alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT I

UST REALLOCATION
Prior Capital Maximum UST Maximum UST Debt
Commitment of UST UST Reallocation Capital Commitment Amount

$1,111,111,111.00

133,326,388.87 $1,244,437,499.87

$2,488,874,999.74



Acknowledged and Agreed to by:

ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LEGACY SECURITIES
MANAGEMENT, L.P.
By:

By:

UST Reallocation Letter, March 22, 2009


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

March 22, 2010

AllianceBernstein Legacy Securities Management, L.P.
1345 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10105

UST Reallocation

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Reference is made to (i) the Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of
AllianceBernstein Legacy Securities Master Fund, L.P, (the “Partnership”) dated as of October 2, 2009
(as the same may be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time, the “Partnership
Agreement”) and (ii) the Loan Agreement, dated as of the date set forth on Schedule A thereto, by and
among the Partnership, as Borrower, The Bank of New York Mellon, as Administrative Agent and
Collateral Agent, and The United States Department of the Treasury, as Lender (as the same may be
amended, modified or supplemented from time to time, the “Loan Agreement”). Capitalized terms used
but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Partnership Agreement or the Loan Agreement,
as applicable.

The aggregate capital commitments of UST to the UST/TCW Senior Mortgage Securities Fund,
LP. (the “TCW Fund”) was $1,111,111,111.00, of which $44,500,000.00 has been re-invested in other
PPIFs. Accordingly, $1,066,611,111.00 remains available for reallocation, which equates to
$133,326,388.87 per each of the other eight PPIFs.

Pursuant to Section 3.1(g) of the Partnership Agreement, UST hereby consents and the General
Partner agrees to a UST Reallocation in the amount of $133,326,388.87 to the Partnership. The revised
maximum Capital Commitment of UST (the “Maximum UST Capital Commitment”) and Maximum UST
Debt Amount (upon application of the definition of the “Maximum UST Debt Amount” in the Loan
Agreement) are set forth on Exhibit I hereto. Such allocation shall be deemed effective upon the date
hereof.


For the avoidance of doubt, notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in the
Partnership Agreement, the Capital Commitment of UST shall at all times equal the aggregate Capital

Commitments of the Limited Partners other than UST.

* * * *


Sincerely,

TREASURY, as Limited Partner and Lender

Name: Herbert M. Allison, Jr.
Title: Assistant Secretary for Fifancial Stability

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Xeer

UST Reallocation Letter, March 22, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.1

           CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

 The undersigned, Brian J. Kelley, the Chief Executive Officer of
Cognitronics Corporation (the "Company"), has executed this
certification in connection with the filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies that:

     (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.


DATED this 14th day of May 2004.

/s/ Brian J. Kelley
-------------------
Brian J. Kelley

Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Exhibit 77D -DWS Variable Series II


International Select Equity VIP At a meeting
held January 24, 2008, the Board of Trustees of
International Select Equity VIP, a series of
DWS Variable Series II, approved the following
change regarding the Portfolio, which became
effective on or about February 15, 2008:

The portfolio may invest a portion of its assets
in companies located in countries with emerging
markets. These countries are generally located
in Latin America, the Middle East, Eastern
Europe, Asia and Africa. Typically, the portfolio
will not hold more than 35% of its net assets in
emerging markets.

DWS Balanced VIP: The Board approved the addition
of an equity component to the portfolio's
current global tactical asset allocation strategy
(iGAP), which includes adding the iGAP Strategy
and Risk to the prospectus. Adding this strategy
to how the portfolio engages in and determines
when an opportunity exists in the short-term
and medium-term mispricings within global bond,
equity and currency markets.

DWS Strategic Income VIP
The Fund has also adopted the following
non-fundamental policies, which may be changed or
eliminated for each Portfolio by the Fund's
Board of Trustees without a shareholder vote:

As a matter of non-fundamental policy, each
Portfolio, except DWS Money Market VIP,
does not intend to:

For all Portfolios, except DWS Strategic
Income VIP:
(7) acquire securities of registered, open-end
investment companies or registered unit investment
trusts in reliance on Sections 12(d)(1)(F) or
12(d)(1)(G) of the 1940 Act.

