alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<Page>
                                                                   Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

   The undersigned, Eleanor L. Thomas, President (chief executive officer) of
the managing owner, Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. (the
'Managing Owner'), of World Monitor Trust--Series B ('Series B'), hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   (1) Series B's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March
       28, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
       date hereof (the 'Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       Series B.

/s/ Eleanor L. Thomas
------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor L. Thomas
President (chief executive officer) of the Managing Owner
May 12, 2003

   The undersigned, Steven Weinreb, Chief Financial Officer of the managing
owner, the Managing Owner, of Series B, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

   (1) Series B's Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       Series B.

/s/ Steven Weinreb
------------------------------------------------------
Steven Weinreb
Chief Financial Officer of the Managing Owner
May 12, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Maria C.,a minor, by and through her : CIVIL ACTION

parent and natural Guardian, Iris Nereida :

Camacho: and Iris Nereida Camacho on her :

own behalf, :

Plaintiffs :

:

vs. : NO. 02-civ-4336

:

School District of Philadelphia, :

:

Defendant :

PLAINTIFF APPELLANT’ FRAP RULE 4 NOTICE OF APPEAL

I. Procedural Status

J. Fullum of the lower District Court, entered a final order in the matter on

 May 5, 2004, awarding Plaintiffs $24,484, for the work of David Sambolin, Esq., in due

process administrative hearings allowed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA). On May 10th, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a Rule 54 (Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure) Motion for a post judgement award of attorney’s fees specifically for the cost

of litigating the prevailing party status of Plaintiff under IDEA. On May 18th the Court

Clerk entered a final judgement in the case. J. Fullum closed the case as of May 5th,

2004..

II. Issues Appealed

The lower court’s errors and omissions constitute reversible error by the

court’s:

1. Failing, without explanation or legal analysis, to award attorney’s fees for more

than half of the hours Plaintiffs attorney, David Sambolin, Esq., requested in his

petition, including the hours expended in preparing the complaint necessary for the

Case 2:02-cv-04336-JF Document 30 Filed 06/07/2004 Page 1 of 2
2

Luis P. Diaz, Esq.

court to determine whether or not Plaintiff was a “prevailing party” under IDEA

and thus entitled to attorney’s fees.

2. Ignoring Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees for litigating the question of whether

or not Plaintiff is the “prevailing party” as documented in the hours of Luis P.

Diaz, Esq., both during the course of the litigation and through Plaintiff’s Rule 54

post judgement request for attorney’s fees.

3. Refusing to recognize Plaintiff’s procedural safeguards and substantive rights to

properly present its case and argue the relevant facts and case law by not allowing

Plaintiff to file a Motion for Summary Judgement, the traditional method used to

determine whether a party is a “prevailing party” under IDEA.

Date June 7, 2004 Counsel for Appellant

1118 Lombard Street

Suite 5

Philadelphia, PA 19147

(215) 733-0293.

Case 2:02-cv-04336-JF Document 30 Filed 06/07/2004 Page 2 of 2
LENNAR PARTNERS

An LNR Company

March 1, 2001

LaSalle Bank, N.A. 

135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1625 

Chicago, Illinois 60603

 Attention: Asset Backed Securities Trust Services Group

LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2000-C5

Re:	Annual Independent Public Accountant's Servicing Report

	LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust

	Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2000-C5

To whom it may concern:

As of and for the year ended December 31, 2000, Lennar Partners, Inc. has complied in all material respects with the applicable minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers applicable to the commercial and multifamily mortgages for the special servicer as noted in the attachment to this assertion. As of and for this same period, Lennar Partners, Inc. had in effect a fidelity bond in the amount of $7,500,000 and an errors and omissions policy in the amount of $ 10,000,000.

Sincerely,

LENNAR PARTNERS, INC.

SusanChapman
Vice President

 

760 Northwest 107th Avenue  Suite 400  Miami, Florida 33 172

Telephone: (305) 220-4300  Fax: (305) 226-3428
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 1 1 , 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00636

- CV

CAREFUSION CORPORATI ON , Appellant

V.
RICHARD L. GUINN, IN DIVIDUALLY AND AS CO

- REPRESENTATIVE

OF THE ESTATE OF BEN JAMIN E. GUINN AND CONNIE A. GUINN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO

- REPRESENTATIVE OF TH E ESTATE OF BENJAMIN E. GUINN , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 412th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 62850

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgm ent signed July 3, 2013 . On March 3, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices McCally, Busby and Donovan.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7510

EDWARD RUTLAND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

IN THE MATTER OF THE SEIZURE OF TWENTY-ONE

THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY-SEVEN DOLLARS

AND FORTY-TWO CENTS ($21,897.42) US CURRENCY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-91-3842-5-6)

Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 19, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Rutland, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion for return of seized property, Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e). Our

review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Rutland v. $21,897.42 US Currency, No. CA-91-3842-

5-6 (D.S.C. Sept. 11, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
**[PROTECTIVE
      LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY LETTERHEAD]**







**EXHIBIT
      32(b)**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**











In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Protective Life
      and
      Annuity Insurance Company (the “Company”) for the period ending
      September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      (the “Report”), I, Allen W. Ritchie, Executive Vice President and Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and







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










/s/
      Allen W.
      Ritchie


Allen
      W.
      Ritchie


Executive
      Vice President and


Chief
      Financial Officer


November 14,
      2005








This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS FOR META L HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Monday, April 18, 2011

Room 8E-089

Purpose The Department of Energy (DOE) is holding th is public meeting to discuss the energy conservation standard preliminary analysis. DOE will also explain its plans for the remaining analyses for the rulemaking. Lastly, DOE will seek comment on the rulemaking, including planned methodologi es, assumptions, and data sources.

