alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 1 | I 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 Auto Receivables Trust 2017-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 2 | Based 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; |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 3 | Based 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; |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 4 | Based 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 |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 5 | All 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. |

|                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                               |  |
| /s/ Ryan C. Farris                                            |   |
|                                                          |
| Ryan C. Farris                                                |
| President, Ally Auto Assets LLC, as Depositor                 |
| (Senior Officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
Red Mountain Resources, Inc. 10-K/A





Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATIONS


I, Alan W. Barksdale, certify that:





1.           I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Red Mountain Resources, Inc.; and





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.








Date: September 27, 2013


/s/ Alan W. BarksdaleName:
Alan W. BarksdaleTitle:
Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 3rd QUARTER 2005

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO

4-WEEK AND 6/30 7/5 7/7 16.00 16.00 16.00 51.00 -3.00

3&6 MONTH BILLS 7/7 7/11 7/14 20.00 16.00 16.00 47.00 5.00

7/14 7/18 7/21 20.00 16.00 16.00 46.00 6.00

7/7 7/25 7/28 20.00 16.00 16.00 46.00 6.00

7/28 8/1 8/4 20.00 16.00 16.00 46.00 6.00

7/7 8/8 8/11 22.00 17.00 16.00 50.00 5.00

8/11 8/15 8/18 22.00 17.00 16.00 52.00 3.00

7/7 8/22 8/25 22.00 17.00 16.00 53.00 2.00

8/25 8/29 9/1 18.00 17.00 16.00 55.00 -4.00

7/7 9/5 9/8 18.00 17.00 16.00 57.00 -6.00

9/8 9/12 9/15 10.00 16.00 15.00 57.00 -16.00

7/7 9/19 9/22 10.00 16.00 15.00 56.00 -15.00

9/22 9/26 9/29 16.00 16.00 15.00 51.00 -4.00

652.00 667.00 -15.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

9-DAY BILL 7/1 7/5 7/6 25.00 25.00 0.00

Matures 7/15

14-DAY BILL 8/26 8/31 9/1 30.00 30.00 0.00

Matures 9/15

8-DAY BILL 9/2 9/7 9/15 12.00 12.00 0.00

Matures 9/15

0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

IN SIZE

5-Year Note 7/11 7/13 7/15 15.00 15.00

10-Year TIPS (R) 7/11 7/14 7/15 10.00 10.00

20-Year TIPS ( R ) 7/21 7/26 7/29 8.00 8.00

2-Year Note 7/25 7/27 8/1 24.00 24.13 -0.13

3-Year Note 8/3 8/9 8/15 22.00

5-Year Note 8/3 8/10 8/15 15.00

10-Year Note 8/3 8/11 8/15 14.00 18.55 32.45

2-Year Note 8/22 8/24 8/29 24.00 23.17 0.83

5-year Note 9/1 9/7 9/15 15.00 15.00

10-Year Note (R) 9/1 9/8 9/15 9.00 9.00

2-Year Note 9/26 9/28 9/30 24.00 24.95 -0.95

180.00 90.79 89.20

Estimates are italicized

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 74.20

R = Reopening
256 La. 363

#### J. V. BRASWELL et al. v. H. J. HEARTWELL et al.

No. 50624.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: J. V. Braswell et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Cad-do. 234 So.2d 197.

Writ refused. There is no error of law in the judgment complained of.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,477
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  112,249
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,958
<INVENTORY>                                     18,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,303
<PP&E>                                         769,331
<DEPRECIATION>                               (316,166)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 683,679
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,908
<BONDS>                                        130,256
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,796
<OTHER-SE>                                     339,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   683,679
<SALES>                                        379,108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               386,535
<CGS>                                          314,567
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  348,590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,378
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   844
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,422
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,301
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,569
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,732
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,732
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.82
        

</TABLE>
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-17-00418-CR

JUSTIN RYAN RUBIO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County (1452160D)

April 11, 2019

Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30927]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases 
Special Emphasis Panel meetings:

    Name of SEP: ZDK1-GRB-C-J1.
    Date: December 11-13, 1997.
    Time: 8:00 p.m.
    Place: Sheraton Grande Torrey Pines Hotel, 10950 North Torrey 
Pines Road, La Jolla, California 92037.
    Contact: Dan E. Matsumoto, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Natcher Building, Room 
6as-37B, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-
6600, Phone: (301) 594-8894.

