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

EXHIBIT 32.1

                           NATIONAL AUTO CREDIT, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, James J. McNamara, Chief Executive Officer of National Auto Credit, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Registrant"), in connection with the Registrant's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), do
hereby represent, warrant and certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


/s/ James J. McNamara
------------------------------
Name:  James J. McNamara
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: May 11, 2004
#### § 101.1407 Permissible operations for MVDDS.

MVDDS licensees must use spectrum in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band for any digital fixed non-broadcast service (broadcast services are intended for reception of the general public and not on a subscribership basis) including one-way direct-to-home/office wireless service. Mobile and aeronautical services are not authorized. Two-way services may be provided by using other spectrum or media for the return or upstream path.
Exhibit 10.6(A)  AGREEMENT  This Agreement (the Agreement) is made and entered into as of April 13, 2011, among American Wagering, Inc., a Nevada corporation (AWI), William Hill Holdings Limited, a private limited company formed under the laws of England and Wales (William Hill) and Victor J. Salerno (Salerno).  WHEREAS, AWI and Salerno previously entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated as of June 28, 2002 (as amended to date, the Employment Agreement);  WHEREAS, pursuant to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) among William Hill, AW Sub Co., a Nevada corporation and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of William Hill (Merger Sub), AWI, and solely for purposes of Section 8.15 thereof, the stockholders set forth on the signature pages thereto, it is contemplated that Merger Sub will merge with and into AWI with AWI as the surviving corporation (the Transaction); and  WHEREAS, in order to induce the parties to the Merger Agreement to enter into the Merger Agreement and to consummate the Transaction, AWI, William Hill and Salerno desire to provide that, subject to the consummation of the Transaction, and simultaneously therewith, the Employment Agreement shall be terminated, all the terms thereof shall be null and void and Salerno shall not be entitled to any payments, benefits or other rights thereunder.  NOW THEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing premises and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:  1.             AWI, William Hill and Salerno agree that subject to the consummation of the Transaction, and simultaneously therewith, the Employment Agreement shall be terminated, all the terms thereof shall be null and void and Salerno shall not be entitled to any payments, benefits or other rights thereunder.  [signatures on next page]


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the AWI, William Hill and Salerno have duly executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.   WILLIAM   HILL HOLDINGS LIMITEDBy:
/s/   Neil CooperName:
Neil   CooperTitle:
President   and TreasurerAMERICAN   WAGERING, INC.By:
/s/   Victor SalernoName:
Victor   SalernoTitle:
CEO/s/   Victor SalernoVictor J. Salerno
§ 54.203 Designation of eligible telecommunications carriers for unserved areas. ( a ) If no common carrier will provide the services that are supported by federal universal service support mechanisms under section 254(c) of the Act and subpart B of this part to an unserved community or any portion thereof that requests such service, the Commission, with respect to interstate services, or a state commission, with respect to intrastate services, shall determine which common carrier or carriers are best able to provide such service to the requesting unserved community or portion thereof and shall order such carrier or carriers to provide such service for that unserved community or portion thereof.
( b ) Any carrier or carriers ordered to provide such service under this section shall meet the requirements of section 54.201(d) and shall be designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier for that community or portion thereof.
EXHIBIT 31.2

Certification

I, Denise D. Roberts,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the American Express Credit Account Master Trust (the Exchange Act periodic
reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic 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 with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing or 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. Based
on 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 servicing
agreements in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
securities 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 such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I
have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon and TransCentra, Inc. (formerly known as Regulus Group LLC).



|                     |  |                                                          
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 26, 2018
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/ Denise D. Roberts                                    
|Name:                |  | Denise D. Roberts                                        
|Title:               |  | President,                                               
|                     |  | American Express Receivables Financing Corporation IV LLC
|                     |  | (Senior officer in charge of securitization)
Amendment to Stock Restriction Agreement, dated as of October 30, 2003



