alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**
Certification of the Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)
(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)  
I, Glenn F. Tilton, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officerof United Air Lines, Inc. (the "Company"), certify that:(1)     I have reviewed this quarterly reporton Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 of the Company;
(2)     Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;
(3)     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;
(4)     The Company's other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the Company and we have: (a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;
(b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company'sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
(c)     Disclosed in this report any change in theCompany's internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe Company's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal controlover financial reporting; and (5)     The Company's other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committeeof Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a)     All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and
(b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theCompany's internal control over financial reporting.  /s/ Glenn F. TiltonGlenn F. TiltonUnited Air Lines, Inc.Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerOctober 30, 2003  

**
Exhibit 12


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
       United Air Lines, Inc. and Subsidiary Companies

      Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


                                           Six Months Ended
                                               June 30
                                           2000       1999
                                           ----       ----
                                            (In Millions)
<S>                                      <C>        <C>
Earnings:
   Earnings before income taxes,
    extraordinary item and cumulative
    effect of accounting change          $  730     $1,158
   Fixed charges, from below                519        508
   Undistributed (earnings) losses of
    affiliates                                3        (27)
   Interest capitalized                     (40)       (36)
                                          -----      -----
       Earnings                          $1,212     $1,603
                                          =====      =====

Fixed charges:

   Interest expense                      $  198     $  188
   Portion of rental expense
    representative of the interest factor   321        320
                                          -----      -----
       Fixed charges                     $  519     $  508
                                          =====      =====

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges         2.34       3.15
                                          =====      =====
</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 23810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8218]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-57-000]

PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice of Institution of Proceeding and 
Refund Effective Date

April 24, 2007.
    On April 19, 2007, the Commission issued an order that instituted a 
proceeding in the above-referenced docket, pursuant to section 206 of 
the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, regarding PJM's allocation 
of costs for ``economic'' projects.
    The refund effective date in the above-docketed proceedings, 
established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8218 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
Case No. 9,940.

#### MURDOCK v. The EMMA GRAHAM.

[3 Cin. Law Bul. 1,054.]

District Court, S. D. Ohio.

1878.

Insolvency — Debo op General Assignment — Claim *for*Damages — Collision.

Claim for damages for collision of craft passes to assignee under deed of general assignment for benefit of creditors under the Ohio statute.

[This was a libel by J. B. Murdock, as-signee, against the steamer Emma Graham, to recover for injuries sustained in a collision.]

Moulton & Johnson, for exceptions.

Hooper & Dyer, contra.

SWING, District Judge.

The libel in this case is to recover damages for injuries sustained by a float or barge collided against by the steamer Emma Graham. To this libel, the defendant or claimant, files exceptions upon the following grounds: That since the alleged collision the owner of the barge made an assignment under the laws of Ohio, and that his assignee cannot sue, as the lien is not assignable in admiralty. This brings up the question: Is it assignable, and is it within the terms of the assignment? There is no doubt of the assignor's right to sue for the injury to his personal property, but can the assignee sue? There is much conflict in the authorities upon this point, but I have finally come to the conclusion that a right of action for injuries to personal property may be assignable in connection with the property itself, and that in the ease at bar, the assignee under the assignment for the benefit of creditors, may sue for this injury in a court of admiralty. It is different from a personal tort which dies *1013with the. owner. It would he very unjust and inequitable to say that this right is not assignable, and that the creditors should not have the benefit of the lieu. See The Sarah J. Weed [Case No. 12,350]; Burrill, Assignm. 70, 355; Rogers v. Spence, 13 Mees. & W. 570. This right and lien is assignable, and together with the property passes to the assignee under the law of assignment for the benefit of creditors.

2. Does the assignment cover or include the right? Not in express terms. The words of his deed of assignment are “his real and personal estate,” and this ought to embrace all his rights.' If this is to be treated as an assignment under the laws of Ohio, it would convey all his rights and choses in action. See Rev. St. Ohio (Swan & Critchfield’s Ed.) p. 697, § 11; Id. p. 709; Burrill, Assignm. 73, 354, 355; 1 Smith, Lead. Cas. 70-75. For some purposes it might possibly not be so taken, but in the present instance, I think, it comes fairly within the meaning of the statute. The exceptions to the libel are overruled, and leave given to answer.
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**IN RE: ADOPTION OF K.E.S., A MINOR**

**PETITION OF: A.M.S., MOTHER :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 199 MAL 2016** 

**P etition for Allowance of Appeal from**  **the Order of the Superior Court**

ORDER

P ER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 29th day of April, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is**

DENIED

**.**
ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 05-13-00627-CR OFFENSE: 19.02

Deon Reese Evans v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Dallas

\(o^-lH

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 291st Judicial District Court

DATE: 11/18/2014 Publish: NO TC CASE #: F-1228191-U

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Deon Reese Evans v. The State of

STYLE: Texas CCA#: IbM-M

A?PEllamt^ S Petition CCA Disposition:

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE:

ReFtJSifb JUDGE:

DATE: Ox/01(<2Ji<r

JUDGE: V.fa UsiAi*^-

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                 JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                           362,000
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 28,630,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                                   28,551,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              59,103,000
<PP&E>                                                        18,351,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                (6,031,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               110,945,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         66,023,000
<BONDS>                                                                0
<COMMON>                                                         795,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                    26,186,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 110,945,000
<SALES>                                                       44,200,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              44,796,000
<CGS>                                                         29,034,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 20,050,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            1,230,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (5,518,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     (10,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (5,528,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (5,528,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                      (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      (0.07)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32
 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Relating to a Periodic Report Containing Financial Statements
  (1)
    
    The Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the Form
10-Q) containing the financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
    
    
    
    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/s/ John L. Walsh
    
    
    
    /s/ John C. BarneyJohn L. Walsh
    
    
    
    John C. BarneyDate: August 7, 2009
    
    
    
    Date: August 7, 2009
# C_2015081EN.01001001.xml

| 9.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/10

---

Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 November 2014 in Case T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission

(Case C-20/15 P)

(2015/C 081/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Autogrill España, S.A.

