alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1 - ANNUAL FUNDS APPLICATION STATEMENT




                              [LOGO] JPMORGAN


June 30, 2005

    Hartford Life Global Funding Trusts - Annual Funds Application Statement

I, Albert P. Mari, Jr., being a duly appointed officer of JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. ("Indenture Trustee"), do hereby certify on behalf of the Indenture
Trustee, that, with respect to Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2005-013:





         1. I have reviewed and examined the application by the Indenture
Trustee, during the fiscal year ending June 15, 2005; of trust money collected
by the Indenture Trustee pursuant to Section 5.02 of the Indenture, pursuant to
which the trust's notes (the "Notes") were issued; and

         2. Based upon my review and examination, to the best of my knowledge,
during such fiscal year, the trust money collected by the Indenture Trustee was
properly applied, pursuant to Section 5.02 of the Indenture.

         Nothing herein shall constitute a representation as to the proper
application by the registered holder of the Notes or the trust of the trust
monies received by it.



JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Indenture Trustee
Worldwide Securities Services
4 New York Plaza, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10004


/s/ Albert P. Mari, Jr.


Name:  Albert P. Mari, Jr.
Title: Vice President


<TABLE>
<S><C>
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK o Institutional Trust Services o 4 New York Plaza, Floor 15, New York, NY 10004
</TABLE>
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲ ▲

▲

★ ▲

▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

05/31

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ryan Chadwick Dodson * From the 326th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 28,103-C.

Vs. No. 11-16-00275-CV * September 15, 2017

Jalynda Leigh Smith, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred 

by reason of this appeal are taxed against Ryan Chadwick Dodson.
#### Lydia Montanez, Individually and as Parent of Alice Ramos, an Infant, et al., Appellants, v Willie James, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered on or about September 19, 1989, which denied plaintiffs’ motion seeking to vacate a prior decision of the same court dated June 6, 1989, which granted defendant’s *219motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.

Plaintiff Lydia Montanez, the natural mother of plaintiff Alice Ramos, her minor child, commenced the underlying action seeking to recover monetary damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Ramos on July 10, 1981, at approximately 4:30 p.m., when, while crossing 103rd Street near Columbus Avenue in Manhattan, she was struck and knocked to the pavement by a vehicle driven by the defendant.

The IAS court did not err in refusing to vacate its prior decision dismissing the complaint based upon the court’s determination that plaintiff Ramos was, in fact, a "covered person” as defined by New York State Insurance Law § 5102 who had failed to establish a prima facie case that she had sustained a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5104. Indeed, plaintiffs concede on appeal that plaintiff Ramos was, in fact, a pedestrian injured through the operation of an insured vehicle. Accordingly we find no issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was a "covered person” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (j).

Moreover, contrary to plaintiffs’ assertions, neither the verified complaint nor the verified bill of particulars establishes that plaintiff Ramos sustained a "serious injury” entailing a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system” as required to recover for personal injuries arising out of negligence in the use or operation of a motor vehicle under New York’s No-Fault Law (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; § 5104 [a]; *Scheer v Koubek,*70 NY2d 678, 679). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 on Form 10-Q of Network Engines, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, John H. Curtis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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





|Dated: May 14, 2004 |  | /s/ John H. Curtis                    
|------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|                    |  | John H. Curtis
Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Charles E. LEVERICH and Elizabeth A. Leverich, Debtors. Charles E. LEVERICH and Elizabeth A. LEVERICH v. The PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA.

No. 6224.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

July 7, 1937.

A. L. Vollbom, Jr., of Danville, 111., for appellants.

Geo. E. Drach, of Springfield, 111., and Wallace T. Filson, of Danville, 111., for appellee.

Before SPARKS and ALSCHULER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On motion of counsel for appellee, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, with costs.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1945 

To direct the Secretary of the Navy to name the next available Naval vessel 

after United States Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2011 

Mr. HUNTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Navy to name the next available Naval vessel after United States Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NAMING OF NAVAL VESSEL AFTER UNITED 

4 STATES MARINE CORPS SERGEANT RAFAEL 

5 PERALTA. 

6 The Secretary of the Navy shall name the next avail7 able Naval vessel after United States Marine Corps Ser8 geant Rafael Peralta. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### WINIFRED NATION *v.*72 ACRE ROAD CORPORATION ET AL.

(14307)

O’Connell, Spear and Hennessy, Js.