Money Market VIP: The Board and shareholders have
approved a change to the fundamental
investment policy regarding concentration for
Money Market VIP. The revised policy language
reads: The Fund may not concentrate its investments
in any particular industry (excluding U.S.
Government Obligations), as that term is used in
the 1940 Act, as amended, and as interpreted or
modified by the regulatory authority having
jurisdiction, from time to time; except that the
Fund will invest more than 25% of its total assets
in the obligations of banks and other financial
institutions.

Allocation VIPs: The Board approved the ability
for Conservative Allocation VIP, Growth
Allocation VIP and Moderate Allocation VIP
(the "Allocation VIPs") to invest in ETFs as well
as non-VIP or retail DWS Funds. The Board approved
the action in the November, 2007 meeting.


C:\Documents and Settings\e444940\Local Settings\
Temporary Internet Files\OLK8B\Exhibit 77D.doc
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION








Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of First Community Financial Partners, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that:





(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2012 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date: March 15, 2013/s/Roy C. ThygesenRoy C. ThygesenPresident and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.01

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATESCODE

 

I, Martin Beaulieu, the Principal ExecutiveOfficer of Altegris Advisors, L.L.C., the General Partner of Altegris QIM Futures Fund, L.P. (the “Partnership”), certifythat (i) the Annual Report of the Partnership on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2019 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Annual Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

Date: March 31, 2020

 

/s/ Martin Beaulieu                

Martin Beaulieu

Principal Executive Officer

Altegris Advisors, L.L.C.

General Partner of Altegris QIM FuturesFund, L.P.
#### Walter J. PHILLIPS, Petitioner, v. Richard P. WILLE, Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 77-1523.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 12, 1977.

*694Richard W. Springer, Kohl, Springer & Springer, Palm Springs, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

On July 15,1977, Walter J. Phillips filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus asking this court to order his release from confinement or set a reasonable bail pending further extradition proceedings in Circuit Court Case No. 77-1323 CF.

On July 18, 1977, this court issued a Rule to Show Cause why the relief prayed for should not be granted as prayed.

The Attorney General, on behalf of the respondent Sheriff of Palm Beach County, filed a response to that Rule on July 25, 1977. That response does not show any reason why we should not grant the relief prayed.

We, therefore, grant the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and direct the Cir-, cuit Court to set reasonable bail pending further proceedings in Circuit Court Case No. 77-1323 CF.

CROSS, DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
258 La. 907

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Lester JACKSON, Jr. v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 51458.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 2, 1971.

In re: Lester Jackson, Jr. applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus.

Granted, (see order attached)

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Earl Edwards Judge of the twelfth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Avoyelles to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 11th day of October, 1971, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through the District Attorney shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
# EUR-Lex - 32005M3727 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32005M3727

**Commission Decision of 23/03/2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.3727 - 3i / BERKENHOFF) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

| |Brussels, 23-III-2005

SG-Greffe(2005) D/201471/2

To the notifying parties

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject : Case No. COMP/ M.3727 – 3i/Berkenhoff Notification of 16/02/2005 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C-47, 23/02/2005, page 11.

1. On 16/02/2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertaking 3i Group plc (“3i”, UK) and Granville Private Equity Managers (Deutschland) Fund Limited Partnership and GBCP (D) II LP (together referred to as “GB-Funds”, Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the undertaking Berkenhoff Management Holding GmbH (“Berkenhoff Holding”, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are :

- for undertaking 3i : venture capital and private equity company

- for undertaking GB-Funds: private equity funds

- for undertaking Berkenhoff Holding: active in development , production and distribution of fine wire solutions in non-ferrous alloys.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5(b) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No139/2004.

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission

signed Neelie Kroes Member of the Commission

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

MERGER PROCEDURE

ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

PUBLIC VERSION
#### Ex parte STATE of Alabama, ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL.

77-351.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 31, 1978.

FAULKNER, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
No. 9793.

#### The A. G. Blair Co. *v.*Geisel, Jr., doing business as The Harrisburg & Steelton Coal & Lumber Co.

(Decided December 21, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas County.

