alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE> 1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

              1999

Household Finance Corporation
Household Consumer Loan
Corporation
Household Consumer Loan Trust
1995-1
<S>                                            <C>

Original Principal Class A         750,000,000.00
Number of Class A Bonds (000's)        750,000.00
Original Principal Class B         172,196,000.00
Number of Class B Bond (000's)         172,196.00
Original Principal Certificate      30,304,000.00
Number of Certificate Bond (000's)      30,304.00
                                                     1999 Totals

CLASS A
Principal Distribution                               59,264,156.97
Interest Distribution                                10,716,211.51

CLASS B
Principal Distribution                               43,874,078.20
Interest Distribution                                 8,500,185.63

Certificates
Principal Distribution                                4,150,250.65
Interest Distribution                                   860,472.96

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1



FORM 10-Q CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) 
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED 
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANE-OXLEY ACT.





|I, James R. Arabia, certify that:
|---------------------------------
|1.                               
|2.                               
|3.                               
|4.                               
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|5.                               
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|Date: October 8, 2008            





35



|
|
cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge 

McCoy Law Group 

Boulder City Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
Caterpillar
      Financial Asset Trust 2004-A**STATEMENT
      TO NOTEHOLDERS**
    **EXHIBIT 99.3**(i)
      Amount of principal being paid on Notes(a)
      Class A-1 Notes (CUSIP No. 149114 BM1)
    $171,521,855.23per
      $1,000 original principal balance
    $935.23(b)
      Class A-2 Notes (CUSIP No. 149114 BN9)
    $0.00per
      $1,000 original principal balance
    $0.00(c)
      Class A-3 Notes (CUSIP No. 149114 BP4)
    $0.00per
      $1,000 original principal balance
    $0.00(d)
      Class B Notes (CUSIP No. 149114 BQ2)
    $0.00per
      $1,000 original principal balance
    $0.00(f)
      Total
    
    
    $171,521,855.23(ii)
      Amount of interest being paid on Notes(a)
      Class A-1 Notes (CUSIP No. 149114 BM1)
    $1,021,753.89per
      $1,000 original principal balance
    $5.57(b)
      Class A-2 Notes (CUSIP No. 149114 BN9)
    $2,383,466.67per
      $1,000 original principal balance
    $14.53(c)
      Class A-3 Notes (CUSIP No. 149114 BP4)
    $5,911,526.67per
      $1,000 original principal balance
    $20.87(d)
      Class B Notes (CUSIP No. 149114 BQ2)
    $449,182.07per
      $1,000 original principal balance
    $24.73(f)
      Total
    
    
    $9,765,929.29(iii)
      (a) Aggregate Contract Balance at end of related collection
      period
    $488,346,742.70(b)Note
      Value at end of related collection period
    $487,220,441.35(iv)
      After giving effect to distributions on this Distribution
    Date(a)
      (1) outstanding principal amount of Class A-1 Notes
    $11,878,144.77(2)
      Class A-1 Note Pool Factor
    0.06(b)
      (1) outstanding principal amount of Class A-2 Notes
    $164,000,000.00(2)
      Class A-2 Note Pool Factor
    1.00(c)
      (1) outstanding principal amount of Class A-3 Notes
    $283,300,000.00(2)
      Class A-3 Note Pool Factor
    1.00(d)
      (1) outstanding principal amount of Class B Notes
    $18,161,000.00(2)
      Class B Note Pool Factor
    1.00(v)
      Amount of Servicing Fee paid
    $3,895,554.94(vi)
      Amount of Administration fee being paid
    $4,000.00(vii)
      Aggregate Amount of Realized Losses for Collection Period
    $475,813.75(viii)
      Aggregate Purchase Amounts for Collection Period
    $160,694.29(ix)
      Balance of Reserve Account at end of related Collection
    Period
    $14,821,701.67(x)
      Specified Reserve Account Balance at end of related Collection
      Period
    $14,821,701.67
 
  -8-
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF PROLIANCE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

The following sets forth a list of all the direct and indirect subsidiaries as of December  31,  2006 of Proliance International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the ‘‘Company’’), and the State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of each.

