alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1: Sarbanes-Oxley Certification
Re:  Asset Backed Securities Corporation
Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2005-HE1 Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-HE1

I, Greg Richter, certify that:
1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form  10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2005-HE1 (the "Trust");
2.

Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;
3.

Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be prepared by the Trustee based upon the servicing information required to be provided by the Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement is included in these reports;
4.

Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statements included in the report and required to be delivered to the Trustee in accordance with the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and based upon the review required under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and except as disclosed in the report, the Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and
5.

The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the Servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based, in each case, upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar standard as set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, that is included in these reports.
In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on the information provided to me by the
following unaffiliated parties: the Servicer and the Trustee.
Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement, dated February 1, 2005 (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), among Asset Backed Securities Corporation, as depositor (the "Depositor"), DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., as seller (the "Seller"), Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., as servicer (the "Servicer") and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee").
/s/ Greg Richter

Greg Richter  Vice President March 31, 2006
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report of QMed, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 28, 2003, (the "Report"), I, Michael W. Cox,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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



/s/ Michael W. Cox
--------------------------------------
Michael W. Cox
President and Chief Executive Officer
February 28, 2003
**Exhibit    10.29** Amendment Number 1 to the Dresser-Rand Group Inc. 2005    Directors Stock Incentive Plan     4.2 VESTING AND OTHER TERMS OF ANNUAL GRANT. 50% of each Annual    Grant shall become vested on the first anniversary of the grant    date and 25% shall become vested on each of the following two    anniversaries of the grant date, subject to the Eligible    Director remaining in office on each vesting date. Each Annual    Grant shall also become vested upon the Eligible Director’s    death or Disability, upon the Eligible Director reaching    age 65 or upon a Change in Control. Each Annual Grant shall    be evidenced by an Award agreement that shall specify whether    the Annual Grant consists of Shares, the right to receive Shares    or a combination thereof, and the other terms of the Annual    Grant.
#### BROWN v. STATE.

No. 26719.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 3, 1954.

D. F. Sanders, Malcolm Sanders, Alto V. Watson, Beaumont, Sexton & Neff, Orange, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is perjury; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

'Appellant did not testify.

Bills of Exception 2, 3, 4 and 5 relate to argument of the attorney for the state.

All of these bills certify that the remarks complained of constituted a reference, allusion and comment upon the failure of the defendant to testify and could not reasonably be applied to the failure to produce testimony other than his own.

Applying the rule stated in Clary v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 257, 234 S.W.2d 424, and Taylor v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 243 S.W.2d 582, and failing to find any contradiction of the certification or a showing that the trial court was in error in certifying that the argument violated the provisions of art. 710, C.C.P., these bills require that the conviction be set aside. See Brown v. State, 57 Tex.Cr.R. 269, 122 S.W. 565; Thompson v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 45, 19 S.W.2d 316; and Burns v. State, 141 Tex. Cr.R. 557, 150 S.W.2d 384.

There are a number of questions raised as to the validity of the indictment. We find the allegations to be somewhat confusing and express the view that if appellant is to be. further prosecuted a new indictment should be returned.

*120We also express the view that upon another trial, if the evidence be the same, the court should charge on circumstantial evidence and that the search warrant and affidavit should not be admitted as evidence before the jury.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Exhibit 4.327

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 161531 dated June 18, 2018

 

For Rendering

 

cable television

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

“Moscow City Telephone Network”

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027739285265

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7710016640

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

119017, Moscow, Bolshaya Ordynka St., 25, bld. 1

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until June 18, 2023.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated January 18, 2018 No. 11-рчс

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head

 
    	
/signature/ O.A.   Ivanov
    
	
Stamp here 

Official seal:

MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND MASS

COMMUNICATIONS

OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION

IN THE SPHERE

OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY

AND MASS MEDIA

PSRN 1087746736296
UNITED STATES
               SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                    Washington, D.C.  20549




                            FORM 8-K

                         CURRENT REPORT




                Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
             of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



        Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
                         April 11, 2001



                   PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY
     (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



    Delaware                1-720                  73-0400345
(State or other          (Commission             (IRS Employer
jurisdiction of          File Number)         Identification No.)
incorporation)



      Phillips Building, Bartlesville, Oklahoma      74004
      (Address of principal executive offices)     (Zip Code)



      Registrant's telephone number, including area code:
                          918-661-6600


<PAGE>


Item 7.  Financial Statements and Exhibits.

