alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1

Annual Statement of
ComplianceProtective Life Secured Trust 2005-7 (the "Trust")

I, Joseph A. Lloret, a duly elected and acting officer of The Bank of New York ("Indenture Trustee"), do hereby certify on
behalf of the Indenture Trustee, that:

1.     I
have reviewed and examined the performance by the Indenture Trustee of the
collection and distribution of trust money pursuant to
Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the Indenture
pursuant to which the Trust's notes (the "Notes") were issued during the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2005 (the "Relevant
Year"); and

2.     Based
upon my review and examination described in 1 above, and except as provided in the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, dated March 31, 2006, prepared by the Trust's
independent registered public accounting firm in accordance with Section 10 of the Expense and Indemnity
Agreement, to the best of my knowledge, the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to noteholders
pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the
Indenture was performed in a satisfactory manner in all material respects
throughout the Relevant Year.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Indenture Trustee

|By: |  | /s/JOSEPH A. LLORET
      Name:  Joseph A. Lloret
      Title:    Assistant Vice President |  |  |  | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | 

Date:  March 31, 2006
|                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                           
|                                                                                                        
|No chart available.                                                                                     
|No chart available.                                                                                     
|                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                        
|Florida Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | W      | W      | W     
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45633

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL CHARLES BAKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: October 11, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and sentence and order relinquishing 

jurisdiction, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Michael Charles Baker pleaded guilty to battery with intent to commit a serious felony, 

Idaho Code §§ 18-911, 18-915(1)(a), and 18-903. The district court imposed a unified ten-year 

sentence, with three years determinate. The district court retained jurisdiction, and Baker was 

sent to participate in the rider program. After Baker completed his rider, the district court 

relinquished jurisdiction. Baker appeals, claiming that the district court erred by relinquishing 

jurisdiction. He also argues his sentence is excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion.

We note that the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to 

relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district 
2

court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood, 102 

Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-

97 (Ct. App. 1990). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the 

information before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. We hold that Baker has 

failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.

Baker also contends that his sentence is excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion. 

Sentences are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Our appellate standard of review and the 

factors to be considered when evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well-established. 

State v. Burdett, 134 Idaho 271, 1 P.3d 299 (Ct. App. 2000); State v. Sanchez, 115 Idaho 776, 

769 P.2d 1148 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 653 P.2d 1183 (Ct. App. 1982); 

State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a 

sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 

P.3d 387, 391 (2007). The record does not indicate that the district court abused its discretion in 

sentencing. 

The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Baker’s sentence are 

affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1





PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the annual report of
Eagle Bulk Shipping Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending
December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sophocles Zoullas,
Principal 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:





(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.





A signed original of this written
statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date:
March 5, 2010





/s/ Sophocles
Zoullas


Sophocles
Zoullas


Chief
Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DEL RIO DIVISION

United States of America

vs.

(1) Lamberto Castillo-Yescas

§

§

§

§

§

NO: DR:20-CR-00610(1)-AM

ORDER

 This case has been referred, by a general order, to the United States Magistrate Judge for

the taking of a felony guilty plea. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(3) United States vs. Dees, 125 F3rd 261

(5th Cir. 1997).

 On 07/06/2020 the defendant and counsel appeared before the United States Magistrate

Judge who addressed the defendant personally in Open Court. The Court informed the defendant

that he had a right to have his plea taken by the United States District Judge and advised him of

the admonishments under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

 The undersigned United States Magistrate finds as follows:

 1) The defendant, with the advice of his attorney, has consented to the

taking of his guilty plea by the undersigned United States

Magistrate Judge. Sentencing will be conducted by the presiding

United States District Judge;

 2) The defendant understood the nature of the charges and penalties;

 3) The defendant understood his constitutional as well as statutory

rights and freely and voluntarily waived them;

 4) The defendant pled guilty to Count One of the Indictment,

Assaulting, Resisting or Impeding Certain Officers or Employees;

Count Two Illegal Re-entry into the United States, Count Three

Committing any Depredation against any Property of the United

States, without a plea agreement.