|                                                              |  |  |                                              |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|----------------------------------------------|
| Name                                                         |  |  | Jurisdiction ofIncorporation or Organization |
| Aftermarket Delaware Corporation                             |  |  | Delaware                                     |
| Aftermarket LLC                                              |  |  | Delaware                                     |
| Proliance International de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.              |  |  | Mexico                                       |
| Radiadores GDI, S.A. de C.V.(a)                              |  |  | Mexico                                       |
| Ready Aire, Inc.                                             |  |  | Texas                                        |
| Manufacturera Mexicana de Partes de Automoviles, S.A.de C.V. |  |  | Mexico                                       |
| Nederlandse Radiateuren Fabriek B.V.                         |  |  | The Netherlands                              |
| Modine National Sales, Ltd.                                  |  |  | Canada                                       |
|                                                              |

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

|     |                                   |
|-----|-----------------------------------|
| (a) | Currently an inactive subsidiary. |

----
* 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. 02-40668

Conference Calendar

 

RAUL DE LA TORRE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JOHN TOMBONE, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CV-84

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

October 29, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raul De La Torre, federal prisoner # 30738-077, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

challenging his 300-month sentence for conspiracy to possess over

1,000 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute and money

laundering. He asserts that his guilty plea was involuntary and

that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by allowing De

La Torre to plead guilty without understanding the consequences
No. 02-40668

-2-

of the plea, by misrepresenting the consequences of the plea, and

by not advising De La Torre of his appellate rights. 

In order to raise this challenge to the validity of his

conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, De La Torre must show that 28

U.S.C. § 2255 provides an inadequate or ineffective remedy. Pack

v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). He has not shown

that his claims are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme

Court decision establishing that he may have been convicted of a

nonexistent offense or that his claims were foreclosed by circuit

law at the time that he filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See

Henderson v. Haro, 282 F.3d 862, 863 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Consequently, the district court’s dismissal of De La Torre’s 28

U.S.C. § 2241 petition is AFFIRMED.

De La Torre has moved for appointment of counsel on appeal. 

This motion is DENIED. See Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494,

502 (5th Cir. 1985).

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Todd A.Fitzpatrick, certify that:

1.                  Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2006 of Harbor Acquisition Corporation.

2.                  Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                  Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                  Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)            Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c)            Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                  Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)            Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)           Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: June 8, 2006
|        | /s/ TODD A. FITZPATRICK                         |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|   | Todd A.  Fitzpatrick                            |
|   | *Vice  President*                               |
|   | *(Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
Minutes from Call with Tim Cassidy (Best Buy, formerly with Ault, a division of SL Power Electronics):

Date: 9/18/09 Purpose: Discuss hypothesis for Product Price Determination Interviewers: Ari Reeves, Dan Lauf (D&R International, Ltd.)



## Summary

• Manufacturers typically use a co st-plus pricing model, in which a percentage mark-up is added to the input and ma nufacturing costs of a product.

• While retailers may sell some items at a lo ss, the loss will typically be offset by accessories and other high-margin goods. As suc h, it is safe to assume that any cost increase will be passed to consumers in some fashion (even if not directly through the price of the good in question).

• The typical supply chain begins with the BCEPS manufacturers, moves to the OEMs, and ends with the retailers (at which poi nt the good is available for sale to consumers). Distributors do not t ypically play a significant role.



## Detail

Mr. Cassidy explained that there is typically a percentage markup at each step of the supply chain. Factory pricing is based on a cost-plus model, meaning costs include the Cost of Goods Sold (including material, la bor, and overhead costs) and a multiplicative factor that accounts for inventory, engineering, other expenses, and company margin. Competition does play a factor and lead some manufacturers to pass costs directly to the next step in the supply chain (without any mar kup), however this is typically not viable in the longer term; manuf acturers need to maintain margin s (which are already thin for power supply manufacturers). The same hol ds true at each step (OEM, etc).

For retailers, some items are sold at a loss, which then offsets other items sold at high margins. Mr. Cassidy agreed that it would be a fair assumption that markups average to a company’s listed margin. The challenge to DOE will probably be the availability of manufacturer margin data (since many ma nufacturers are overseas and therefore are not required to follow SEC reporting standard s). Beyond this, BCEPS manufacturing and BCEPS application manufacturing represents a small portion of many manufacturers’ total activities (e.g., Sony and Emerson Powe r) and, thus the company’s overall margins are not indicative of the markups relevant to our analysis. Therefore, DOE’s best option

is to find manufacturers focused on releva nt products (such as Black & Decker).