Exhibit 99  Phillips Petroleum Company press release dated
            April 11, 2001.


Item 9.  Regulation FD Disclosure.

Pursuant to Regulation FD, Phillips Petroleum Company elects to
furnish the press release issued by it in connection with the
company's special meeting of stockholders on April 11, 2001.  It
is attached hereto as Exhibit 99 and is incorporated herein by
reference.










                                1



<PAGE>



                           SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on
its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                                      PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY




April 11, 2001                          /s/ Rand C. Berney
                                    -----------------------------
                                            Rand C. Berney
                                    Vice President and Controller












                                2

<PAGE>
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

_____________________________

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934







Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)

August 23, 2006





PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)



|001-07572                | 13-1166910                          
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------
|(Commission File Number) | (IRS Employer Identification Number)



200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016(Address of Principal Executive Offices)



Registrants telephone number (212)-381-3500

Not Applicable

(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)











---



ITEM 2.02

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION

On August 23, 2006, Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation (the Company), issued a press release to report the Companys 2006 second quarter earnings, which is set forth in the attached Exhibit 99.1.

The information in this Form 8-K and the Exhibit attached hereto shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



ITEM 9.01

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS

(d)  Exhibits.

|Exhibit | Description                          
|------- | -------------------------------------
|99.1    | Press Release, dated August 23, 2006.











---





SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION



By: /s/ Vincent A. Russo

Vincent A. Russo

Vice President and Controller



Date: August 23, 2006
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 15, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00479

- CR

EX PARTE Bryan Alejandro Enriquez PEREZ

From the County Court

, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10437CR

Honorable Dennis Powell , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record, which was filed in this appeal on August 10, 2022, does not contain the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right of appeal, pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is therefore ORDERED that the trial court prepare a certification of the defendant’s right of appeal and cause the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification no later than August 25, 2022

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.5(c)(2).

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 15th day of August, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Phillips Petroleum Company as of June 30,
1999, and the related consolidated statement of income for the six months
ended June 30, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             147
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,524
<ALLOWANCES>                                        17
<INVENTORY>                                        546
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,495
<PP&E>                                          23,193
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,147
<BONDS>                                          4,628
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              650
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           277
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,946
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,765
<SALES>                                          5,593
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,770
<CGS>                                            4,802<F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,972<F2>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    26<F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    283
<INCOME-TAX>                                       145
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                138
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       138
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54
<FN>
<F1> Purchased crude oil and products + Production and operating expenses +
     Exploration expenses + Depreciation, depletion and amortization.
<F2> CGS + Property impairments + Taxes other than income taxes.
<F3> Preferred dividend requirements of capital trusts.
</FN>



</TABLE>
---

EXHIBIT 32.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report of AEGIS INDUSTRIES, INC. (the
Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended October 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I,
Dennis Mee, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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

|                       | /s/
      Dennis Mee   
|---------------------- | -----------------------
|Date: January 29, 2007 |                        
|                       | Dennis Mee             
|                       | Chief Financial Officer

---
#### BALDRICH et al. v. BARBOUR.

No. 3175.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Aug. 11, 1937.

For former opinion, see 90 F.(2d) 867.

*651Virgilio Brunet, Rafael Soltero Peralta, and Hugh R. Francis, of San Juan, P. R., for appellants.

A. Cecil Snyder, of Baltimore, Md., and D. B. Hempstead, of Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellee.

Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration we think should be denied. This court considered in its opinion the important points raised in the plaintiffs’ motion. If the court failed to mention the very few references in the evidence to records of marriages and births, it was because altogether the evidence failed to show a connected chain of title from Francisco Correa down to the plaintiffs in the case.

As to the motion of the plaintiffs in intervention for reconsideration, we think this must also be denied. If it has any merit, it must be based on the failure of the District Court to take evidence in the case from the plaintiffs in intervention, but, as pointed out in the opinion of this court, it was ■ stipulated by all the parties that the plaintiffs should first present their evidence, then the plaintiffs in intervention, and then the defendant.

At the close of the plaintiffs’ testimony, the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict. The record fails to show any request by the plaintiffs in intervention to be permitted to introduce any evidence, either oral or documentary, or disclose any protest that the District Judge should not direct a verdict without first hearing the plaintiffs in intervention.