    Name of SEP: ZDK1-GRB-C-J2.
    Date: December 8, 1997.
    Time: 1:00 p.m.
    Place: Room 6as-37B, Natcher Building, NIH (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact: Dan E. Matsumoto, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Natcher Building, Room 
6as-37B, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda. Maryland 20892-
6600, Phone: (301) 594-8894.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    These meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.847-849, 
Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases; Digestive Diseases and 
Nutrition; and Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, 
National Institutes of Health)

    Dated: November 17, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-30927 Filed 11-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30751]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-40-000]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Notice of Statement of 
Refunds Due

November 18, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 10, 1997, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle) pursuant to the Commission's Order dated September 
10, 1997, in Public Service Company of Colorado, et al., Docket Nos. 
RP97-369-000, et al., tendered for filing its Statement of Refunds Due 
with respect to refunds of Kansas Ad Valorem Taxes.
    Panhandle states that copies of its filing is being sent to the 
Kansas Corporation Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before November 25, 1997. 
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. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. 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. 97-30751 Filed 11-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 12.2





CERTIFICATION





I, Amir Loberman, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of D. Medical Industries Ltd.





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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-115(e) for the company 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 company, 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 company’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; and





(c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):





(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 company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





(b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.





Date: June 12, 2011





/s/ Amir Loberman


Amir Loberman


Chief Financial Officer
#### Freda BORANDI, Appellant, v. ST. ANTHONY’S HOSPITAL, INC., Appellee.

No. 72-992.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Feb. 20, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1974.

Kiernan & Reams, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

John T. Allen, Jr. and Harrison, Greene, Mann, Davenport, Rowe & Stanton, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

HOBSON, Judge.

Appellant appeals a final judgment in the amount of $1,000 on the ground that the verdict, in the light of the evidence, was inadequate.

Appellant, while a patient in appellee’s hospital, fell and fractured her right kneecap. The uncontradicted amount of loss of earnings attributable to the knee injury was in the approximate amount of $1,500. The appellant testified as to pain and suffering which was supported by the medical testimony. There was also uncontradicted medical testimony that the appellant sustained a 15% permanent impairment of her right lower extremity.

The appellant was suffering from a detached retina which was the subject of an operation at the same time as the surgery was performed on her right knee. Therefore, the entire amount of the medical expenses were not attributable solely to the injury to her knee but certainly some part thereof was occasioned by such injury.

Appellant moved for a new trial on the issue of damages only which was denied. Appellee made no motion for a new trial on the issue of liability nor has it filed cross assignments of error.

Our Supreme Court in Griffis v. Hill, 230 So.2d 143, Fla.1969, laid down the test of the adequacy of a verdict as follows:

> “The test to be applied in determining the adequacy of a verdict is whether a jury of reasonable men could have returned that verdict.”

In view of the uncontradicted evidence pertaining to damages in this record, we hold that the verdict of the jury is clearly and grossly inadequate.

*55As appellee filed no motion for a new trial on the issue of liability nor cross assignments of error, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages only. Meana v. St. Petersburg Kennel Club, Inc., 279 So.2d 329, Fla.App.2d 1973.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Transaction Summary

The U.S. Department of the Treasury agreed to make a loan totaling $1,400,000 to Thomas 

Global Systems LLC (the Company), a wholly owned subsidiary of Thomas Global Systems Inc. 

The Company is a repair station with approximately 20 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 accounts receivable. It has an interest 

rate equal to LIBOR plus 3.5% and matures on November 7, 2025. The Company may draw the 

loan proceeds in a single draw through November 23, 2020. 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.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

SIMUEL HOWARD, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-82

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed June 20, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Hillsborough County; Mark R. Wolfe, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
CONSENT OF PAUL DEERING AND STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.
 
 
 Alderon Iron Ore Corp.
 United States Securities and Exchange Commission
 
 Dear Sirs:
 
 RE: ALDERON IRON ORE CORP.
 