Case 2:20-cr-00610-AM Document 22 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 2
5) The defendant’s plea was made freely and voluntarily;

6) The defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; and

7) There is sufficient factual basis for this Defendant’s plea.

8) The defendant is hereby found guilty of the charge he pled guilty to.

RECOMMENDATION

 It is therefore the recommendation of the undersigned magistrate judge that the

defendant’s guilty plea be ACCEPTED and that a judgement of guilt be entered against the

defendant.

NOTICE

 The parties may wish to file objections to the above recommendations. Failure to file

written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in this Report within 14 days

from the date of its receipt shall bar an aggrieved party from receiving a de novo review by the

District Court of the findings and recommendations contained herein, see 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)©), and shall bar an aggrieved party “except on grounds of plain error from attacking on

appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District

Court.” See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996).

The Clerk shall promptly deliver copies of this Report and Recommendation to all

parties and their counsel.

This case is referred to the presiding United States District Judge for sentencing.

 Signed on this 07/06/2020.

______________________________

VICTOR ROBERTO GARCIA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cr-00610-AM Document 22 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 2
|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History:                                                 
|                                                              
|No chart available.                                           
|No chart available.                                           
|                                                              
|                                                              
|Kansas Shale Proved Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59025-59026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25381]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permit Application Received Under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) has received a waste management permit application for operation 
of a remote field support and emergency provisions for the Expedition 
Vessel, Kapitan Dranitsyn for the 2000-2001 season and four following 
austral summers. The application is submitted to NSF pursuant to 
regulations issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, 
or views with respect to this permit application on or before November 
2, 2000. Permit applications may be inspected by interested parties at 
the Permit Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce A. Jatko or Nadene Kennedy at 
the above address or (703) 292-8030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NSF's Antarctic Waste Regulation, 45 CFR 
Part 671, requires all U.S. citizens and entities to obtain a permit 
for the use or release of a designated pollutant in Antarctica, and for 
the release of waste in Antarctica. NSF has received a permit 
application under this Regulation for operation of up to nine 
expeditions per year to Antarctica. During each trip, passengers are 
taken ashore at selected sites by Zodiac (rubber raft) or helicopter 
for approximately two to four hours at a time. On each helicopters 
landing, emergency gear would be taken ashore in case weather 
deteriorates and passengers are required to camp on shore. Anything 
taken ashore will be removed from Antarctica and disposed of in 
Ushuaia, Argentina, Port Stanley, Falkland Islands, or a substitute 
port of disembarkation. No hazardous domestic products or wastes 
(aerosol cans, paints, solvents, etc.) will be brought ashore. Cooking 
stoves/fuel will be used only in an emergency were passengers are 
forced to spend night on shore. Conditions of the permit would include 
requirements to report on the removal of materials and any accidental 
releases, and management of all waste, including human waste, in 
accordance with Antarctic waste regulations.
    Applications for the permit is made by: Lars Winkander, Quark 
Expeditions, Inc., 980 Post Road, Darien, CT 06820.

LOCATION: Antarctic Peninsula Area.


[[Page 59026]]


    Dated: November 23, 2000 to March 31, 2005.
Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-25381 Filed 10-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Exhibit 99.2


                       SECRETARY TREASURER'S CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATE 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 (the "Report") on the Form 10-QSB of
Standard Capital Corporation (the "Company") for the three months ended November
30,  2002,  as  filed  with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof,  I,  Mary  Anne  Thachuk,  Secretary  Treasurer, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief:

1.    The  Quarterly  Report  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a)  or  15  (d)  of  the  Securities  and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.     The  information  contained  in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all  material  respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.


