alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT  99.4

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 on Form 10-Q of PW Preferred Yield Fund
II,  L.P.  (the  "Partnership") for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
and  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002, I, Wayne Engle, Vice President of AFG Leasing VII
Incorporated,  the  sole  General  Partner  of  Pembroke  Financial  Limited
Partnership,  general  partner  of  the  Partnership,  hereby  certify  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 Partnership.


     By:     Pembroke  Financial  Limited  Partnership
          Managing  General  Partner

     By:     AFG  Leasing  VII  Incorporated

     By:     /s/  Wayne  Engle
          Wayne  Engle
          Vice  President  of  AFG  Leasing  VII
          Incorporated,  the  sole  General  Partner  of
          Pembroke  Financial  Limited  Partnership

Date:  November  14,  2002
# C_2009205EN.01001502.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/15

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Büdingen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Guido Weber

(Case C-166/08) (1)

1

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 89/397/EEC - Official control of foodstuffs - Right of those subject to inspection to obtain a second opinion - Concept of person subject to inspection)

2009/C 205/27

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Büdingen

Criminal proceedings against

Criminal proceedings against

Guido Weber

Action

Action

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Büdingen — Interpretation of the second sentence of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (OJ 1989 L 186, p. 23) — Right of those subject to inspection to obtain a second opinion when an official control of foodstuffs is being carried out — Question whether a person liable under criminal or administrative law for the condition and labelling of a foodstuff is a person ‘subject to inspection’

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs is to be interpreted as meaning that a company which has imported and then marketed a foodstuff and whose manager, on the basis of the analysis of samples of that product taken in the retail trade, is to be held responsible by the prosecuting authorities for the condition and labelling of that product in proceedings relating to the imposition of criminal penalties or administrative fines, is to be considered a person ‘subject to inspection’ for the purposes of those provisions.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.07.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME

  The following bill was read the first time:

       S. 3519. A bill to require sponsoring Senators to pay the 
     printing costs of ceremonial and commemorative Senate 
     resolutions.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT
15.1



















CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
     We have issued our
report, dated May 13, 2010, accompanying the consolidated financial statements
and schedule included in the Annual Report of Brazauro Resources Corporation on
Form 20-F for the year ended January 31, 2010.  We hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
Brazauro Resources Corporation on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-147577 and
333-139278).
       Vancouver, Canada
              “Morgan &
    Company”May 13,
      2010
              Chartered
  Accountants
# C_2009282EN.01004402.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/44

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2009 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Redrock Construction (REDROCK)

(Case T-146/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark REDROCK - Earlier national word mark Rock - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now, Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2009/C 282/84

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (Gladbeck, Germany) (represented by: S. Beckmann, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Dvořáková and O. Montalto, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Redrock Construction s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: D. Krofta, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2008 (Case R 506/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG and Redrock Construction s.r.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Redrock Construction s.r.o. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Redrock Construction s.r.o.

| 3. | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Redrock Construction s.r.o. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Redrock Construction s.r.o.

---

(1)  OJ C 158, OF 21.6.2008.

1

---
Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Wholesale Financing



 EXHIBIT 10:20 
  
 Confidential portions of this document indicated by ***** have been omitted and filed separately with the Commission

  
 AMDENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT FOR WHOLESALE

 FINANCING 
 (Amendment No. 1)

  
 This Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Wholesale Financing
(“Amendment”) is made by and between Deutsche Financial Services Corporation (“DFS”) and Featherlite Mfg., Inc. (Dealer”). 
  
 WHEREAS, DFS and Dealer entered into that certain Amended and Restated Agreement for Wholesale Financing dated October 6,
1997 (“Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, DFS and
Dealer desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein. 
  
 NOW,
THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, DFS and Dealer agree as follows: 
  
 1. Amendment of Leverage Ratio. Paragraph 13.1 (b) of the
Agreement is deleted and amended to read units entirety as follows: 
  
 (b) on and after December 31, 1997, a ratio of Debt minus Subordinated Debt to Tangible Net Worth and Subordinated Debt of not more than THREE to ONE (3:1); and 
  
 2. No Other Modifications. Except as expressly modified or amended herein, all other terms and provisions of the
Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect and the Agreement, as hereby amended, is ratified and confirmed by DFS and Dealer. 
  
