alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company duringthe period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errorsmay have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances oramounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for theselected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides areasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria.As described in the accompanying Management’s Assertion of Compliance for servicing criteria1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii), the Company has engaged various vendors to performthe activities required by these servicing criteria. The Company has determined that none of thesevendors is considered a “servicer” as defined in Item 1101(j) of Regulation AB, and the Company haselected to take responsibility for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable toeach vendor as permitted by Interpretation 17.06 of the SEC Division of Corporation Finance Manualof Publicly Available Telephone Interpretations (“Interpretation 17.06”). As permitted byInterpretation 17.06, the Company has asserted that it has policies and procedures in placedesigned to provide reasonable assurance that the vendors’ activities comply in all materialrespects with the servicing criteria applicable to each vendor. The Company is solely responsiblefor determining that it meets the SEC requirements to apply Interpretation 17.06 for the vendorsand related criteria as described in its assertion, and we performed no procedures with respect tothe Company’s eligibility to apply Interpretation 17.06.In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicingcriteria, including servicing criteria 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii) for whichcompliance is determined based on Interpretation 17.06 as described above, as of and for the yearended December 31, 2010, is fairly stated, in all material respects.(Signed) KPMG, LLPChicago, Illinois
#### ANNING-JOHNSON COMPANIES, Appellant, v. SUPERIOR ROOFING, INC., Appellee.

No. 76-1906.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Preddy, Kutner & Hardy and Michael J. Parenti, III, Miami, for appellant.

Myron B. Berman, North Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *United Gas Pipeline Company v. Gulf Power Company,*334 So.2d 310 (Fla.App.1976); *Lincenberg v. Issen,*318 So.2d 386 (Fla.1975); *Sunspan Eng. & Const. Co. v. Spring-Lock Scaffold Co.,*310 So.2d 4 (Fla.1975), and Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510.
Exhibit 8.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF SCORPIO TANKERS INC.

|                                        |  |                                            
|--------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Company                                 |  | Incorporated in                            
|                                        |  |                                            
|Noemi Shipping Company Limited          |  | The Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|Senatore Shipping Company Limited       |  | The Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|Venice Shipping Company Limited         |  | The Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI Harmony Shipping Company Limited    |  | The Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI Heritage Shipping Company Limited   |  | The Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI Conqueror Shipping Company Limited  |  | The Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI Matador Shipping Company Limited    |  | The Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI Gladiator Shipping Company Limited  |  | The Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI Highlander Shipping Company Limited |  | The Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI Spirit Shipping Company Limited     |  | The Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI Chartering and Trading Limited      |  | The Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|Sting LLC                               |  | State of Delaware, United States of America

---
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2095 

To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study to determine 

the costs for the Corps of Engineers to ensure that certain project 

activities authorized under Nationwide Permit 14 comply with public 

safety conditions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 19, 2021 

Mr. LONG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study 

to determine the costs for the Corps of Engineers to 

ensure that certain project activities authorized under 

Nationwide Permit 14 comply with public safety conditions, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. STUDY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army, acting 

5 through the Chief of Engineers, shall conduct a study to 

6 determine the costs for the Corps of Engineers to— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2095 IH

1 (1) include public safety as a condition for au2 thorizing a proposed project activity under Nation3 wide Permit 14; and 

4 (2) inspect an authorized project activity after 

5 construction to ensure that such project activity is 

6 maintained in compliance with all conditions related 

7 to public safety under Nationwide Permit 14. 

8 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

9 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 

10 the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 

11 the House of Representatives and the Committee on Envi12 ronment and Public Works of the Senate a report con13 taining the results of the study conducted under sub14 section (a). 

15 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

16 (1) NATIONWIDE PERMIT 14.—The term ‘‘Na17 tionwide Permit 14’’ means the nationwide permit, 

18 relating to linear transportation projects, issued pur19 suant to section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 

20 U.S.C. 403) and section 404 of the Federal Water 

21 Pollution Control Act. 

22 (2) PROJECT ACTIVITY.—The term ‘‘project ac23 tivity’’ means an activity for which a permittee is reVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:00 May 19, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2095.IH H2095

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2095 IH

1 quired to submit a pre-construction notification 

2 under Nationwide Permit 14. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
254 La. 754

#### BAKER FINANCE CO., Inc. v. Enoch H. HINES.

No. 49940.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 1, 1969.

In re: Enoch H. Hines applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 222 So.2d 331.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
No. 00-7395.

