alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

Chase Bank USA, National Association

Chase Issuance Trust

The undersigned, a
duly authorized officer of Chase Bank USA, National Association (the Bank), as Servicer, pursuant to the Fourth Amended and Restated Transfer and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 20, 2016 (as amended and supplemented from
time to time, the Agreement) among the Bank, as administrator, account owner and servicer (in such capacity, the Servicer), Chase Card Funding LLC, as transferor, Chase Issuance Trust and Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, as indenture trustee and collateral agent, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | The Bank is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | A review of the Servicers activities during the calendar year ended December 31, 2017 (the Reporting Period) and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate this 29thday of March 2018.



CHASE BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as ServicerBy:

/s/ Douglas S. ArrigoName:

Douglas S. ArrigoTitle:

Managing Director
#### OSBORN v. STATE.

No. 26241.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 4, 1953.

Rehearing Denied March 18, 1953.

M. Gabriel Nahas, Jr., and James Roy-all, Houston, for appellant.

William H. Scott, Grim. Dist. Atty., and King C. Haynie, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., *92Houston, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for embezzlement of Twenty-Five Dollars; the punishment, one day in jail and a fine of $25.

The facts are practically identical with those in Osborn v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 256 S.W.2d 89, except that here the $25 was received by appellant from Adolph Gonzales and appropriated to his own use.

The evidence sustains the conviction and no reversible error appears.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

The reasons assigned for overruling the motion for rehearing in Tex.Cr.App., 256 S.W.2d 89, against this appellant, are applicable and controlling here.

For the reasons there assigned, the motion for rehearing is overruled.

. Opinion approved by the Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0542 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. FRANK WEBB,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 29 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 22 2023

12/22/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0542
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5112 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5112

    To suspend temporarily the duty on copper peptide (GHK-Cu 1:1).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

  Mr. Himes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on copper peptide (GHK-Cu 1:1).

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

SECTION 1. COPPER PEPTIDE (GHK-CU 1:1).

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Copper peptide      Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          (GHK-Cu 1:1) (CAS                                                 12/31/2015
                          No. 49557-75-7)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2933.29.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 27, 2016

No. 04-16-00111-CR

Daniel GARZA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR5926

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant filed notification stating that the record taken by Bettina Williams is the only 

record necessary for this appeal and payment for this record has been made. It is therefore 

ORDERED that record taken by Bettina Williams shall be filed no later than May 5, 2016. The 

records taken by Roxanna Pena and Sandra Jackson shall not be filed.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 27th day of April, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.46

February 3, 2006


Dr. Ann Progulske-Fox
6392 County Road 214
Keystone Heights, FL 32656

Dear Ann:

I am writing to you in regard to the license arrangement between iviGene
Corporation and Oragenics, Inc. as detailed in the Memorandum of Agreement dated
February 9, 2004 (a copy of which is attached). Oragenics has agreed to pursue
development of the licensed technologies and as such paragraph 4 on page two
requires that we maintain "A commitment of two full-time staff people equivalent
or an annual expenditure of $150,000 in 2004 and $200,000 in each year
thereafter..."

Although we effectively met this commitment in 2004, in 2005 we worked
approximately 3,400 hours and spent approximately $166,000 on the IVIAT and CMAT
technologies. As you know, Oragenics has worked diligently to advance these
technologies and we would like to continue the operation of our license
agreement. To that end, we request a waiver from iviGene Corporation with regard
to the staff hours and expenditures for 2005 and ask that you sign in the area
provided below and return to us one copy of this letter.

Please contact me if you would like to discuss this or any other issues.

Sincerely,

/s/ Robert T. Zahradnik
Robert T. Zahradnik
President and CEO

*******************************************************************
With regard to the Memorandum of Agreement dated February 9, 2004, iviGene
Corporation waives the requirements for fiscal year 2005 that Oragenics, Inc.
commit two-full time staff people equivalent or make expenditures of at least
$200,000.

/s/ Ann Progulske-Fox
---------------------
Ann Progulske-Fox
Chair
iviGene Corporation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACOACO DIVISION

VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.

vs.

AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AMAZON.COM

SERVICES, LLC, AMAZON WEB

SERVICES, INC., AMAZON.COM

SERVICES, LLC, AMAZON.COM, INC.,

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,

VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.

§

§

§

§

§

NO: WA:20-CV-00272-ADA

ORDER RESETTING MotionOTIONS Hearing HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is reset for

MOTIONS HEARING by Public Zoomoom on June 12, 2023 at 10:30 AM .

Reset

IT 2nd day of June, 2023.

Alan D Albright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 96 Filed 06/02/23 Page 1 of 1
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4760 

To suspend temporarily the duty on polyvinyl formal resin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on polyvinyl formal resin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. POLYVINYL FORMAL RESIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Polyvinyl formal resin 

(vinyl acetate vinyl alcohol 

divinyl formal polymer) 

(CAS No. 63148–64–1) 

(provided for in subheading 3905.91.10) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4760 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC, d/b/a

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00454

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

FED. R. CIV. P. 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FOR

DEFENDANT MICROSOFT CORPORATION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, defendant Microsoft Corporation 

(“Microsoft”) states that it is a publicly held corporation, has no parent corporation, and no 

publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. 