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

| — | reserve the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting Article 107(1) TFEU and, in particular, the concept of selectivity of State aid contained in that article.

That single ground of appeal consists of two parts, which derive from the aforementioned error of law:

| — | in the first place, the General Court erred by requiring, in order to demonstrate that a measure is selective, the identification of a category of undertakings with specific and inherent characteristics (identifiable ex ante); and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the first place, the General Court erred by requiring, in order to demonstrate that a measure is selective, the identification of a category of undertakings with specific and inherent characteristics (identifiable ex ante); and

ex ante

| — | in the second place, the General Court incorrectly interpreted the concept of selectivity by making an artificial distinction between aid to the export of goods and aid to the export of capital. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the second place, the General Court incorrectly interpreted the concept of selectivity by making an artificial distinction between aid to the export of goods and aid to the export of capital.

---
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-11-0000605 25-SEP-2013 08:40 AM
EXHIBIT 10.17


ACKNOWLEDGMENT, CONSENT

  AND REAFFIRMATION OF GUARANTOR OF LEASE


     THIS ACKNOWLEDGMENT, CONSENT AND REAFFIRMATION OF GUARANTOR OF LEASE (the “Consent”), is made this 3rd day of June, 2008, by PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES, INC. (“Guarantor”), to and for the
benefit of 3280 PEACHTREE I LLC (“Landlord”).


WITNESSETH:


     WHEREAS, Guarantor did duly execute and deliver that certain Guaranty of Lease (the “Original Guaranty”), on October 28, 2005, in connection with and as a material inducement for that certain Lease Agreement,
as may have been amended previously (the “Original Lease”), involving Landlord and American Teleconferencing Services, Ltd. d/b/a Premiere Global Services (“Tenant”).


     WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant have entered into an amendment to the Original Lease (the “Lease Amendment”), dated June 3rd, 2008 subject to and conditioned upon the execution and delivery of this
Consent.


     WHEREAS, Landlord would not have entered into or agreed to the Lease Amendment, were it not for the execution and delivery of this Consent to Landlord, which Consent was a material inducement to Landlord to enter into
the Lease Amendment.


     WHEREAS, Guarantor, which will derive material and substantial benefit from the Lease Amendment, desires to provide this Consent, in connection with the Lease Amendment.


     NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and for Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, paid by the parties hereto to one another, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged by the parties hereto, the parties hereto hereby covenant and agree as follows:


     1. Amendment to Lease. Guarantor hereby acknowledges and consents to the fact that the Original Lease has been modified and amended by virtue of the Lease Amendment.


     2. No Modification. The granting of this Consent by Guarantor to Landlord and Tenant in no way modifies or amends the Guaranty or any Guarantor’s obligations and duties under the Guaranty. Said Guaranty is and
shall remain in full force and effect and is a valid and continuing obligation of Guarantor according to its terms.


     3. Warranties and Representations. The warranties and representations made by Guarantor in the Guaranty are made and ratified as of the date hereof with respect to this Consent.











     4. No Further Consent Required. The request made by Landlord herein and the giving of this Consent by Guarantor shall in no way be or be deemed to be a waiver of Landlord’s rights under the Guaranty.


     5. Binding Nature. This Consent shall inure to the benefit of Landlord, Tenant and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns.


     6. Georgia Law. This Consent has been given, and shall be construed under, the laws of the State of Georgia.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Consent to be executed under seal and delivered on the day and year first above written.

	   	
“Guarantor”
        
	 	 	 
	 	
PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES, INC.
        
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	
 /s/ Scott Askins Leonard
      

        
	 	Its:	
 SVP-Legal
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

** **

**World Omni Financial Corp.**

**Servicer Compliance Statement**

**Pursuant to Item 1123**

**of Regulation AB**

** **

I, William J. Shope,do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of World Omni Financial Corp., a Florida corporation,and further certify on behalf of World Omni Financial Corp. in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer”) under theSale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 23, 2016 (the “Agreement”), among World Omni Auto Receivables Trust2016-A, as Issuing Entity, World Omni Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor, and the Servicer, as follows:

 

(i)       Areview of the activities of the Servicer during the period covered by the issuing entity’s Annual Report on form 10-K forthe fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance under the Agreement, has beenmade under my supervision.

 

(ii)       Tothe best of my knowledge, based on the review described above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreementin all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereuntoset my hand as of March 10, 2017.
No. 53737.

protests 97930-K, etc. (Cleveland).

#### Standard Wholesale Liquors, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 53195.

#### Abraham *&*Straus, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 143206-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 8840)

#### Jay-Willfred Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 708225-3, etc.

(Decided June 13, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated in the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of chinaware imported from Germany.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advanced by the Appraiser in similar eases, is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

May 3, 1944

No. 49389.

#### Petition 6411-R of Simon, Healey & Goldstein, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

From a consideration of the record and the testimony of the president of the petitioning company and the examiner of customs, the court was satisfied that the entry was made without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was therefore granted.