Submitted on briefs November 6, 1995

decision released January 23, 1996

*Robert G. Zanesky*filed a brief for the appellants (named defendant et al.).

*Patrick R. Gil*filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit     32.1          Certification.
Certification of Chief Executive Officer of UCELLIT.COM INC. pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C. 63.
I,  Mark  Epstein, the Chief Executive Officer of UCELLIT.COM INC hereby certify
that  UCELLIT.COM  INC.  's  periodic  report  on  Form 10-QSB and the financial
statements  contained  therein  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 the periodic report on Form 10-QSB and the
financial  statements  contained  therein  fairly  represents,  in  all material
respects,  the  financial condition and results of the operations of UCELLIT.COM
INC.

Date:  December  22,  2003
(signed)____________________
Mark  Epstein
/s/  Mark  Epstein
Chief  Executive  Officer
Of  UCELLIT.COM  INC.


<PAGE>
EERE Information Center

Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version

Residential Dishwashers, 

Dehumidifiers, and Cooking 

Products and Commercial 

Clothes Washers Analysis 

Tools

This website provides the technical analysis 

and results in support of the information 

presented in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking for residential dishwashers, 

dehumidifiers, and cooking products and 

commercial clothes washers.

Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Spreadsheets

Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Commercial 

Clothes Washers (Excel 435 KB)

Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Cooktops 

(Excel 1.2 MB)

Life Cycle Cost Analysis for 

Dehumidifiers (Excel 523 KB)

Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Dishwashers 

(Excel 1.1 MB)

Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Ovens (Excel

1.3 MB)

National Impact Analysis Spreadsheets

National Impact Analysis Tool for 

Commercial Clothes Washers (Excel 827 

KB)

National Impact Analysis Tool for 

Cooktops and Ovens (Excel 2 MB)

National Impact Analysis Tool for 

Dehumidifiers (Excel 832 KB)

National Impact Analysis Tool for 

Dishwashers (Excel 860 KB)

National Impact Analysis Tool for 

Microwave Ovens (Excel 647 KB)

Printable Version

 EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.3
Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 06/13/2008

 EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.3
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40311

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CASEY LUKER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-261-1

Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Casey Luker has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Luker has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40311 Document: 00513307992 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
No. 15-40311

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-40311 Document: 00513307992 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
#### Clyde GILBERT v. STATE.

No. 27532.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 9, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Passing a forged instrument is the offense; the punishment, four years in the penitentiary.

Accompanying the record is the affidavit of appellant requesting the dismissal of the appeal. The request is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.
Wells Fargo Logo
            
            ****
              **Commercial
                Mortgage**
              **Servicing**
              ****MAC
                A0 357-030
              P.O.Box 4036, Concord, CA 945241320
              Willow Pass Rd., Suite 300Concord,
              CA 94520800
              986-9711







ANNUAL
      STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE


OFFICER'S
      CERTIFICATE







RE:
      GS
      Mortgage Securirites Corporation, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
      Series 2004-GG2





In
      accordance with Section 3.14 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, (the
“Agreement”), dated as of August 1, 2004 executed by and between GS Mortgage
      Securirites Corporation, (as “Depositor”), Wells Fargo Bank National
      Association, (as “Master Servicer”), Lennar Partners, Inc., (as “Special
      Servicer”), LaSalle Bank National Association, (as “Trustee”), and ABN AMRO Bank
      N.V., (as “Fiscal Agent”) as authorized officer of the General Master Servicer I
      certify that (i) a review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the
      preceding calendar year or portion thereof and of the performance of such Master
      Servicer under this Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and
      (ii) to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, such Master
      Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement in all material
      respects throughout such year, and (iii) to the best of such officer's
      knowledge, each sub-servicer has fulfilled its obligations under its
      sub-servicing agreement in all material respects, or, if there has been a
      material default in the fulfillment of such obligations, specifying each such
      default know to such officer and the nature and status thereof, and (iv) the
      Master Servicer has received no notice regarding qualification, or challenging
      the status, of the Upper-Tier REMIC as a REMIC from the IRS or any other
      govenmental agency or body.





Wells
      Fargo Bank, National Association


“Master
      Servicer”





/s/
      Margaret Gremore


Margaret
      Gremore


Vice
      President


Wells
      Fargo Bank, National Association


Commercial
      Mortgage
Certification
      of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,


as
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906


of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002










Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Annual
Report of Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company and its results of
operations as of and for the periods covered therein.











