alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-33.14
logo) WestLake
SETTLEMENT SERVICES

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

The Tax Outsourcing Service Agreement dated as of October 1, 2006 (together with
all amendments thereto, the "Agreement"), between Aurora Loan Services and
WestLake Settlement Services, LLC.

I, Debra D. Lewis, Director of WestLake Settlement Services, certify to Aurora
Loan Services, LLC ("Aurora"), with the knowledge and intent that it will rely
upon this certification, that:

(1) As of and for the year ended December 31, 2008, WestLake Settlement
Services, LLC has complied with the applicable servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB applicable to WestLake (the "Applicable Servicing
Criteria"):

        1122(d)(4)(xi) Payments made on behalf of an obligor (such as tax or
        insurance payments) are made on or before the related penalty or
        expiration dates, as indicated on the appropriate bills or notices for
        such payments, provided that such support has been received by the
        servicer at least 30 calendar days prior to these dates, or such other
        number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

        1122(d)(4)(xii) Any late payment penalties in connection with any
        payment to be made on behalf of an obligor are paid from the servicer's
        funds and not charged to the obligor, unless the late payment was due
        to the obligor's error or omission.

(2) The transactions covered by this report include all loans in which WestLake
performs activities related to the Regulation AB criteria on behalf of Aurora.

(3) WestLake has complied, in all material respects, with the applicable
servicing criteria as of December 31, 2008 and for the Reporting Period with
respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

(4) Virchow, Krause & Company LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report on Aurora's assessment of compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria for the Reporting Period.

WESTLAKE SETTLEMENT SERVICES, LLC

/s/ Debra D. Lewis
Debra D. Lewis, Officer

Director of Operations
Title

March 20, 2009

1 First American Way, Westlake, TX, 76262
Mail Stop 6-4-100
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Donald James IKARI, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50320.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2005.**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 Withdrawn and superseded by 2005 WL 2850279.

MEMORANDUM ***

Donald James Ikari appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. He contends that pursuant to *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the district court violated his constitutional rights in making upward adjustments under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.4(b). Ikari was sentenced before the United States Supreme Court held in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), that the Sentencing Guidelines were effectively advisory. *672The record does not show how the district court would have proceeded if it had known that the Guidelines were not mandatory. Accordingly, we remand for the district court to answer the question whether the sentence would have been materially different if it had known that the Guidelines were advisory, and for further proceedings under *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

REMANDED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-1

STATE AGENCIES SA1 Oregon Department of Energy SA1-1 See response to comments PM1-18, PM1

While the draft EIS recommends that the additional data before the end of the comthe specific circumstances for each recomthe environmental impacts are known aninformation clarifies site-specific measurrefined mitigation to eliminate or minimiextend the comment period past the stateperiod on the draft EIS. However, the FE

comments submitted after the draft EIS cDecember 4, 2008, up until the final EIS 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-2

SA1 Oregon Department of Energy (contin
No. 61071.

protest 247230-K.

#### Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

C. D. 1876. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the consolidated
financial statements for the nine months ended April 30, 1999 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                              85,512
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,507,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                       414,335
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,133,114
<PP&E>                                             879,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                     583,769
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,366,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,052,069
<BONDS>                                            596,364
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         14,167
<COMMON>                                            15,186
<OTHER-SE>                                        (311,142)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,366,644
<SALES>                                          9,526,945
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,526,945
<CGS>                                            5,309,153
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,759,240
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,450,087
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   110,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 668,411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,680,434)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       141,085
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,821,519)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,821,519)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.12)



</TABLE>
**TTM FA CILITY:**  San Diego, CA

**PROCESS OPERATION:** Outerlayer Etcher
**Process Tank Process**  **Contents / Concentrations Temp.**  **Volume Rinse Rate**  **Dump Discharge**  **Remarks No.**  **Step No. (0F)**  **(Gal.) (GPM)**  **Frequency Disposition**  1 1 **Etching Chamber** 120 145 Not Dump & To spent etch Process tank Cleaning applicable remake drum then Freq.: once per quarter ammonium chloride 3% - 5% by wt. once/month offsite for Cleaning Chemistry: ammonium hydroxide 0.5% - 2% by wt. recycling 10% Hydrochloric acid tetraamine copper dichloride 20-26% by wt. **Worker Activity 2** 2 A, B, C 2 **Etcher Replenish Station** Amb. 5/each Not Dump & To spent etch In operation fresh etch applicable remake drum then fed from Replenisher ammonium carbonate 3% - 4% by wt. once/month offsite for Module to etcher based ammonium chloride 21% -24% by wt. recycling on specific gravity of ammonium hydroxide 21% - 24% by wt. (applies to drains only) etchant