#### Foster *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Transaction Summary

The U.S. Department of the Treasury agreed to make a loan totaling $15 million to Eastern 

Airlines, LLC. (the Company), a wholly owned subsidiary of Eastern Air Holdings, Inc. The 

Company is a passenger air carrier with approximately 137 U.S. employees in March 2020.

Treasury made the loan pursuant to section 4003(b)(1) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 

Economic Security (CARES) Act. The loan is secured by aircraft, engines, and accounts 

receivable. The loan has an interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 3.5% and matures on October 28, 

2025. Treasury funded the full loan amount at close. The loan proceeds will be used to provide 

liquidity to continue the Company’s operations. The transaction agreement includes covenants by 

the Company to comply with certain restrictions on employee compensation, stock repurchases, 

dividends, and reductions in employment levels, as required by the CARES Act. The loan 

constitutes senior indebtedness of the Company, and Treasury will receive 3% payment-in-kind 

annual interest on the loan in accordance with section 4003(d) of the CARES Act.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Team Indus tr ial Services, Inc., and S id Cammeresi

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00212

- CV

Trial court case number: 18

- DCV

- 256883

Trial court: 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

Relators, Team Industrial Services, Inc. and Sid Cammeresi, have filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s May 3, 2021 order enforcing a subpoena and requiring
relator, Sid Cammeresi

, to appear for trial beginning May 4, 2021. Relators have also filed a motion for temporary relief asking this Court to stay the order pending this Court’s decision.

The Court grants the motion for temporary relief and orders the May 3, 2021 order enforcing the subp oena against Sid Cammeresi stayed pending this Court’s disposition of the petition for writ of mandamus.

The Court requests a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from real parties in interest, Kelli Most, Individually and as Personal Representati ve of the Estate of Jesse Henson, to

be filed by Wednesday, May 5, 2021, at 5:00 p.m

.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___ Justice Richard Hightower

________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ____ May 4, 2021

__________________
EXHIBIT 32

                                  Certification
                Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
         of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
                          Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of MedBook World, Inc., a Delaware corporation, does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010 of MedBook World, Inc. fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in such report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of MedBook World, Inc.


Dated:December 30, 2010                       /s/ Daniel Masters
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Daniel Masters
                                              Chief Executive Officer



Dated: December 30, 2010                      /s/ Anthony Turnbull
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Anthony Turnbull
                                              Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K
or as a separate disclosure document.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. John DONNELL, Relator, v. E. Wilson PURDY, as Sheriff of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, and Jack Sandstrom, Chief of Jail Division, Dade County, Florida, Respondents.

No. 71-96.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 28, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus dismissed.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 of ViaVid Broadcasting Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Brian
Kathler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.

/s/ Brian Kathler
    -------------
    Brian Kathler
    Chief Executive Officer
    February 13, 2003
256 La. 359

#### William WOOTEN v. Howard V. WIMBERLY, Sr., and State Farm Automobile Insurance Company.

No. 50593.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: William Wooten applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 233 So.2d 682.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
#### Alice E. REPO et al., Appellants, v. FLAGSHIP FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CORAL GABLES, Appellee.

No. 77-141.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 2, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 2, 1978.

Podhurst, Orseck & Parks and Michael S. Olin, Miami, for appellants.

Myers, Kaplan, Levinson & Kenin, Miami, for appellee.

*843Before PEARSON, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellants, plaintiffs below, bring this appeal from a summary final judgment dated December 27, 1976, entered by the trial court in favor of appellee, defendant below. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

The basic question raised by this appeal is the propriety of the summary final judgment entered by the trial court in favor of appellee. The answer to this question turns, upon an analysis of the record to ascertain whether, at the time the trial court entered the summary final judgment, there existed any genuine issue of a material fact which would have precluded the proper entry of the summary final judgment. In our opinion, the record clearly reflects that appellee had negated the existence of any genuine issue of a material fact, notwithstanding the bare paper allegations of the complaint in regard to negligence, fraud, and misrepresentation. In the light of this determination, we hold that, pursuant to Rule 1.510, Florida Rules Civil Procedure, and the other applicable rules of law, the trial court properly entered summary final judgment in favor of appellee.

Affirmed.
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Aloha, 

Rita <cnrward@aol.com> 

Sunday, November 24, 2013 1:52 PM 

EAS (OST); damientours@aol.com; richard@makanikai.com; 

muleman@sandwichisles.net; boland@lava.net 

Kalaupapa 

First of all, my name is Rita Lutu Ward a daughter of a Kalaupapa Patient here on Kalaupapa. 