 Exhibit 10.15 
 JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 
 AMENDMENT TO STOCK
RESTRICTION AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO STOCK RESTRICTION AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of
October 30, 2003, by and between Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”), and Samuel R. Saks (the “Founder”). 
 RECITALS 
 A. The Company and the Founder entered into a Stock Restriction
Agreement dated April 30, 2003 (the “Restriction Agreement”) in order to provide the Company with certain rights to repurchase shares of the Company’s Common Stock held by the Founder. 
 B. On the date hereof, the Founder sold 660,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock to another shareholder of the Company. 
 C. The Company and the Founder wish to enter into this Amendment so that the decrease in the number of shares now held by the Founder is reflected in the
Restriction Agreement. 
 NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 
 1. Amendment to the Definition of “Shares”. The definition of “Shares” as set forth in Recital A of the Restriction
Agreement is hereby amended to mean 2,640,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock held by the Founder. 
 2. Effectiveness;
Continuity of Terms. This Amendment shall be effective when executed by the Company and the Founder. All the other terms and provisions of the Restriction Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original and which together will
constitute one in the same instrument. 
 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Stock Restriction Agreement as of
the date first above written. 
  

					
	Company:	 	JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
		 	a California corporation
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Bruce C. Cozadd

		 		 	Bruce C. Cozadd, Chairman
			
	Founder:	 		 	 /s/ Samuel R. Saks

		 		 	Samuel R. Saks
Exhibit






AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
TO THE 

KNOWLES CORPORATION
2014 EQUITY AND CASH INCENTIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, Knowles Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), maintains the Knowles Corporation 2014 Equity and Cash Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); 
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 45 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Corporation (the “Board”) has the authority to amend the Plan as it shall deem advisable, subject to any requirement of stockholder approval required by applicable law, rule or regulation; and  
WHEREAS, based on recent amendments to applicable accounting standards, the Board has authorized an amendment of the Plan with respect to the permissible tax withholding rate for shares of common stock of the Corporation to be delivered or withheld to pay a participant’s required tax obligations. 
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan hereby is amended, effective as January 1, 2017, as follows: 


Section 39 of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following sentence at the end thereof:


“If elected by the Participant, the Corporation shall be authorized to withhold at such higher withholding rate as will not cause adverse accounting consequences under the accounting rules then in effect, and is permitted under applicable IRS withholding rules.”


***
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized agent as of November 18, 2016. 


KNOWLES CORPORATION




By:  /s/Jeffrey Niew
Name:  Jeffrey Niew
Title:  Director
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"Restricting Court Access to the National Courts Building Through August 31, 2021 - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"jCnvm6FEDY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/restricting-court-access-to-the-national-courts-building-through-august-31-2021\/\">Restricting Court Access to the National Courts Building Through August 31, 2021<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/restricting-court-access-to-the-national-courts-building-through-august-31-2021\/embed\/#?secret=jCnvm6FEDY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Restricting Court Access to the National Courts Building Through August 31, 2021” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"jCnvm6FEDY\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States Court of Federal Claims have entered a new joint order revising the restrictions and rules concerning access to the National Courts Building complex in Washington, D.C., effective July 31, 2021.\u00a0 Courthouse access will continue to be limited to court staff and […]"}
Exhibit
23.1    Consent of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the
Board of Directors


North
Central Bancshares, Inc.


Fort
Dodge, Iowa





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Registration #333-33089) on Form S-8 as filed with the Commission on August 7,
1997 , the Registration Statement (Registration #333-82490) on Form S-8 as filed
with the Commission on February 11, 2002, and the Registration Statement
(Registration #333-133810) on Form S-8 as filed with the Commission on May 4,
2006, Registration Statement No. 333-157027 on Form S-3 (Registration
#333-157172) as filed with the Commission on March 27, 2009 of North Central
Bancshares, Inc. of our report dated March 27, 2009, relating to our audit
of the consolidated financial statements, which appear in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of North Central Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended
December 31, 2008.








Des
Moines, Iowa


March 27,
2009
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.981 Reports, annual and semiannual.