3 A, B, C 3 **Rinse** Amb. 5/each 9 gal/hr Dump & On-site WWTsystem 3 station cascade remake spray rinse station once/month
NOTE: Miscellaneous wastewaters from the above process tanks include spills, leaks, equipment and floor washdowns, sample bottle contents and rinsing, PPE (gloves, boots, etc) cleaning water, and safety shower/eyewash drainings that may flow into the trench serving this line and then into WWtreatment system. **Fresh etch makeup from drum**  **Unetched Etching Chamber**  **3 stage counter flow rinses Etched**  **Panels Panels**  **1 2A**  **2B 2C**  **Rinse chambers 3A,3B&3C**

**Worker Activity 1 To Spent Etch Drum**  **Release 1 To On-site WWT System**  Tetraamine copper dichloride 25 Kg/day Average 35 Kg/day Maximum**Replenisher chambers**
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 4 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 4

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 4, 2007.
    Resolved,  That the Clerk be instructed to inform the President of the 
United States that the House of Representatives has elected Nancy Pelosi, a 
Representative from the State of California, Speaker; and Karen L. Haas, a 
citizen of the State of Maryland, Clerk of the House of Representatives of the 
One Hundred Tenth Congress.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Amendment to 2012 Equity Incentive Plan


 




Exhibit 10.1




Amendment No. 10 to the

Aspen Group, Inc.

2012 Equity Incentive Plan




This Amendment No. 10 to the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) deletes the “Bulletin Board” definition and amends the definition of “Fair Market Value” under Section 1(b) of the Plan.  







The definition of Bulletin Board shall be deleted.




The definition of Fair Market Value shall be deleted and replaced with the following: 




           “Fair Market Value” shall be determined as of the last Trading Day before the date a Stock Right is granted and shall mean:

 

(1)        the closing price on the principal market if the Common Stock is listed on a national securities exchange or the OTCQB or OTCQX.

 

(2)        if the Company’s shares are not listed on a national securities exchange or the OTCQB or OTCQX, then the closing price if reported or the average bid and asked price for the Company’s shares as published by OTC Markets Group;

 

(3)        if there are no prices available under clauses (1) or (2), then Fair Market Value shall be based upon the average closing bid and asked price as determined following a polling of all dealers making a market in the Company’s Common Stock; or

 

(4)        if there is no regularly established trading market for the Company’s Common Stock or if the Company’s Common Stock is listed, quoted or reported under clauses (1) or (2) but it trades sporadically rather than every day, the Fair Market Value shall be established by the Board or the Compensation Committee taking into consideration all relevant factors including the most recent price at which the Company’s Common Stock was sold.
No. 58240.

protest 181763-K (Buffalo).

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Geo. Wm. Rueff, Inc.*(41 C. C. P. A. 95, C. A. D. 535), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 69666.

#### American Precision Drawing Instrument Co. *v.*United States,

protests 61/7263 and 60/18824 (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, C.J.

It was stipulated that the cases for drawing instruments are provided for in said paragraph 1405, as modified, *supra,*and are separate articles of commerce. Accordingly, the protests were dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d)).
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

JERRY BRENDEN, )

) Case No. C05-1681RSL

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) ORDER

SELLEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion: Mediation.” Dkt. # 54. 

On July 31, 2006, the above-captioned matter was dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion

for mediation is therefore stricken as moot. 

Plaintiff has also submitted documents entitled “Response (REPLY)” (Dkt. # 58)

and “Response (REPLY): Addendun (sic)” (Dkt. # 61) which did not reach chambers until after

the order of dismissal was signed. The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s responses and finds no

reason to reconsider or otherwise alter the judgment that was entered on July 31, 2006. 

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 62 Filed 08/02/06 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PAMELA COFFELL, individually and on behalf

of the class of similarly situated persons,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a

foreign insurance company,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-1964C

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order on briefing

and motions. (Dkt. No. 9.) The Court accepts Stipulations (1) and (2) as presented, but makes an

adjustment to Stipulation (3) as follows:

(1) Defendant will make Maria Smith and Defendant’s 30(b)(6) representative available for

deposition by January 3, 2006.

(2) Plaintiff will file her motion seeking remand and/or improper removal of her action from King

County Superior Court as soon as practicable after the deposition of Defendant’s representative is

transcribed and no later than Thursday, January 12, 2006. The motion will be noted for hearing for

Friday, January 27, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01964-JCC Document 12 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER – 2

(3) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 4) is hereby STRICKEN. 

Defendant will be granted leave to refile that motion, if appropriate, when the Court rules on Plaintiff’s

motion for remand.

SO ORDERED this 16th day of December, 2005.

