alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8826]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,858]


Delphi Corporation, Automotive Holdings Group Including Leased 
Workers of Bartech Group, Inc., Manpower and Continental Design and 
Engineering Working On-Site at Delphi; Anderson, IN; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on February 2, 2007, applicable to workers of 
Delphi Corporation, Automotive Holdings Group, Anderson, Indiana. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2007 (72 
FR 7087).
    At the request of the petitioners, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of automotive ignition products.
    New information shows that leased workers of Bartech Group, Inc., 
Manpower and Continental Design and Engineering were employed on-site 
at the Anderson, Indiana location of Delphi Corporation, Automotive 
Holdings Group.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include leased workers of Bartech Group, Inc., 
Manpower and Continental Design and Engineering working on-site at the 
Anderson, Indiana location of the subject firm.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers employed on-site at Delphi Corporation, Automotive Holdings 
Group, Anderson, Indiana who were adversely affected by a shift in 
production to Mexico.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,858 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Delphi Corporation, Automotive Holdings Group, 
including leased workers of Bartech Group, Inc., Manpower and 
Continental Design and Engineering, Anderson, Indiana, who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 
23, 2006, through February 2, 2009, are eligible to apply for 
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, 
and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment 
assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of May 2007.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-8826 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 32.1



   CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND PRINCIPAL
                    FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
               COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
       THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


     I, John B. Nano, am President, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of Competitive Technologies,
Inc. (the Company).

     This certification is being furnished pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of
the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended January 31, 2004 (the Report).

     I hereby certify 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly
          presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
          and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and
          for the periods covered by the Report.


Date: March 16, 2004          /s/ John B. Nano
                              John B. Nano
                              President,
                              Chief Executive Officer and
                              Chief Financial Officer of
                              Competitive Technologies, Inc.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 15 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 0077 6

- CR NO. 14

- 13

- 00777

- CR

AKILLEON LARAN CHASE , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1338722 & 1338723

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant appeals two convictions for aggravated robbery

. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v.
State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).2 A copy of counsel’s bri ef was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford
v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’s request, the record was provided to him. On June 16, 2014 , appellant filed a pro se response to
counsel’s brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. We are not to address the merits of each claim
raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce , Busby, and Wise. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b).
STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff/Appellees,

vs.

MICHAEL BONACORSI,

Defendant/Appellant.

ORDER FOR

ADDITIONAL TIME FOR

FILING OPENING BRIEF

Upon review of the Defendant/Appellant Fourth Motion for Additional Time for

Filing Opening Brief, and good cause therefrom;

It is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant/Appellant shall have an additional

thirty (30) days from July 16, 2021, due date to file their Opening Brief. Defendant/Appellant

Opening Brief will be due August 16, 2021.

cc: Jami Rebsom

Attorney General

1 Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 15 2021
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Harry Miller, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB ofMedina Coffee, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport; 

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant andhave:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date ofthis quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors andthe audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for theregistrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I haveindicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changesin internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affectinternal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.

Date: May 15, 2003

         /s/ HarryMiller**By**:_____________________________**Harry Miller, President, CEO, CFO & Sole Director**
Before the First Division,

June 3, 1949

No. 53223.

#### Ali Shabbir India Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 146376-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00305-CR

Fernando FLORES-MIRANDA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR1872

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 25, 2012

DISMISSED

On June 7, 2012, we notified the appellant that the trial court’s certification in this appeal 

states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” 

Additionally, the clerk’s record contained a written waiver signed by the appellant pursuant to 

which he entered a plea of no contest. The trial court’s judgment also reflected that there was a 

plea bargain agreement, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment 

recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. Therefore, the trial court’s 
04-12-00305-CR

- 2 -

certification accurately reflected that the criminal case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX R. APP. P.

25.2(a)(2). 

In our June 7, 2012 order, we warned the appellant that “[this] appeal must be dismissed 

if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the 

record under these rules.” See id. R. 25.2(d). We ordered that this appeal would be dismissed 

pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless the appellant caused an amended trial court certification to be 

filed by June 29, 2012, that showed the appellant has the right of appeal. See id. R. 25.2(d), 37.1; 

see also Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Daniels v. State, 110 

S.W.3d 174, 176 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). 

On July 6, 2012, appellant filed a response indicating that the trial court certification in 

the record is accurate and moved this court to dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this 

appeal.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
----

Exhibit 99.3

Summary of Guaranty Contract of Maximum Amount ( the"Contract") Entered into by and between BAK International Limited (the"Guarantor") and Shenzhen Hi-Tech District Branch, Industrial Bank CO. Ltd (the"Creditor") on December 25, 2009 

Main contents: 