Date: July 8, 2003
                    /s/  "Mary  Anne  Thachuk"
                    --------------------------
                          Mary  Anne  Thachuk
                         Secretary  Treasurer
#### Hadassah Seidman, as Mother and Natural Guardian of Eve Seidman, an Infant, Respondent, v Booth Memorial Medical Center, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries based upon medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, the defendant Booth Memorial Medical Center appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated November 29, 1988, as denied its motion, *inter alia,*for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it, and granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was to compel it to provide the plaintiff with the names, addresses, and job titles of individuals who executed certain labor records dated May 25,1975.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s application for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it on the ground that facts essential to oppose the motion might exist but could not be stated by the plaintiff because of the appellant’s failure to comply with certain outstanding discovery requests *(see,*CPLR 3212 [f]; *Nodelman v L.C.V. Realty Corp.,*143 AD2d 122, 123; *Bank Leumi Trust Co. v Felner, 70*AD2d 869; *Connell v City of New York,*102 Misc 2d 585; *cf., Meath v Mishrick,*68 NY2d 992, 994-995; *Guarino v Mohawk Containers Co.,*59 NY2d 753; *Hecht v Vanderbilt Assocs.,*141 AD2d 696; *Witte v Incorporated Vil. of Port Washington N.,*114 AD2d 359). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### STONE v. STATE.

No. 24560.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 11, 1950.

On Rehearing March 1, 1950.

Dickson & Balch, Seymour, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for liquor law violation, with a fine of $1,000.

While the question was not raised by appellant in the -court below nor presented on the appeal, we observe that the complaint filed in this case says that the party making it has “ * * * a good reason to believe that Lloyd Stone, defendant, heretofore, on the 1st day of July, A.D. 1949 and before the making and filing of this complaint, did then and there in a dry area * * * unlawfully transport intoxicating liquor, * * The complaint nowhere alleges that affiant *does believe*it. Such complaints have been uniformly held to be insufficient to charge the offense.

Because of such defect, the judgment of the trial -court is reversed and the prosecution is ordered dismissed.

On State’s Motion to Correct Record and for Rehearing

DAVIDSON, Judge.

It now appearing that the defect in the complaint upon which we based our original disposition of this case was the result of a typographical omission and that the complaint was, in truth and in fact, not *228subject to such defect, the State’s motion for rehearing is granted and the case is *now*considered on its merits.

The record in this case affirmatively reflects-that the trial was had and judgment entered at a special term -of ■ the County Court of Baylor County.

-The law makes no provision for the calling of special terms of the county court. Art. 5, Sec. 29, of the Constitution, Vernon’s Ann.St., provides for the holding of four regular, terms of county court annually and “such other terms each year as may be fixed by the Commissioners’ Court.”

The terms of court as designated under the aforesaid article of the Constitution or authorized by the order of the Commissioners’ Court, as provided therein, are regular terms of court as distinguished from special or called terms of court. See Ex parte Cole, 51 Tex.Cr.R. 166, 101 S.W. 249; Ex parte Collins, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 436, 185 S.W. 580; Ex parte Reeves, 100 Tex. 617, 103 S.W. 478; Pinkston v. Ogden, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W.2d 114.

It is apparent, therefore, that the instant judgment entered by a, court not legally in session-is void. Ex parte Wade, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 175, 179 S.W.2d 574; Ex parte Jones, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 402, 111 S.W.2d 267; Smith v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 585, 183 S.W.2d 175.

■For the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

• Opinion -approved -by -the Court.

• HAWKINS, P. J., absent. '
|Exhibit 10.2
|------------



|NRG ENGINEERING LTD.
|--------------------

|515, 505  8 Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta
T2P 1G2  Telephone (403) 262-3346    Fax (403) 237-5047
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|May 15, 2003
|------------



|United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Division of Corporate Finance  450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20549-0405
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dear Sirs:
|----------



|Re: | Claude Resources Inc.Form 20F
|--- | -----------------------------



|We refer to our
report  entitled:  "Economic  Evaluation  of the  Petroleum  and Natural Gas
Interests of  Claude Resources Inc." (the "Report"), effective January 1,
2003 and dated March 15, 2003.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|We hereby consent
to the use of our name and references to the excerpts  from the Report in Form 20F of
Claude Resources Inc.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|We have read Form
20F and have no reason to believe  that there are any  misrepresentations in the
information contained therein that is derived from the  Report and that is within our
knowledge as a result of our providing the Report.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | Yours very truly, 
      NRG ENGINEERING LTD. 
      /s/ R. K. Agrawal
      R.K. Agrawal, P. Eng. 
      President
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|RKA/vm
|------



| |  | 
| |  | 



---