Agenda

9:00-9:10 am Welcome; Introducti ons; Agenda Review; and Opening

Statements
Tina Kaarsberg, PhD and Doug Brookman

9:10-10:15 am Overview, Statute, and Context; Market Assessment; Technology Assessment; Screening Analysis
Brian Coffey

10:15-10:30 am Break

10:30-11:15 am Engineering Analysis

Matthew Walker

11:15-11:40 am Energy Use/End-Us e Load Characterization and Markups for Equipment Price Determination
Michael Myer and Scott Morris

11:40 am-12:30 pm Lunch

12:30-1:30 pm Life-Cycle Cost a nd Payback Period; Shipments; and National Impacts Analyses

Scott Morris

1:30-1:40 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis
Hayden Cook

1:40-1:50 pm NOPR Analyses
Michael Myer

1:50-2:00 pm Closing Remarks
Tina Kaarsberg, PhD
CENTRALIZED RECEIVABLES SERVICE 

(CRS) 

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Number 22-01

March 14, 2022

Dispute vs. Payment Issue

CRS has implemented a procedural change with how Dispute issue types are handled when the 

debtor states they do not owe the amount communicated to them due to a payment they made 

previously that was not applied to their debt. 

Before the change, this scenario would generate a “Dispute” issue type that would be routed to the 

agency for response. Under the new process, this will be handled as a “Payment Issue” issue type

using the headline “Missing Payment”. This will allow the agency time to research the payment, and 

apply it to the case if valid.

CRS Operators will request the following from the debtor and include it in the Payment Issue:

• If payment was made via check:

o Date Payment Mailed

o Check Number

o Dollar Amount 

• If the payment was made via Pay.gov:

o Date Payment Made

o Pay.gov Tracking ID #

o Debtor Name/Payer Name

o Dollar Amount Paid 

Please contact CRS Agency Relations (crsagencyrelationshared@usbank.com) with any questions 

you may have regarding this Technical Bulletin.

<end>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the annual report of CTI Molecular Imaging, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David N. Gill, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

          (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 results of operations of the
     Company.

                                                   /s/ DAVID N. GILL
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                      David N. Gill
                                            Chief Financial Officer and Senior
                                                      Vice President

December 22, 2003
# C_2018104EN.01003901.xml

| 19.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Access Info Europe v European Commission

(Case T-852/16) (1)

1

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - EU-Turkey statements of 8 and 18 March 2016 - Implementation by the European Union or by the Member States of the measures concerned - Documents drawn up or received by the legal service of an institution - Legal advice - Analyses of the legality of the measures provided for in connection with the implementation of the EU-Turkey statement of 18 March 2016 - Refusal to grant access - Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in respect of international relations - Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings - Exception relating to the protection of legal advice))

(2018/C 104/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Access Info Europe (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6030 final of 19 September 2016 confirming the refusal to grant the applicant access to documents from the Commission’s Legal Service which purportedly concern the legality of the measures adopted by the European Union and its Member States in implementing the actions set out in the statement of the Heads of State or Government of the European Union of 18 March 2016, adopted following their meeting with the Turkish Prime Minister on the same day.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Access Info Europe to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Access Info Europe to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.

1

---
# C_2017006EN.01003602.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2016 — Fedtke v EESC

(Case T-157/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Purely confirmatory act - New substantive facts - Burden of proof))

(2017/C 006/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Ingrid Fedtke (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, A. Carvajal and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and B. Wagenbäur, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 February 2016, Fedtke v EESC (F-107/15, EU:2016:F:15), seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 February 2016, Fedtke v EESC (F-107/15); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 February 2016, Fedtke v EESC (F-107/15);

| 2. | Refers the action to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled in the present appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the action to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled in the present appeal;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

1

---
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE
P.O. BOX 12599-0599
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64116-0599

May 8, 2012
To: Agencies Serviced by the Philadelphia Financial Center
Subject: Transition of Vendor, Miscellaneous, and Daily Payment Processing

As has been previously communicated, the Financial Management Service (FMS) is undergoing a consolidation
and reorganization of both payment and post-payment operations. The next key phase in this process includes the
transition of Vendor, Miscellaneous, and Daily payment processing from the Philadelphia Financial Center (PFC)
to the Kansas City Financial Center (KFC).