The typical route to market is: BCEPS Manufacturer ► OEM ► Retailer. There is sometimes an additional step in th e distribution chain—often between BCEPS

manufacturers and OEMs rather than between OEMs and retailers—but this likely makes no difference to the retail price. In fact, bi g distributors like Digi key, Allied, and Mouser have a lot of buying power and can drive pric es down. Reasons for distributor use are:

1. Product volumes that are too small to wa rrant direct negotia tion between parties

2. Experimenting with new product offerings (at low volumes)

3. Buyer’s desire to eliminate or reduce inve ntory, which can be a financial liability
#### Leroy Butler, Appellant, v Arthur Gibbons, Jr., et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered on March 30, 1990, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the complaint reinstated, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks an accounting and appointment of a receiver, based on allegations that, in 1968, he and defendant Arthur Gibbons, Jr., entered into a joint venture agreement to purchase real property. According to the complaint, they further agreed that title to the properties purchased would be placed in corporations which would be formed for that purpose, two of which are the corporate defendants in this action. Plaintiff owned 50% of the shares and, like Gibbons, is an officer and director of each corporate defendant. The properties were to be managed by Gibbons.

*353During the course of their association, both parties were convicted of crimes and incarcerated. When Gibbons was imprisoned in 1978, the properties were managed by two companies which were wholly owned by Gibbons, and, when he was released in 1984, he managed the properties himself. The complaint alleged that, during plaintiffs incarceration from June, 1979 through 1988 and continuing thereafter, Gibbons collected rents on the properties but never accounted to plaintiff for his share of the proceeds. Defendant’s answer asserted, *inter alia,*that the corporate defendants were dissolved by proclamation for failure to pay real estates taxes, though it did not state when such dissolution occurred.

The IAS court held that plaintiffs complaint made out a claim for a shareholder’s derivative action or a shareholder’s direct action but that since the six year statute of limitations applicable to plaintiffs claim commenced when the defendants first failed to account to plaintiff, i.e., in 1979, the statute had run and the action was barred.

Although plaintiff contends that the gravamen of his complaint is a breach of defendant’s alleged fiduciary duty created by the joint venture agreement rather than a shareholder’s action, the statute of limitations applicable to such an action is also six years. (CPLR 213.) Nevertheless, the complaint was improperly dismissed. Plaintiffs allegations clearly make out a continuing wrong, *i.e.,*Gibbons’ repeated and continuing failure to account and turn over proceeds earned from renting the properties since 1979. Thus, according to these allegations, a new cause of action accrued each time defendant collected the rents and kept them to himself. *(See, Airco Alloys Div. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*76 AD2d 68.) Plaintiffs action was therefore timely as to any such proceeds which were retained by defendant during the six years preceding the commencement of the action.

Plaintiffs argument that he should be permitted to amend his complaint is not properly raised for the first time on appeal. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  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 TAL International Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian M. Sondey, 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:



Date:
November 1, 2010

/s/ BRIAN M. SONDEY Brian M. Sondey President and Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Greenville Federal Financial
Corporation;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant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 of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: February 13, 2009
    /s/ David M. KeplerDavid M. KeplerPresident and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-11478

Conference Calendar

 

ANTHONY E. GILL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

R.E. THORNTON, Visiting Judge, 

Tarrant County, Texas,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CV-747-E

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1997

Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony E. Gill, Texas prisoner #647051, appeals the

dismissal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)

of his civil rights complaint. Gill contends that Texas trial

court judge R.E. Thornton improperly presided over his state

trial as the court was without jurisdiction. We have reviewed

the record and Gill’s brief, and we conclude that Gill’s appeal
No. 96-11478

- 2 -

is without arguable merit. See Gill v. Thornton, No. 4:96-CV747-E (N.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 1996). The appeal is DISMISSED as

frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Gill’s motion to file a

supplemental brief is DENIED.

We caution Gill that any additional frivolous appeals filed

by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Gill is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1881 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1881

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on bayderm bottom DLV-N.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on bayderm bottom DLV-N.

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

SECTION 1. BAYDERM BOTTOM DLV-N.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.19 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to bayderm bottom DLV-N) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```