Where required by the particular service rules, licensees who have entered into agreements with other persons for the cooperative use of radio station facilities must submit annually an audited financial statement reflecting the nonprofit cost-sharing nature of the arrangement to the Commission's offices in Washington, DC or alternatively may be sent to the Commission electronically via the ULS, no later than three months after the close of the licensee's fiscal year.

[78 FR 25160, Apr. 29, 2013]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1267 

CAF 12-00007 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF SERENITY G. 

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

ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

ORENA G., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

ALAN BIRNHOLZ, EAST AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF

BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR SERENITY

G. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia

A. Maxwell, J.), entered December 6, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to

Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other things,

transferred the guardianship and custody of the subject child to

petitioner. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is 

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law §

384-b, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia,

terminated her parental rights with respect to the subject child on

the ground of permanent neglect. We affirm. Initially, we note that

the mother failed to preserve for our review her contention that

Family Court erred in considering postpetition conduct prior to the

dispositional hearing (see Matter of Darren HH. [Amber HH.], 68 AD3d

1197, 1198, lv denied 14 NY3d 703; Matter of “Baby Girl” Q., 14 AD3d

392, 393, lv denied 5 NY3d 704). 

Also contrary to the mother’s contention, petitioner established

by clear and convincing evidence that she permanently neglected the

subject child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [g] [i]; [4] [d]). 

It is undisputed that the child was removed from the mother’s care two

days after her birth and was never returned to the mother’s care.

Petitioner met its initial burden of establishing by clear and

convincing evidence that it made the requisite diligent efforts to

encourage and strengthen the mother’s relationship with the child (see

§ 384-b [7] [a]; see generally Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136,

142; Matter of Rachael N. [Christine N.], 70 AD3d 1374, 1374, lv
-2- 1267 

CAF 12-00007 

denied 15 NY3d 708). The mother thereafter failed to establish that

she had a meaningful plan for the child’s future, including that she

has addressed the problems that caused the removal of the child (see

Matter of Justain R., 93 AD3d 1174, 1175; Rachael N., 70 AD3d at

1374). Although the mother attended some of the parenting classes to

which she was referred, petitioner presented evidence that she was

“inconsistently applying the knowledge and benefits she obtained from

the services provided[ and was] arguing with various service providers

and professionals,” and petitioner thus established that the mother

failed to articulate a realistic plan for the child’s return to her

care (Matter of Douglas H., 1 AD3d 824, 825, lv denied 2 NY3d 701).

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
” . 

. . 

Iron. c. J. Wild@ 

County Auditor 

Dmrr 8lrt 

I?.1 0plalon x0. 0491 

Whether or 8ot Wm Coum.l8@loaerr~ 

Court har authority to p8f deputiu ta ung o a r 8 OS l srrr a r ent o f 

011 and gar and prop*rQ 0hango8 

8 groakr mm of ronof than the 

amunt 8peolfi.d la Art1010 bool4, 

Rd.?)., for deputlmr of tha Tu 

Collaotor 8nd A88e8sor. 

Thlr ir in ammo to your letfor 

ot Tobrmry Si, 1939 l ddr usa d to the H@no~- 

rblr Oerald C. Kenn, Attorney Conoral, *oh 

lottar ha8 baoa nierred to tho nltrr for 

oon8llleratlon and r.pLy, IOU nquo#t an oplnion 8e to whether or aot the Connai88lonsrr* 

Court ha8 authority to pay doputlor tbUn& 

aam of m#rer#ment of 011 and gan aad propwt]r ehange8 a 

r@ 

ater sum of ronay than the 

mount 8~eoitle in Artdole 3903, R.C.E., 

for dqnatlos of the Tu Collaotor @nd A##@#- 

8or. 

The Caaml88l~ner8* Court ha8 a0 l uthoritr or p o vul oept r a6 grantd by #t#tutor or the Con#titutiOn Oi. To-#. 