/s/ William G. Smith,
      Jr.


William
      G. Smith, Jr.


Chairman,
      President and


Chief
      Executive Officer





Date:
March 17, 2008
#### Cecil RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28094.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 22, 1956.

No appearance for appellant. - • ■

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $50.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed. .
Exhibit 10.15





Contractor’s Agreement





Party A: Zhejiang Kandi Vehicles Co., Ltd (“Kandi Vehicle”)





Party B: Mr. Hu Xiaoming





Considering Kandi New Energy Vehicles Co., Ltd., (“Kandi New Energy”) is a company in compliance with Chinese regulation to produce and sell vehicles in China, for the Party A’s better operation, Parties agreed to enter into this Contractor’s Agreement:





Section 1




During the existence of Kandi New Energy, it is contracted to Party A for operation and management and Party B will not participate in any management, dividend distribution or loss of Kandi New Energy.





Section 2




Considering Party B has to inject RMB 18 million into Kandi New Energy, Party A agrees to lend this amount to Party B with no interest charges in order to avoid any interest expenses on Party B.





Section 3




This agreement shall take effect at the same time of the Agreement of Establishment of Kandi New Energy Co., Ltd.





Section 4




The term of this agreement is the same as the term of business license of the company.





Section 5 Dispute Resolution




1. The agreement shall be governed and constructed by the applicable laws of People’s Republic of China.





2. In the implementation process of this agreement, Parties shall settle any disputes through consultation or mediation, if failed, Parties can choose to resolve the disputes as below:





(i)
to submit the issue to Jinhua City Arbitration Commission for arbitration;




(ii)
take the legal action at the People’s Court of China.





Section 6





This agreement is made into 4 originals and each party holds two copies.








Party A: Zhejiang Kandi Vehicles Co., Ltd





Legal Representative:____________________________








Party B: Mr. Hu Xiaoming





Legal Representative:____________________________





May 18, 2010
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Kramont Realty Trust (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carl E.
Kraus, Chief Financial 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:

(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/ Carl E. Kraus
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Carl E. Kraus
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        Kramont Realty Trust
                                        November 11, 2004


                                       7
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael L. DeMarco, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Peoples Educational
Holdings, Inc.;

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 officers 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; and

c) 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 officers 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 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; and

b) 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: March 25, 2005


/s/ Michael L. DeMarco
----------------------------------------
Michael L. DeMarco,
Chief Financial Officer
#### WOMACK v. STATE.

No. 26952.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 21, 1954.

*141Frank D. Wear, Paris, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON,- Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $500.

The issue of appellant’s intoxication was sharply contested. The appellant and his witnesses testified that appellant was not intoxicated on the occasion in question. Officers Ashmore and 'Chapman were the only witnesses called by the State, and they testified that he was intoxicated.

Bill-of exception No. 1 -complains of the following'jury argument:-

> “Now Gentlemen, these fine officers, Bob Ashmore and Murray Chapman, ■■ who are not only two examples of fine officers, but two examples of fine citizens and fine men.”

Appellant objected to the argument on the grounds that it constituted unsworn bolstering of the credibility of the State’s witnesses. The court overruled the abjection. In this he was in error. In Moynahan v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 540, 146 S.W.2d 376, where the prosecutor in his speech to the jury recommended one of his witnesses very highly to them, we reversed the conviction even though the court responded to the appellant’s objection. Recently, in McCool v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 264 S.W.2d 734, where the court, in response to the State’s objection,- gave his opinion that the officer had been vouched for and was qualified, we reversed the conviction, characterizing this remark of the court as a comment on the weight of the evidence which conveyed to the jury his opinion that the witness should be believed.

 There are a number of other bills of exception to other argument which prer sent serious questions, but in view of our disposition of this case we will not discuss-them in detail other than to observe that the admission of ran accused (who has pleaded not guilty) that he has taken a small .quantity of alcohol into his system does not constitute a plea of guilty to the. offense of driving while intoxicated, and. the jury should not be told that it did.

We further observe that upon another trial evidence should not be admitted as to what the appellant may have said which is in the'nature of a confession while he was in custody of the officers and after he had arrived at the jail. The officers are entitled to testify as to their observations of. the accused and any statements he may have made incident to the arrest, but what he may have said in the nature of a con*142fession some time after the arrest and while in jail is not admissible unless made in compliance with the confession statute.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.