I was told this email to let my mana'o regarding Makani Kai. 

But first, allow me this time to explain abit more of what it took to finally get Makani 

Kai into Kalaupapa. With all the other past airline, they have done the job as far as taking 

care of the Kalaupapa Patients traveling needs, and so forth. Aloha Air, Alii, Brandt airlines and 

to mention abit more. 

We have been under Pacific Wings for over 5 years I think. It was the worst time for Kalaupapa. 

If you'd talk to the patients & workers in Kalaupapa there was a mode of depression while Pacific 

Wings was here. Their ridiculous prices was charged over $500.00 for round trips and same 

from Kalaupapa just to Moloka'i (topside). Many of us could not afford this price and felt as if 

we were all held at gun point or as hostages. 

Long story short- Senator Daniel Inouye, fought for Kalaupa and heard our cries for help 

on this situation. Then alas, Pacific Wings left and then others tried to get into kalaupapa and with so 

many promises but no commitment on their ends. It was only Makani Kai who stepped up 

and offered their services to Kalaupapa. We are so very happy with this decision, and could 

not ask for anything more. Richard Shuman(Makani Kai) have gone & beyond his duties to 

help Kalaupapa. He and his staff are wonderful to us, like "Ohana" (family). And I thank them 

every trip to Honolulu or back to Kalaupapa. 

Just find the time to talk to either workers (state & federal) and "Our Kalaupapa Patients" they 

all agree to want Makani Kai to stay. I stand with Makani Kai and do not want another airline 

coming in to Kalaupapa. This is my sincere "Mana'o" (Thoughts). If you have any questions please 

don't hesitate to let me know. 

Rita Lutu Ward 

Daughter of Richard & Gloria Marks (Patients Of Kalaupapa) 

Phone: 808-567-6784 

10 J This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. 

1
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2165 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2165

To limit the authority of a State or other related taxing jurisdiction 
to impose a tax on a resident who has relocated permanent residence to 
           another State or its related taxing jurisdiction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2021

Mr. Schweikert (for himself, Mr. Perry, Mr. Mann, Mr. C. Scott Franklin 
  of Florida, and Mr. Hice of Georgia) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To limit the authority of a State or other related taxing jurisdiction 
to impose a tax on a resident who has relocated permanent residence to 
           another State or its related taxing jurisdiction.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Exit Tax Prevention Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL TAXATION.

    A State, or taxing jurisdiction in a State, may not impose an 
obligation for the collection of an income tax, wealth tax, or any 
similar tax on a resident who has relocated permanent residence to 
another State or a taxing jurisdiction of another State.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    For purposes of this Act:
            (1) Income tax.--The term ``income tax'' has the same 
        meaning given to it by the taxing jurisdiction in which the 
        resident lives.
            (2) Resident.--The term ``resident'' has the same meaning 
        given to it by the taxing jurisdiction in which the resident 
        lives.
            (3) Similar tax.--The term ``similar tax'' means any 
        imposed tax on an individual relating to the net wealth, value 
        of held assets, or annual income of such individual.
            (4) Taxation jurisdiction.--The term ``taxing 
        jurisdiction'' means any of the several States, the District of 
        Columbia, any territory or possession of the United States, or 
        any municipality, city, county, township, parish, 
        transportation district, assessment jurisdiction, or other 
        political subdivision within the territorial limits of the 
        United States with the authority to impose a tax, charge, or 
        fee.
            (5) Wealth tax.--The term ``wealth tax'' means any imposed 
        tax on an individual's net wealth or value of held assets.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION.

    (a) Effective Date.--This Act shall apply to calendar years 
beginning after December 31, 2021.
    (b) Application.--This Act shall not apply to any tax obligation 
that accrues before January 1, 2022.
                                 <all>
```
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40587

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

IRINEO LOPEZ-GUZMAN, also known as Hector Hernandez-Montero

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-12-1

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Irineo Lopez-Guzman raises

arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. UnitedStates v.Pineda-Arrellano, 492F.3d 624,

625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The

appellant's motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 3, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
#### David BRUNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1877.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*813Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.

NATHAN, Judge.

The trial court erred in imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon the defendant pursuant to an order of revocation of probation where the defendant was a juvenile and a first felony offender at the time of the sentencing, and the court refused to order a presentence investigation in violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.710. *Andrews v. State,*309 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.