Failing to make it known at the time that they had evidence in addition to that introduced by the plaintiffs, we think, as this court stated in its opinion, that they cannot now be heard to comply. It is futile now to base their complaint on the ground that no opportunity was offered to make known to the District Judge that they had evidence to offer additional to that presented by the original plaintiffs, or that the District Court would not have withheld its order for a directed verdict, if a protest had been made. We think it cannot be said that the plaintiffs in intervention did not have their day in court.

 While it is true that an exception was taken to the order of the District Judge directing a verdict for the defendant, we think the order was justified by the lack of evidence on the part of the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs in intervention, and the plaintiffs in intervention could take nothing by their exception, if it were not waived by a later motion for a new trial. A refusal to grant a new trial is discretionary with the trial judge, and we find no abuse of discretion in this case. No complaint was made at the time of the order for a directed verdict that the plaintiffs in intervention desired to produce additional evidence as a ground for their exception to the judge’s order. If such grounds had been suggested, we cannot conceive of the District Court refusing to receive such evidence.

The motions are denied.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T QU OC XU ON G L UU , P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. V . S I N G H , A s s o c ia te W ar d e n ; e t a l., R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 15506 D. C . No . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 2 7 8 3 - L KK DA D ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea lfr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L aw r e nc e K . K ar l t on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J anuary10, 2011 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T A L L M A N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner Q uo c X uo ng L uu appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 h ab e a s p e titio n a s u n tim e ly . W e h av e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , an dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED JAN 24 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 15506 2 L uu cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d i sm i ss i ng hi s pet i t i on as unt i m e l y . T o the e xt e nttha tL uu ar gue s tha thi s pr i or42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on s h o u ldto ll th e lim ita tio n p e r io d , th is c o n te n tio n f a ils . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(d); se e a l so Fer gu se n v. P alm atee r , 321 F . 3d 820, 823 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( “ s e c t i on 2244( d) d o e s n o t p e rm it th e r e in itia tio n o f th e lim ita tio n s p e r io dth a t e n d e db e f o r e th e s ta te pe t i t i on w a s f

i l e d” ) . T he s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od f

ora dm i ni s tr a t i ve de c i s i ons i s gov erned b y 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(d)(1)(d), w hi ch re qu i re s f i l i ng w i thi n o ne ye ar f r o m th e d a te th e a d m in is tr a tiv e ap p e a l w a s d e n ie d . Se e Sh e lb yv . B a r tle tt , 391 F . 3d10 61 , 10 65 -66 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( l i m i t at i on peri odbegan run ni ng day a ft er pet i t i on erre ce i ved n ot i ce of deni alof appeal ). A cc ordi ng l y, L uu ’ s argum entthat th e A E D P A s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s d idn o t b e g in u n til a f te rth e r e s o lu tio n o f

h is § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n is w ith o u t m e r it. AF F I RME D.
1

Sutton, Lisa

From: Conroy, David

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 12:11 PM

To: Craig A. Wright

Cc: Fitzgerald, Mike; michele.roberge@des.nh.gov; Arnold, Anne; Moraff, Kenneth; Hamjian, 

Lynne; Simcox, Alison

Subject: SSM SIP Call Final Rule

Craig:

This message is a follow‐up to my voice message earlier today notifying you about the final action the EPA

Administrator signed today to ensure states have in place air pollution rules that apply to sources at all

times, including when the sources are operating during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM).  

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians

concerning the treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, specifically how

those emissions are treated in state implementation plan (SIP) provisions that the EPA previously approved.

Also, as part of this action, the EPA has revised and clarified its policy concerning SSM provisions consistent

with the Clean Air Act.

Your state is not among those for which the EPA is issuing a SIP call to make changes to their SIPs because the

EPA has determined that the SIP provisions cited in the petition for your state are consistent with the Clean Air

Act and EPA’s current SSM Policy to the extent they are still part of your EPA–approved SIP.  

For more detail on the agency’s final action, I have attached a pre‐publication version of the action and

final fact sheet.   These will be posted on our website at:  

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.html.

We look forward to continuing to work closely with you to ensure that any future revisions to your SIP are

consistent with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s SSM policy. If you or your staff have questions, please contact

Anne Arnold, 617‐918‐1047.

David Conroy

Air Programs Branch

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1

Office: 617‐918‐1661

iPhone: 857‐829‐8239

Fax: 617‐918‐0661