 3. Capitalized Terms. Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms will have the same meanings set forth in the Agreement. 

 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, DFS and Dealer have executed this Amendment as of the
1st day of April, 1998. 
  
 DEUTSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION 
  

			
	FEATHERLITE MFG., INC
		
	By:	 	 \s\ C Clement


	Name:	 	Conrad D Clement
	Title:	 	President
M0.OI~I3-OQ.^O-O\ 

### Lydfiil JDjoes § TMTMECduAT V s FILED IN § Dr'CflzMzAJAL Amis °^mmWmm-mm^e^ftS § TA).A/JST£A) TEXAS AUG 19 2015 MorxoU TO FXL& SZM&L& (jbPV _Abel Acosta, Clerk „ . MbW cdmcs Lyddif cJpaJgs, KMflvdJO QS p&trhbJsiejr* U/Ao •///££ -#)/.s mo/ii>m f6 Ale a s/Aig/e Copy '/Aj CDNj'uiOch'oJO \aj\4U ln)s A-/t-//DJi) Ar biscrefiL^ary ifevJevu, s^dO/og lem^o^-fWs cnufk and wawitr frPrule. 4/2, °IS< Lr>%>4 (3~) Qh\d 0>%. 11 OS Sel- /a? if/)e TeYflS ru ks ofAppdlaA) /• 

### Pro<L&iur££S <W luifk -fJiiS McfhfcA\ W//I staM ^COil Ca#S£ as £>HdWS


### ZPe-fHrDMChAas no Copies of+ht rquiwl audduggeslej ^ docuueds^v-Pik w/& his P.D.Pi.fbr ihi^ Court- use.. 3, Petitioner ;s wdVgeAif<W eaHacrt'a-flZnl ~k> said bui nuj have copter Mad&, 4. '



### 5.i&Ui^er request?4U-4he.CDurh-fims/i Ospy of44&W.M rfAppeals ruliua pa^sUouJ- rule. U2.4. ^' UXir'F" PRAVEP, *t*Aam.a*k 

### HUoJer frays -f^/s CouH-fiuds good Cause.hanAJ-/- -th'is Mobi»} 

## ON ,k Menfe wd allowpdnhotierhsukui-l- aSmXST JA/MATE bECLARAT-rm/



### 1-eAlNesset Colo^/j lems 1BH4-
----

| Date:  March      30, 2009 |   | By:             /s/ Joseph C.  Levesque                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|--------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |   | Name:    Joseph      C. LevesqueTitle:      Chairman      of the Board, President and                         Chief Executive Officer |

| Date:      March 30, 2009 |   | By:       /s/ Douglas L. Hemer                                     |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Name:  Douglas      L. HemerTitle:    Chief      Administrative Officer |

| Date:      March 30, 2009 |   | By:            /s/ Paul H.  Askegaard                                                     |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Name:       Paul H. AskegaardTitle:         Treasurer (principal financial and accounting  officer) |

----
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1424]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           HONORING THE LIFE AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF GORE VIDAL

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. STEVE COHEN

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight and remember the 
life of Gore Vidal, a celebrated American literary and cultural icon, 
who passed away this week at the age of 86. A writer famed for his 
acerbic wit, elegant style, tough-minded radical views, and versatile 
talent, Vidal's incredibly varied career boasted over 20 novels, in 
addition to memoirs, essays, plays, television dramas, and screenplays.
  Vidal was impressively characterized by the inimitable and revered 
Christopher Hitchens as being a 20th century answer to Oscar Wilde, a 
tribute to Vidal's cleverness and eloquence. As British author Martin 
Amis said in praising Vidal, ``he is learned, funny and exceptionally 
clear-sighted. Even his blind spots are illuminating.''
  In 2009, Vidal won the annual Medal for Distinguished Contribution to 
American Letters from the National Book Foundation. Unlike many of his 
intellectual contemporaries, however, he saw his role as a public 
intellectual not as a sidelined observer, but rather as an active 
participant in democracy and public affairs, contributing frequently 
and prolifically to the American political debate.
  This weekend, I will travel to New York to see a revival of his play 
``The Best Man,'' starring my fellow Memphian, Cybill Shephard. I ask 
everyone to join me honoring Gore Vidal for his many contributions. His 
was a life well lived.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2009082EN.01000902.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/9

---

Appeal brought on 12 November 2008 by Mr Matthias Rath against the order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) made on 8 September 2008 in Case T-374/06 Matthias Rath v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Case C-489/08 P)

(2009/C 82/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Matthias Rath (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the order of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 in Case T-374/06; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 in Case T-374/06;

| — | grant the forms of order sought at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the forms of order sought at first instance;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its order under appeal, the Court of First Instance confirmed the decision of the First Board of Appeal that there is a likelihood of confusion as regards food supplements not for medical purposes and dietetic substances not adapted for medical use between the word sign ‘EPICAN’ applied for by the appellant and the earlier Community word mark ‘EPIGRAN FORTE’.