A

John C. Coughenour

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01964-JCC Document 12 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 2
ap-ex1022_311.htm



 

EXHIBIT 10.22

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to the Change in Control Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into by and among Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation (the “Corporation”), Union Electric Steel Corporation (“UES”) and Rodney L. Scagline (the “Executive”), effective as of March 8, 2018.  All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.   

WHEREAS, the parties have entered into the Agreement effective as of May 5, 2016; and

WHEREAS, the parties wish to revise Section 1 (“Term of Agreement”), to make it consistent with Change in Control Agreements entered into with other executives of the Corporation and its subsidiaries.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:


	
 
	
1.
	
Section 1 is here by revised in its entirety to read as follows: 




This Agreement will commence effective as of the date hereof and shall continue in effect until May 5, 2018; provided, however, that commencing on May 5, 2018 and on each anniversary thereafter, the term of this Agreement shall automatically be extended for one additional year unless, not later than thirty (30) days prior to such date, either the Corporation or UES shall have given notice that it does not wish to extend this Agreement; provided, further, however, that if a Change in Control shall have occurred during the term of this Agreement, this Agreement cannot be cancelled. 

 


	
 
	
2.
	
Except as amended by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. 




 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be legally bound, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. 

 

 


	
 
	
AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORPORATION

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Rose Hoover

	
 
	
Name:
	
 
	
Rose Hoover

	
 
	
Title:
	
 
	
President

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
UNION ELECTRIC STEEL CORPORATION

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Masha Trainor

	
 
	
Name:
	
 
	
Masha Trainor

	
 
	
Title:
	
 
	
Vice President and Secretary

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
EXECUTIVE

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
/s/ Rodney L. Scagline

	
 
	
Rodney L. Scagline
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER, a/k/a

ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. WIGEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5662 FDB/KLS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 NOTED FOR: July 13, 2007

This civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Before the Court is

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reopen and Reinstate the Injunctive Claims and to Recall the Dismissal Issued

in this Matter,” (Dkt. # 42) and Motion for Order to Show Cause (directed at Defendant Melendez)

(Dkt. # 44). 

II. DISCUSSION

On June 9, 2006, this matter was dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

Rule 41(a)(1). (Dkt. # 33). The dismissal was based on Plaintiff’s notification to the Court that he

no longer wished to pursue this action because the conduct on which he based his complaint had

ceased and he had suffered no compensable injury. (Dkt. 21). Judgment in favor of Defendants was

Case 3:05-cv-05662-FDB Document 46 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

entered on June 9, 2006 (Dkt. # 34) and the case was administratively closed on June 19, 2006. 

There is no action pending before the Court and, therefore, if Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against

Defendants, he must pursue it in a separate civil action.

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen case be denied.

Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause directed to Defendant Melendez should similarly be

denied as there is no longer an action pending before this Court.

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s motions to reopen the

case (Dkt. # 42) and motion for order to show cause (Dkt. # 44) be DENIED. A proposed order

accompanies this Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this

Report to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a

waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for

consideration on July 13, 2007, as noted in the caption. 

DATED this 18th day of June, 2007.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05662-FDB Document 46 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 69279.

#### Aster Flower Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62/19708, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rayon labels similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bruce Duncan Co., Inc., a/c Standard Commodities Import & Export Corp.*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 27, C.D. 2409), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 10.3


 





 




20/03/2018


 


Partner Communications Company Ltd.


8 Amal Street


Afeq Industrial Park


Rosh-Ha’ayin 48103


Israel







Dear Sirs:


On behalf of BDO Ziv Haft Consulting & Management Ltd, Amot BDO House Building 46- 48 Menachem Begin Av. Tel-Aviv (the “Consultant”), I hereby confirm that the Consultant has reviewed the information set forth in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Form 20-F”), for Partner Communications Company Ltd., under Note 4(a)(3) "Assessing the recoverable amount of goodwill for impairment tests", Note 13(1) "Goodwill impairment tests", Item 5A.1f "Impairment test of Fixed-Line Goodwill as of December 31, 2015, 2016 and 2017", and Item 5A.1r-i. "Critical accounting estimates and assumptions" in the Form 20-F all with respect to testing for impairment of assets and the results thereof.







The Consultant hereby confirms the information referred to above and consents to being named in the Form 20-F as an “expert”.







BDO Consulting


Name: Moti Dattelkramer 


Title: Partner


Signature: ___/s/_______
[if !vml]>[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(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Motorvehicle use map. Logan Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest,Utah**
 
2009 | 2015| 2016 | 2018
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28: UI 5/13/
Item Number:0080-G (online)
CGP systemNumber:000956006
 
July 17, 2018