 I, Paul Deering, P.Eng., P.Geo., Practice Leader and Senior Engineer at Stantec Consulting Ltd. do hereby consent to filing of the following report.
 
 Reference is made to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study of the Rose Deposit and Resource Estimate for the Mills Lake Deposit of the Kamistiatusset (Kami) Iron Ore Property, Labrador for Alderon Iron Ore Corp.”dated effective December 17, 2012, which the undersigned has co-authored on behalf of Stantec Inc. for Alderon Iron Ore Corp. (the “Technical Report”).
 
 I, on behalf of myself and on behalf of Stantec Consulting Ltd. hereby consent to the inclusion of references to my name and the name of Stantec Consulting Ltd. and references to, and information derived from, the Technical Report, in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Alderon Iron Ore Corp., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
 Dated this 27th day of March, 2015.
 
 
 
 
 “P. Deering”
 Paul Deering, P.Eng., P.Geo.
Chief. Documemary Services Div. 

Depanment of Transp;Jnation 

Washington. D.C. 20590 

DESIGNATION OF AGENT FOR 

SERVICE OF NOTICE. PROCESS, ORDERS 

DECISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 

ATTENTION: DOCKET SECTION, C-55 

Aerodynamics Incorporated . having irs principal 

(Name of Company. please print) 

25700 Science Park Drive, Suite 210 

office at 

(Address) 

hereby designates. pursuant to section 1005(b) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, the person named below as its Agent 

upon whom service of all notices and process. and all orders, decisions, and requirements of the Department of Transportation may be made for and on behalf of said carriec hereby canceling all previous designations of agents made by it to the DOT: 

Name of Agent ___________ R_o_b_e_r_t __ E_. __ c_o_hn ________________________________________________ _ 

Hogan Lovells US LLP (Please Print) 

555 Thirteenth Street, NW 

washington, DC 20004 

Address Tel 637-4999; Fax 637-5910; robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com 

The Agent so designated has written his name and also his initials in the following space: 

Name 

fN WITNESS WHEREOF, _______ A_e_r_o_dyn __ am_~_· c_s_r_n_c_o_rp_o_r_a_t_e_d ________ has caused these 

(Name of Company) 

presents ro be signed in its name by F. Darrell Richardson , President 

(Please Print) 

of said company, and to be attested under its corporate seal by 

(Secretary, or other Title) 

=P.J 2015 

Aerodynamics Incorporated 

(Name of Company) 

By: 

(President) 

OST F 1010.5 (7-85)
#### Ernest Eugene TILLMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. GG-24.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 11, 1978.

*949Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MILLS, Judge.

A jury convicted Tillman of armed robbery. He appeals contending the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. The motion was based on the State’s failure to prove knowledge on his part.

There was no evidence that Tillman personally committed the crime. The State had to prove Tillman’s knowledge of the actual perpetration of the crime. *Hornbeck v. State,*77 So.2d 876 (Fla.1955). This the State did by circumstantial evidence.

There was evidence that Tillman drove the actual participants in the crime to secure a shotgun and shells. He was present when they discussed what they were going to do. He drove them to the trailer park where the victim lived, dropped them off and then drove out to the main road several hundred yards away where he parked the car with the motor running. After commission of the crime, the actual participants returned to the car and Tillman was given a portion of the robbery proceeds. This evidence was sufficient for a jury to infer knowledge.

As stated in *Amato v. State,*296 So.2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974):

> “. . . the test to be applied on review of a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is not whether, in the opinion of the trial court or the appellate court, the evidence fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt but, rather, whether the jury might reasonably so conclude. *Vick v. United States,*216 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1954). The jury is the pivotal point at which evidence is aimed, not the courts.”

The judgment of guilt is affirmed.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.
Exhibit 99.7



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 Bellatrix Exploration
Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brent A. Eshleman, President and 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:



| | 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
the operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date:  March 17, 2017 |                      
|--------------------- | ---------------------
|                      |                      
|                      | /s/ Brent A. Eshleman
|                      | Name:                
|                      | Title: