 109-43.001 Definition.

*DOE screening period* means the period of time that reportable existing personal property is screened throughout DOE for reutilization purposes and, for selected items, through the Used Laboratory Equipment Donation Program (LEDP).
439P15

#### State v. James Emmanuel Nettles

Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR (COA11-638)

Denied

Ervin, J.,

recused
#### § 301-70.910 Do the rules in this part apply to travel on Government aircraft by the President and Vice President or by individuals traveling in support of the President and Vice President?

Given the unique functions and needs of the presidency and the vice presidency, section 4 of Circular A-126, “Improving the Management and Use of Government Aircraft,” Revised May 1992, makes clear that Circular A-126 does not apply to aircraft while in use by or in support of the President or Vice President. Since the principal purpose of the rules in this part is to implement Circular A-126, the rules in this part also do not apply to such travel. If any questions arise regarding travel related to the President or Vice President, contact the Office of the Counsel to the President or the Office of the Counsel to the Vice President, respectively.
No. 11-9067.

#### Harris v. Heath, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

                     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Alcan Inc. (the "Company"),hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the "Report") fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 

Date:9 November 2007                                                                    

                                                                                               /s/ Richard B. Evans                                        

                                                                                               Richard B. Evans

President and ChiefExecutive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<CIK> 0000005227
<NAME> AMERICAN INDEMNITY FINANCIAL CORP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        68,758,012
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                  13,846,359
<MORTGAGE>                                      18,409
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              82,622,780
<CASH>                                       5,478,647
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                          20,913,252
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       9,493,530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             147,970,588
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             58,202,315
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         36,732,136
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                495,781
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,541,351
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,911,528
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               147,970,588
<PREMIUMS>                                  15,944,356
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          1,065,821
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              23,604
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 213,800
<BENEFITS>                                  11,564,523
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         6,134,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (324,833)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (66,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (258,833)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (258,833)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.13)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
No. 11M65.

#### Lahrichi *v.*Lumera Corp. et al.

Renewed motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari with supplemental appendix under seal granted.
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

Plaintiff, COLLECTIVE ACTION 

vs.

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC,

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, 

RJ RIVER, LLC AND 

ROMAN JONES,

Defendants.

______________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF FILING CONSENTS TO JOIN 

(Brayan Morato and Gabriel Matteucci) 

 

Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, notices the Court and all parties of the filing of the Consents to 

Join in these proceedings by Brayan Morato and Gabriel Matteucci.

Dated this 22nd day of September 2023. 

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 174742

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiff(s)

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 1 of 1
§ 102-85.40 What are the major components of the pricing policy? The major components of the pricing policy are: ( a ) An OA between a customer agency and GSA;
( b ) Tenant improvement allowance; and
( c ) The establishment of Rent the agency pays to GSA based on the OA for: ( 1 ) Leased space, a pass-through to the customer agency of the underlying GSA lease contract costs, and a PBS fee; or
( 2 ) GSA-owned space, Rent determined by appraisal.
V

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 880

For the relief of Rabon Lowry.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 25, 1999

Mr. MCINTYRE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Rabon Lowry.

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

3 SECTION 1. SATISFACTION OF CLAIM.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury

5 shall pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise

6 appropriated, to Rabon Lowry of Pembroke, North Caro7 lina, individually and as president of Pembroke Machine

8 Company, Inc., the sum of $9,120,000 for damages he in9 curred as a result of the breach of Government Contract

10 number DAAA09–85–C–0630 by the United States De11 partment of the Army.
2

•HR 880 IH

1 (b) CONDITION OF PAYMENT.—The payment shall be

2 in full satisfaction of any of claims Rabon Lowry may have

3 against the United States arising from Government Con4 tract number DAAA09–85–C–0630.

5 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES.

6 It shall be unlawful for an amount that exceeds 10

7 percent of the sum described in section 1 to be paid to

8 or received by any agent or attorney for any service ren9 dered in connection with the benefits provided by this Act.

10 Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of an

11 infraction and shall be subject to a fine in the amount

12 provided in title 18, United States Code.

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS






| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
    period ended March 31, 2005 (the Periodic
    Report) which this statement accompanies 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. Information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of AT&T Corp.                                                                                                                                 



| |                    
| | -------------------
| | /s/ David W. Dorman
| |                    
| | David W. Dorman
§ 301-10.263 What travel authorization documents must I present to the aircraft management office that operates the Government aircraft? You must present to the aircraft management office that operates the Government aircraft— ( a ) A copy of your written travel authorization, including a blanket travel authorization, if applicable, approved in accordance with § 301-10.262; and
( b ) Valid picture identification, such as a Government identification card or a state-issued driver's license.
[FTR Amdt. 2004-02, 69 FR 34304, June 21, 2004]
§ 302-3.502 What factors should we consider in determining whether to authorize a TCS for a long-term assignment? You should consider the following factors in determining whether to authorize a TCS: ( a ) *Cost considerations.* You should consider the cost of each alternative. A long-term temporary duty travel assignment requires the payment of either per diem or actual subsistence expenses for the entire period of the assignment. This could be very costly to the agency over an extended period. A TCS will require fairly substantial relocation allowance payments at the beginning and end of the assignment, and less substantial payments for extended storage and property management services, when authorized, during the period of the assignment. Agencies should estimate the total cost of each alternative and authorize the one that is most advantageous for the agency, cost and other factors considered;
( b ) *Tax considerations.* An employee who performs a temporary duty travel assignment exceeding one year at a single location is subject to income taxation of the employee's travel expense reimbursements. The Withholding Tax Allowance and the Extended TDY Tax Reimbursement Allowance allow for the reimbursement of Federal, state, and local income taxes incurred as a result of taxable extended temporary duty assignments (see §§ 301-11.601—301-11.605 of this Subtitle). An employee who is authorized and performs a TCS also will be subject to income taxation of some, but not all, of their TCS expenses. You will pay an offsetting Relocation Income Tax (RIT) allowance on an employee's TCS expense reimbursements; and
( c ) *Employee concerns.* The long-term assignment of an employee away from the employee's official station and immediate family may negatively affect the employee's morale and job performance. Such negative effects may be alleviated by authorizing a TCS so the employee can transport their immediate family and/or household goods at Government expense to the location where the employee will perform the long-term assignment. You should consider the effects of a long-term temporary duty travel assignment on an employee when deciding whether to authorize a TCS.
[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2014-01, 79 FR 49645, Aug. 21, 2014; FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12254, Feb. 16, 2024]
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(No.s 333-52704, 333-52716, 333-59795 and 333-29745) and Form S-3 (No.s 333-87103, 333-68197, 333-52971, and 333-47777) of Daou Systems, Inc. of our report dated February 4, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Daou Systems, Inc. included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.



|                           |  |                      
|-------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |  | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
|March 30, 2005             |  |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7244

DUAN L. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

H.W. CLARKE, Dir. Va. D.O.C.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:17-cv-00564-MSD-RJK)

Submitted: December 1, 2021 Decided: January 4, 2022

Before KING and QUATTLEBUAM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion

Robert L. Sirianni, Jr., BROWNSTONE, P.A., Winter Park, Florida, for Appellant. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Duan L. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Williams’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 

(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED