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

                                                            EXHIBIT 10.10.11

February 27, 2001

Mr. Thomas G. Boren, Executive Vice President
President & CEO
PG&E National Energy Group
One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94105

Dear Tom:

You are an essential member of our senior executive team and I view your
contribution as vital to getting the Corporation through its current challenges,
achieving the Corporation's objectives, and providing strong returns to
shareholders.

The Board of Directors recently approved a Senior Executive Retention program
which includes you. Under this program, you will receive a grant of phantom PG&E
Corporation restricted stock units granted under the PG&E Corporation Long-Term
Incentive Plan. The amount of your grant is $3,500,000 and it translates into
267,995 units calculated at the closing price of PG&E Corporation common stock
on February 21, 2001, of $13.06 per share. An extremely small number of
individuals are included in this arrangement. For this reason, it is absolutely
necessary for you to restrict any conversation on this subject to me or Brent
Stanley.

Your grant of phantom PG&E Corporation restricted stock units is effective
February 21, 2001, and will vest on December 31, 2004, subject to either one of
the following conditions:

  -  50 percent will automatically vest on December 31, 2004. The remaining 50
     percent will vest on December 31, 2004 only if the Corporation's
     performance, as measured by relative Total Shareholder Return (TSR) on a
     cumulative basis over four years, is at or above the 55th percentile of its
     comparator group; or

  -  if, at the end of the third year of the grant, December 31, 2003, the
     Corporation's performance as measured by relative TSR on a cumulative
     basis, is at or above the 75th percentile of its comparator group, the
     entire grant will vest.

You may elect to defer your actual award payments under the PG&E Corporation
Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan prior to the award cliff-vesting. Such
deferrals will be made in PG&E Corporation phantom stock units on the first
business day of January of the year following vesting. Awards not deferred will
be paid in cash in January of the year following vesting.

If a monetizing event occurs (i.e., IPO or sale) which affects NEG, you will be
given the opportunity of exchanging your grant of phantom PG&E corporation stock
units under this program for an equity-type interest of comparable value in the
new entity.

Tom, I look forward to your continued strong contributions to PG&E Corporation's
success.

Sincerely,

ROBERT D. GLYNN, JR.
Before the Second Division,

May 15, 1958

No. 61935.

#### Atwood Vacuum Machine Company *v.*United States,

protest 259191-K/14299 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plate steel similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 61049, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIAM C. BEATY, Airman Second Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

15 USCMA 418, 35 CMR 390

No. 18,541

May 28, 1965

*Colonel Robert O. Rollman*and *Major James E. Caulfield*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Emanuel Lewis*and *Captain Donald W. Brewer*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

*419Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The accused was convicted by a special court-martial of three offenses for which he was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for three months, forfeiture of $25.00 per month for three months, and reduction. During the course of his trial, testimony was received reflecting the commission of other offenses not encompassed by the charges. Specifically, this testimony reflected that Beaty had threatened to kill a sergeant, and that, contrary to published and well-circulated orders, he consumed alcoholic beverages in his quarters. No limiting instruction was given as to the purpose for which this testimony was admitted. United States v Lewis, 14 USCMA 79, 33 CMR 291; United States v Conrad, 14 USCMA 344, 34 CMR 124; United States v Back, 13 USCMA 568, 33 CMR 100. Under the circumstances in this case, we find this omission prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused, at least as to those offenses to which he pleaded not guilty. It did not affect the charge of assault and battery (Charge III) to which he pleaded guilty. Cf. United States v Lewis, supra.

The accused’s petition for review is granted. The decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. A board of review may reassess the sentence on the basis of the plea of guilty to Charge III. or a rehearing may be ordered.
No. 58136.

protest 186317-K (Philadelphia).

#### F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purpose the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content Under T. D. 53159” in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
Case No. 9,116.

#### MARSH et al. v. HULBERT et al.

[4 McLean, 364.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Illinois.

June Term, 1848.

Continuance — Deposition Expected — Diligence.

A deposition expected which may be material on the merits, and where proper diligence has been used, is a ground for the continuance of a cause.

[Cited in brief in Fisher v. Greene, 95 Ill. 95.]

[This- was a suit by Marsh and Compton, against Hulbert and Trumble.]

Mr. Edwards, for plaintiffs.

Mr. Kating, for defendants.

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

A motion fora continuance of this case is made on an affidavit that the goods sold by the plaintiffs to the defendants, for which the present action, is brought, were of an inferior quality, were overcharged and not worth the prices charged. Also that a deposition is expected which will prove that one of the plaintiffs’ witnesses denied what he has sworn to in his deposition.

This is opposed as there was no offer to return the goods — no special warranty, nor is fraud alleged. The object of the defendants is not to disaffirm the contract, but to show that more was charged for the goods than they were worth. We know not under what circumstances the goods were received, or whether the defects alleged were perceptible on a slight examination. It is said that a. court will not grant a new trial on the ground that a witness examined can be impeached. Upon the whole, however, in this case, we-think justice requires a continuance of the cause, unless the expected deposition shall be received so that the trial may be had at the present term.
#### John Jarrard *v.*Randell M. Bissell and Nathan Lapham.

Motion to go to the court of appeals. Motion denied.
No. 47470.

#### Protests 647088-G, etc., of W. R. Zanes & Co. et al. (Galveston, etc.).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hines Real Estate Investment Trust,
Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date:  November 10, 2006
    /s/ Charles M. BaughnCharles M. BaughnChief Executive Officer 41
Before the Second Division,

November 17, 1948

No. 52684.

protests 792809-G and 922749-G (San Francisco).

#### Samuel S. Perry *v.*United States,

*241Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of so-called “artificial gut or artificial teguso,” in chief value of silk, the same in all material respects as the merchandise the classification of which was involved in *Bush*v. *United States*(34 C. C. P. A. 17, C. A. D. 338). Upon the established facts and following the cited authority, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 31.1





Certifications











I, Ryan C. Farris, certify that:





1I 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 Ally Master Owner Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;





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





4Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5All 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 the information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and HSBC Bank USA, National Association.





Date: March 30, 2015





/s/ Ryan C. Farris





Ryan C. Farris


President, Ally Wholesale Enterprises LLC, as Depositor


(Senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)





























1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 13, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-11009

Summary Calendar

BUI PHU XUAN

Plaintiff - Appellant

v. 

JUDGE JOE DRAGO; HONORABLE TIM CURRY, Tarrant County District

Attorney

Defendants - Appellees

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CV-552

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

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bui Phan Xuan filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to

seek redress for damages caused when he was ordered to undergo an

HIV test and was falsely informed that he was HIV positive. The

district court determined that the suit was frivolous and

dismissed it. Xuan appeals the dismissal of his suit. He argues

that his suit is not barred by res judicata and that his claims

are valid. 
No. 06-11009

-2-

Xuan’s claims are legally and factually frivolous. See

Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997); Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). Consequently, the judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED. See Harper v. Showers, 174

F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 1999).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### National Park Service 

# AGENCY:

National Park Service; Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces two public meetings of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Citizen Advisory Commission. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2). 

# DATES:

Thursday, May 3, 2007, 7 p.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

Dingmans Township Office, 961 Fisher Lane, Milford, PA 18337. 

The agenda will include reports from Citizen Advisory Commission members including committees such as Recruitment, Natural Resources, Inter-Governmental, Cultural Resources, By-Laws, Special Projects, and Public Visitation and Tourism. Superintendent John J. Donahue will give a report on various park issues, including cultural resources, natural resources, construction projects, and partnership ventures. The agenda is set up to invite the public to bring issues of interest before the Commission. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Superintendent John J. Donahue, 570-426-2418. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Citizen Advisory Commission was established by Public Law 100-573 to advise the Secretary of the Interior and the United States Congress on matters pertaining to the management and operation of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, as well as on other matters affecting the recreation area and its surrounding communities. 

      ( print page 15159)    
Dated: February 26, 2007. 

John J. Donahue, 

Superintendent.

[FR Doc. E7-5873 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312-JG-P
| (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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 22, 2014 | By:    | /s/ Dr. Y.K. Wong                                   |   |
|--------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|               |   | Dr. Y.K. Wong                                       |   |
|               |   | President,Secretary and Principal Financial Officer |   |
|               |   |                                                |   |
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 20

- 00460

- CR

Michael A. WILSON

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR8205

Honorable Velia J. Meza

, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, appellant’s motion to supplement the

clerk’s record is DENIED , and the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

.

SIGNED March 23, 2022.

_____________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.193


                                                                  March 28, 2001


To:      Holders of the Warrants expiring November 28, 2002 ("Warrants") of
         Wilshire Technologies, Inc. (the "Company" or "Wilshire")

Re:      Change in Warrant Exercise Price and in number of shares issuable on
         exercise.


Dear Wilshire Warrant Holder:

Because Wilshire sold or issued additional shares, options or other share
equivalents, an adjustment was made in the Warrant Exercise price and in the
number of shares issuable on exercise of a Warrant. The adjustments were made
pursuant to Section 10 of the Warrant Agreement dated as of November 24, 1997
between Wilshire and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company as Warrant Agent,
under which the Warrants were issued in November of 1997.

THE ADJUSTMENT REDUCED THE EXERCISE PRICE FROM $2.33 PER SHARE TO $1.39 PER
SHARE. A WARRANT CERTIFICATE THAT ENTITLED YOU TO PURCHASE E.G. 100 SHARES AT
$2.33 PER SHARE NOW REPRESENTS THE RIGHT TO PURCHASE 167.63 AT $1.39 PER SHARE,
FOR THE SAME TOTAL OF $233.

We suggest that you keep this letter with your Warrant certificate as a reminder
of this change in the Warrant Exercise Price and in the number of shares
issuable on exercise.

Except as set forth above, the terms and conditions of the Warrants remain in
full force and effect.

Pursuant to Section 10.1(g) of the Warrant Agreement, we enclose a statement of
the facts requiring the adjustments, the computation by which the adjustments
were made and a Certificate of BDO Seidman, LLP, Wilshire's Independent
Certified Public Accountants.

Pursuant to Section 12(c) of the Warrant Agreement, we also enclose Wilshire's
Proxy Statement dated March 23, 2001 and the Annual Report to Stockholders for
Wilshire's fiscal year 2000.

The market prices of Wilshire's common stock during the fiscal years ended
November 30, 1999 and 2000 are shown in Item 5 of the Report on Form 10-KSB
included in the Annual Report. On March 26, 2001, the bid and asked prices for
the common stock were $0.16 and $0.18, respectively. There is no market for the
Warrants.



<PAGE>   2

March 28, 2001
Page 2



If you have any questions with regard to these matters, please contact the
Transfer and Warrant Agent, American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, 6201 15th
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11219, Attention: Mr. Joe Alicia (718) 921-8210.



                                        Sincerely,
                                        WILSHIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


                                        BY:  /s/ Kevin Mulvihill
                                           ------------------------
                                            Kevin T. Mulvihill
                                            President & Chief Executive Officer