As a result of this transition, KFC will become your servicing Regional Financial Center (RFC) for Vendor,
Miscellaneous, and Daily payment processing effective May 14, 2012. Furthermore, EFT payments will now be
issued under the KFC Disbursing Officer Symbol (310) rather than the PFC Disbursing Officer Symbol (303), and
check payments will now be issued under the KFC disbursement symbol (4030) rather than the PFC disbursement
symbol (2057). Effective May 14, 2012 all payment processing issues, as well as special handling requests, for
these payments should be directed to the KFC. EFT cancellation activity will continue to be accessed through
Pay.gov.

KFC Help Desk

Hours of Operation: 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM (CST) Monday-Friday
KFC Help Desk email address: kfchelpdesk@fms.treas.gov

KFC Help Desk telephone number: 816-414-2100

KFC SPS/PAM Help Desk

Hours of Operation: 6:30 AM to 5:30 PM (CST) Monday-Friday

KFC SPS/PAM Help Desk email address: kfe.sps.help.desk@fms.treas.gov

KFC SPS/PAM Help Desk telephone number: 816-414-2340

After 5:30 PM (CST) on-call Support can be reached by dialing the KFC SPS telephone number, 816-414-2340,
and selecting "0" (zero).

KFC Special Handling
KFC Special Handling email address: kfe-special-handling@fms.treas.gov
KFC Special Handling telephone numbers: 816-414-2221, 816-414-2207, 816-414-2218

Kansas City Financial Center

4241 NE 34" Street

Kansas City, Missouri 64117

If you have any questions concerning this transition, please contact Ethan Cole at 816-414-2204.

As your new servicing RFC for Vendor, Miscellaneous, and Daily payment processing, the Kansas City Financial
Center looks forward to building a strong working relationship with your agency.

Gi . Beets
KFC Regional Director
Before the Second Division,

January 29, 1951

No. 55177.

#### Paul V. Eisner Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 109753-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the items of merchandise marked “A” or “B” on the invoices consist of watch, movements similar in all material respects to those which were the subject of *United States*v. *Helbros Watch*
      *349Co. *et al.*(38 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 430). Upon the agreed statement of facts and the cited authority, the items marked “A” were held properly dutiable at the base rate of 90 cents each as watch movements more than 1 inch but less than 1.77 inches wide, and the items marked “A” were held dutiable at $1.20 each as watch movements more than *%o*of 1 inch but not more than 1 inch wide under paragraph 367 (a) (1), as modified, *supra.*
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

February 14, 2022

No. 04

- 21

- 00471

- CR

Caleb Patrick DANIELS, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial Distri ct Court

, Frio County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18

- 10

- 00155

- CRF Honorable Russell Wilson , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due on February 1, 2022. The reporter’s record was not filed. However, on February 9, 2022, the court reporter, Liche M. Cavazos, filed a notification of late record, requesting until March 1, 2022 to complete and file the record.

We grant the motion and order Liche M. Cavazos to file the record by March 1, 2022

. See T EX

. R. A P P

. P

. 35.3(c) (extension of time to file record in ordinary ap peal must not exceed 30 days).

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 14th day of February, 2022

.

__________________________ _________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Case 2:04-cv-03994-ER Document 11 Filed 08/02/05 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:04-cv-03994-ER Document 11 Filed 08/02/05 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:04-cv-03994-ER Document 11 Filed 08/02/05 Page 3 of 3
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of D.R. and C.R., Children

No. 06

- 21

- 00019

- CV Appeal from the 102nd District Court of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 20C0411

- 102 ). Opinion delive red by Justice Stevens

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We note that the appellant has adequately indicated h er inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 5, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
Before the First Division,

June 23, 1943

No. 48417.

#### Protests 97981-K, etc., of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 47083 the harmonicas in question were held dutiable under paragraph 1541(a) as claimed.
Case 2:05-cr-00056-LS Document 753 Filed 09/30/10 Page 1 of 15
Case 2:05-cr-00056-LS Document 753 Filed 09/30/10 Page 2 of 15
Case 2:05-cr-00056-LS Document 753 Filed 09/30/10 Page 3 of 15
Case 2:05-cr-00056-LS Document 753 Filed 09/30/10 Page 4 of 15
Case 2:05-cr-00056-LS Document 753 Filed 09/30/10 Page 5 of 15
Case 2:05-cr-00056-LS Document 753 Filed 09/30/10 Page 6 of 15
Case 2:05-cr-00056-LS Document 753 Filed 09/30/10 Page 7 of 15
Case 2:05-cr-00056-LS Document 753 Filed 09/30/10 Page 8 of 15
Case 2:05-cr-00056-LS Document 753 Filed 09/30/10 Page 9 of 15
Case 2:05-cr-00056-LS Document 753 Filed 09/30/10 Page 10 of 15
Case 2:05-cr-00056-LS Document 753 Filed 09/30/10 Page 11 of 15
Case 2:05-cr-00056-LS Document 753 Filed 09/30/10 Page 12 of 15
Case 2:05-cr-00056-LS Document 753 Filed 09/30/10 Page 13 of 15
Case 2:05-cr-00056-LS Document 753 Filed 09/30/10 Page 14 of 15
Case 2:05-cr-00056-LS Document 753 Filed 09/30/10 Page 15 of 15