*Messrs. Sumner, Tucker, Mulholland & Hartman,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Marshall & Fraser,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.01

                            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 FX Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David N. Pierce, Chief
Executive 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
the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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/ David N. Pierce
--------------------------
David N. Pierce
Chief Executive Officer
March 10, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# October 2008 - May 2011
#### The KEYES CO., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. ROBERT J. FEWELL COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-652.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 7, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1974.

Sagar & Burns and Joseph Pardo, Miami, for appellant.

Tobias Simon and Elizabeth J. duFresne,. Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellees, Robert J. Fewell Company and Sally B. Renard, who are real estate brokers, received a jury verdict and a final judgment against the defendant-appellant upon the brokers’ claim that the defendant *32intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with their contractual relationship with an owner of property, causing the owner to withdraw his property from the market whereby the plaintiffs were deprived of an earned commission. The elements necessary for the establishment of such a case have been previously dealt with by courts of this State. See Dade Enterprises, Inc. v. Wometco Theatres, Inc., 119 Fla. 70, 160 So. 209 (1935); Retzky v. J. A. Cantor Associates, Inc., Fla.App. 1966, 192 So.2d 24; Mead Corporation v. Mason, Fla.App. 1966, 191 So.2d 592; John B. Reid & Associates, Inc. v. Jimenez, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 575.

Appellant has argued factual considerations in this court. The first point questions the sufficiency of the evidence for the giving of certain instructions by the court. The second point argues the sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint and the evidence as a whole to support the judgment. We have reviewed the record in the light of these points and find that no reversible error is presented.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Jonathan R. Burst, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of International FuelTechnology, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructionscontained in SEC Release 34-47986]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: May 15, 2006         By:            /s/ Jonathan R. Burst         Jonathan R. Burst         Chief Executive Officer
1123 – Servicer Compliance Statement





I, Beth Reitzel, Director of Operations of The Student Loan Corporation (“SLC”), the servicer under the servicing agreement and the administrator under the administration agreement each among SLC, SLC Student Loan Receivables I, Inc. and certain others (together, the “servicing agreements”) relating to SLC Student Loan Trust 2004-1, SLC Student Loan Trust 2005-1, SLC Student Loan Trust 2005-2, SLC Student Loan Trust 2005-3, SLC Student Loan Trust 2006-1, SLC Student Loan Trust 2006-2, SLC Private Student Loan Trust 2006-A, SLC Student Loan Trust 2007-1, SLC Student Loan Trust 2007-2, SLC Student Loan Trust 2008-1, SLC Student Loan Trust 2008-2,  SLC Student Loan Trust 2009-1, SLC Student Loan Trust 2009-2, and SLC Student Loan Trust 2009-3, (each, a publicly issued “trust”), certify that:





(a)
A review of SLC’s servicing activities as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Reporting Period”) and of SLC’s performance under the servicing agreements has been made under my supervision.





(b)
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, SLC has fulfilled all of its servicing obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009.








March 18, 2010





By:  /s/ Beth Reitzel


Beth Reitzel


Director of Operations
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29688]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-62-008]


Wyoming Interstate Company; Notice of Tariff Compliance Filing

November 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 3, 1997, Wyoming Interstate Company 
(WIC), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC gas Tariff, 
Second Revised Volume No. 2 tariff, Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 
52C, Substitute First Revise Sheet No. 64C, Substitute First Revised 
Sheet No. 64D Substitute Original Sheet No. 64E, Substitute Original 
Sheet No. 64F, Substitute Original Sheet No. 64G and Substitute 
Original Sheet No. 64H to be effective November 1, 1997.
    WIC states the tariff sheets are filed in compliance with the order 
issued October 29, 1997 in Docket No. RP97-62-007, as well as Section 
154.203 of the Commission's regulations. As required WIC is reinstating 
language in Article 7.1(d)(iv) on Sheet No. 64C and has revised the 
reference to standard No. 2.3.31 (Version 1.1) on Sheet No. 52C.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29688 Filed 11-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M