-  Guaranty Contract number:  Xingyinshen Gaoxinqu Shouxin (baozheng)zi(2009)006; BAK  International Limited undertakes to assume joint and several liabilities for  Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd (the "Obligor")’s indebtedness towards  Industrial Bank under the Comprehensive Credit Facility Agreement of Maximum  Amount (reference no.: Xingyinshen Gaoxinqu Shouxinzi (2009)008) from December  31, 2009 to December 31, 2010, and the maximum amount secured is RMB 62.5  million. **Guaranty Responsibility**: The guaranty under this Contract shall be  guaranty with joint and several liabilities. The guarantor is obligated to pay  off the debt in the event the obligor is unable to pay off the debt (including  the creditor declares the debt becomes mature in advance to its original  expiry date due to default of the obligor or the guarantor). **Scope  of Guaranty:**The guaranty shall cover all of the loan principal, interest,  penalty interest, breach of contract compensation, damages, undertaking fee  and all the expenses such as litigation cost, lawyer’s fee, notification cost  and public notice cost etc. which is incurred to the Creditor in realizing its  creditor’s right. **Guaranty period:** The guaranty  period is from the effective date of this Contract to two years after the  expiry of the term of the Credit Facility Agreement and relevant agreement  entered into under the Credit Facility Agreement. **Headlines of the articles omitted:**-  Termination and  explanation Payment on demand Declaration and  undertaking of the Guarantor Obligations of the  Guarantor Independence of  Guarantor’s obligations Continuity of Obligations  Disputation settlement  Validity Supplement articles
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000122 22-JUN-2015 10:39 AM
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 85 (Thursday, May 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24597-24598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8487]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NM-920-1310-07; TXNM 115038; TXNM 115041; TXNM 115043]


Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Leases TXNM 
115038; TXNM 115041; TXNM 115043

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Leases.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of 43 CFR 3108.2-3(b)(2), Pinnacle 
Operating Company, Inc. timely filed a petition for reinstatement of 
oil and gas leases TXNM 115038, TXNM 115041 and TXNM 115043 for lands 
in Sabine County, Texas, and was accompanied by all required rentals 
and royalties accruing from December 1, 2006, the date of termination.

[[Page 24598]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky C. Olivas, BLM, New Mexico State 
Office, (505) 438-7609.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: No valid lease has been issued affecting the 
lands. The lessee has agreed to new lease terms for rentals and 
royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof and 16\2/3\ 
percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500.00 
administrative fee and has reimbursed the Bureau of Land Management for 
the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has met all the 
requirements for reinstatement of the leases as set out in Sections 
31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and 
the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate the leases 
effective December 1, 2006, subject to the original terms and 
conditions of the leases and the increased rentals and royalty rates 
cited above.

    Dated: April 25, 2007.
Becky C. Olivas,
Land Law Examiner, Fluids Adjudication Team 1.
 [FR Doc. E7-8487 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of DirectorsSonoSite, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-97973, 333-89518, 333-51820, 333-82739, 333-49401, 333-74833, 333-60112, 333-110913 and 333-124452) on Form S-8 and registration statements (Nos. 333-68610, 333-91083 and 333-83278) on Form S-3 of SonoSite, Inc. of our reports dated March 15, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of SonoSite, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and shareholders equity and comprehensive income (loss) for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005 and the related financial statement schedule, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form
10-K of SonoSite, Inc.

Seattle, WashingtonMarch 15, 2006

78

---
# ot) ST Aerospace A c om pal'! ot ST Enginefiring ST Aerospace Mobil e, I nc 2100 9th St reet, 8 roo kl ey Complex M o b i l e , Alaba m a 366 1 5 , USA Te l : (25 1) 4 3 8 8 8 8 8 F ax : (2 51 ) 43 8 8 89 2 FAA Atlanta 2 1 st D e ce mb e r , 2011 Subj e ct : Petit i on for E xemptio n Reference: FAA P roject Number ST13005AT-T Dear Mr . Avella , STA Mob~le submits the answe rs to the questions raised by the FAA with regards t o the petition for exemption on th e Ma i n Deck Cargo Door (MDCD) me eting 

### § 25.783 Am e ndm e nt 1 14. 1 . What efforts has ST A Mobile already done on the des i gn ch a nges to make a compliant do o r? STA Mobile has started fe a sibility stud i es to see how to make t h e door compliant to Amendment 114 based on the last week feedback from FAA on the position of the MDCD . 2. What are the proposed design changes? As i t is only last week , we do not have anything definite yet but plan to have a go-to-design in 12 months . Prototyping and t e st i ng is p l anned to be with i n 18-20 months . 3 . When will they be i ncorporated into the airp l ane that has already b e en modifi e d? We s ee k a tim e -limi t ed exe mption of 2 ye a rs and have the changes implemented in the MDCD on MSN 25622 by the end of this per i od or sooner . W e are in discus s ions with potential cu stomers to convert more airc raft in a ccordan ce with th i s S T C; we would like to apply this exemption to other airc raft and have t hem retrof i tted w i thin the exemption per i od . We do not know th e MSN for thes e aircraft yet . Since re l y, 

# hr Terence Ta n Dire ctor Engineering ST Ae ro s pace Mobi l e, I nc. Office: (251) 436 - 0181 E-mail : Te re n ce

_TAN @ stmae . com

- , '

Page 1 of 1 • "'. S i n ga pore Tec hn o l ogies

~ =I E' . 

# . , m. ng m een n g
Exhibit 34.30



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that
Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association (Midland or the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for
all transactions serviced on the Enterprise!Loan Management System (the Platform), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C),
1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the
Companys compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to
detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that Midland complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



LOGO

February 17, 2017



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100
Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106

T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890www.pwc.com/us
No. 46989.

#### Protest 774794-G of R. W. Gresham (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

When this case was called for trial the plaintiff submitted the protest without evidence in support of the claims made. There being nothing in the record to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.