The doputl.8 l n&a6ed intaki~I& OOFI 

of thm l arermwnt OS Oil and @8, and k-pin(; 

up wlth property changer uo ongag in th@ 

pertoxmmoe of the dutlr8 ww.aabent Upon the 

oitloe or thm COuntp Tax Qollootor and Asrrs- 

#or8 The Cmalaelonerr* Court ha8 io authorl- 
Hon. C.J. ;tlldo, February 13. 1939, Fag. 8 

tr or power to ippolnt deputlon for the perfonarsnoa Of thO8e duti.8, l xoept by the proendure pnnorfbed in Artida 3902, R.C.E. 

Vhenever any dlstrlat, oounb 

ty or pnolnat 0fflcor 8hall nqulro 

the 88l'ViU.B Of dOputiO#, 88SI8tantB 

Or olwk8 in the par?ormano~ Ot hi8 

&utles ho 8hall apply to the County 

COiZdBSiOII~rB' Court Of hi8 i3Olllltr 

for authority to appoint 8uoh depuC:G tiU, 88SiBtJ4lltB Of slerks, l tating 

bJ #worn l pplloatlon the number modM, the POBitiOll to bo iillad aad 

the mount to be paid. ' * * The COBpenrstlon which ray ba allowed t0 thm 

dOp Utie8, l BiBtfUIta or olerks 8boro 

nmnod iOr their 8elvloes 8hall be 8 

moronable one, sot to l rooed tb 

follOwlng uounts: * * &I@ 

Theretore, it 18 our oplnfon, and 

you an 80 advised, that the deputies performlng the dutler rlloged muat aeoeeserf.1~ k 

IeputJtu oollsotcr6 wd l 8886~0re, end must 

quality and be oompennatod as Buoh. 

Believing thin reply to an8wr your 

Inquiry, we an 

Your8 Yaw truly . 

ATTOHNBY GXSRAL OP TEl(Ac3 

( #lgn*d ) 

Pat Coon 

A~sintant 

PC:ob 

APLppztOVED
699 P.2d 1369

#### Joan A. RATKOWSKI, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Eugene RATKOWSKI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14802.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

April 12, 1985.

*356E. Don Copple, Boise, for defendant-appellant.

Howard I. Manweiler, Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

HUNTLEY, Justice.

Eugene Ratkowski appeals to this Court from a contempt ruling enforcing a 1979 judgment and decree of divorce. The decree provided that pursuant to a pre-decree agreement between the parties, husband would pay wife $325 a month (less than *Vi)*of husband’s military retirement benefits.1 Ratkowski had stopped paying his ex-wife that share, contending that federal law, through the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, preempts the power of Idaho courts to treat an ex-serviceman’s prospective military retirement benefits as community property. He contends that *McCarty v. McCarty,*453 U.S. 210, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981), acknowledged preemption, and ruled that military retirement benefits were not subject to division as community property. The *McCarty*decision invalidated Idaho’s treatment of military retirement benefits as community property as formerly enunciated in *Ramsey v. Ramsey,*96 Idaho 672, 535 P.2d 53 (1975). As a result, Ratkowski contends that as to the devision of military benefits, the 1979 divorce decree decided on the basis of *Ramsey*is null and void.

We disagree, and affirm the trial court’s ruling that Mr. Ratkowski was in contempt for failure to pay his ex-wife a portion of his military benefits. *Nieman v. Nieman,*105 Idaho 796, 673 P.2d 396 (1983) is dispositive.2 There we concluded that the *McCarty*decision operated prospectively only, and did not render null and void decisions based on *Ramsey*and finalized prior to *McCarty.*In the instant case, the original divorce decree was finalized in 1979, some two years prior to *McCarty.*

Affirmed.

No costs or attorney fees.

DONALDSON, C.J., and SHEPARD and BISTLINE, JJ., concur.

BAKES, J., concurs in the result.

1

. On April 21, 1981, the original decree was modified to provide that husband was to pay *'A*of his military retirement benefits to wife.

2

. Inexplicably neither party cited this case in briefs or in oral argument, thus no costs are awarded.