The appellant's appeal is based on an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. The Court of First Instance relied on erroneous facts in its assessment of the similarity of products and signs. If the Court had assessed the facts correctly, it would have had to conclude that there is no likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue. This is particularly the case since, as the Court correctly found, consumers pay a high level of attention to the goods at issue in the proceedings.

---
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 25, 2011

d0418 

# Order

April 25, 2011

141794(18)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141794 COA: 298681 Genesee CC: 08-024059-FC DAVID LEE DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rec onsideration of this Court’s February 7, 2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does notappear that the order was entered erroneously.

Z AHRA 

### , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.1 - CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the "Form 10-K") for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 of AMFM Operating Inc. (the "Issuer"). The
undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-K fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78(o)(d)) and that the information contained in the Form
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Issuer.

Dated: March 28, 2003

By: /s/ L. LOWRY MAYS
    -----------------
Name: L. Lowry Mays
Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
July 6, 2015

Mr Greg lwinski

Eagle Eye Drone Service

2008 South Shore Drive

Moline, IL 61265

Dear Mr Iwinski:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 8, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0902), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4406 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4406

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2018

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 99 Macombs Place in New York, New York, as the ``Tuskegee Airmen 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. TUSKEGEE AIRMEN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 99 Macombs Place in New York, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Tuskegee Airmen Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tuskegee 
Airmen Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# Sample Renovation Recordkeeping Checklist Name of Firm: Date and Location of Renovation: Brief Description of Renovation: Name of Assigned Renovator: Name(s) of Trained Worker(s), if used: Name of Dust Sampling Technician, Inspector, or Risk Assessor, if used:

___ Copies of renovator and dust sampling technician qualifications (training certificates, certifications) on file.

___ Certified renovator provided training to workers on (check all that apply):

___ Posting warning signs ___ Setting up plastic containment barriers

___ Maintaining containment ___ Avoiding spread of dust to adjacent areas

___ Waste handling ___ Post-renovation cleaning

___ Test kits used by certified renovator to determine whether lead was present on components affected by renovation (identify kits used and describe sampling locations and results):

___ Warning signs posted at entrance to work area.

___ Work area contained to prevent spread of dust and debris

___ All objects in the work area removed or covered (interiors)

___ HVAC ducts in the work area closed and covered (interiors)

___ Windows in the work area closed (interiors)

___ Windows in and within 20 feet of the work area closed (exteriors)

___ Doors in the work area closed and sealed (interiors)

___ Doors in and within 20 feet of the work area closed and sealed (exteriors)

___ Doors that must be used in the work area covered to allow passage but prevent spread of dust

___ Floors in the work area covered with taped-down plastic (interiors)

___ Ground covered by plastic extending 10 feet from work area—plastic anchored to building and weighed down by heavy objects (exteriors)

___ If necessary, vertical containment installed to prevent migration of dust and debris to adjacent property (exteriors)

___ Waste contained on-site and while being transported off-site.

___ Work site properly cleaned after renovation

___ All chips and debris picked up, protective sheeting misted, folded dirty side inward, and taped for removal

___ Work area surfaces and objects cleaned using HEPA vacuum and/or wet cloths or mops (interiors)

___ Certified renovator performed post-renovation cleaning verification (describe results, including the number of wet and dry cloths used):

___ If dust clearance testing was performed instead, attach a copy of report

___ I certify under penalty of law that the above information is true and complete. Name and title Date 29
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

CHURCHILL COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT, LP, PARADIGM 

CONSULTANTS, LLC, RAMESH, JAIN 

AND VIKAS JAIN,

Respondents

v.

ALLEGHENY COUNTY HEALTH 

DEPARTMENT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 126 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of October, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.