Dated: September 3, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

Texas State Bar No. 24055029

SHELTON COBURN LLP

311 RR 620, Suite 205

Austin, TX 78734-4775

bshelton@sheltoncoburn.com

(512) 263-2165 (Telephone)

(512) 263-2166 (Facsimile)

Michael J. Bettinger 

Irene Yang

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

555 California Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94104

mbettinger@sidley.com

irene.yang@sidley.com

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 21 Filed 09/03/20 Page 1 of 3
2

(415) 772-1200 (Telephone)

(415) 772-7400 (Facsimile)

Richard A. Cederoth 

John W. McBride 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

One South Dearborn Street

Chicago, IL 60603

rcederoth@sidley.com

jwmcbride@sidley.com

(312) 853-7000 (Telephone)

(312) 853-7036 (Facsimile)

Attorneys for Microsoft Corporation

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 21 Filed 09/03/20 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on September 3, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of 

record.

/s/ Barry K. Shelton

 Barry K. Shelton

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 21 Filed 09/03/20 Page 3 of 3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrence Hayes, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin R. Weissberg, J.), rendered February 14, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees and which sentenced him, as a predicate felony offender, to two concurrent prison terms of 7 to 14 years and one of 5 to 10 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

On June 15, 1988, at approximately 10:00 a.m., two Narcotics Unit police officers were on a stakeout of the park at Stanton and Forsythe Streets on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. From the vantage point of a second-floor schoolroom across from the park, the officers observed defendant and another by use of high-powered binoculars. The conduct of the defendant indicated that he was providing his accomplice with gold-capped vials. Upon arrest the officers recovered several hundred gold-capped vials containing crack from a blue duffel bag that defendant had been observed to be using to replenish his cohort’s supply.

Defendant seeks a reversal of his conviction upon the ground that the prosecutor’s summation remarks deprived him of a fair trial. None of these alleged errors is preserved for appellate review as a matter of law, by virtue of defense counsel’s failure to timely object to them at trial (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Ruiz,*155 AD2d 299) and we decline to reach them since the prosecutor’s remarks were fair comment and the proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Ross, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
#### REYES v. STATE.

No. 26880.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 10, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley- Dice,- State’s - Atty;, Austin, for the State. ■ - . . :

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was, convicted -for. the subse-queñt offense of -driving ■ a- motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated, and his punishment was assessed at one year in the penitentiary. ,

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

It is observed that the indictment charged the appellant with the subsequent offense of operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated, and the verdict of the jury found him guilty as charged. The judgment and sentence recite that the appellant was adjudged to be guilty of “Drunk Driving — Second Offense.” The judgment and sentence are here reformed to show that the conviction was had for the subsequent offense of operating á motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated.

As so reformed, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.01

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Trustees
Windrose Medical Properties Trust:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements No.
333-108659, 333-109389 and 333-112183 on Form S-3 of Windrose Medical Properties
Trust of our reports dated March 9, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Windrose Medical Properties Trust and Subsidiaries as of December 31,
2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations for the
period January 1, 2002 through August 15, 2002, the period August 16, 2002
through December 31, 2002 and for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 2004, and the consolidated statements of cash flows and
shareholders' equity (deficit) for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 2004, and the financial statement schedule III as of December
31, 2004, managements' assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 which reports appear in
the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Windrose Medical Properties
Trust.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
March 14, 2005
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6336
GLENN CALVIN LAWHORN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUFUS R. FLEMING, Warden, Defendant - Appellee, and NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-691) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Calvin Lawhorn, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lawhorn v. Fleming , No. CA-95-691 (E.D. Va. Feb. 16, 1996). We deny Appellant's motions to appoint counsel and to file an amended complaint and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case 3:20-cv-00154-DB Document 16 Filed 07/22/20 Page 1 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-00154-DB Document 16 Filed 07/22/20 Page 2 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-00154-DB Document 16 Filed 07/22/20 Page 3 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-00154-DB Document 16 Filed 07/22/20 Page 4 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-00154-DB Document 16 Filed 07/22/20 Page 5 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-00154-DB Document 16 Filed 07/22/20 Page 6 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-00154-DB Document 16 Filed 07/22/20 Page 7 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-00154-DB Document 16 Filed 07/22/20 Page 8 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-00154-DB Document 16 Filed 07/22/20 Page 9 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-00154-DB Document 16 Filed 07/22/20 Page 10 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-00154-DB Document 16 Filed 07/22/20 Page 11 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-00154-DB Document 16 Filed 07/22/20 Page 12 of 12
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5469 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5469

          To suspend temporarily the duty on manganese flake.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

   Mr. Reed introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on manganese flake.

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

SECTION 1. MANGANESE FLAKE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Manganese flake     Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          containing at                                                     12/31/2015
                          least 99.5
                          percent by weight
                          of manganese
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          8111.00.47)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
|   | 1. | I      have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 10-K of      Oragenics, 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; |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      July 24, 2009 | /s/ David B. Hirsch          |
|--------------------------|------------------------------|
|                     | David      B. Hirsch         |
|                     | Chief      Executive Officer |

----
EXHIBIT 12
                           SONAT INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


                        Computation of Ratios of Earnings
                   from Continuing Operations to Fixed Charges
                              Total Enterprise (a)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                          Six Months Ended June 30,                         Years Ended December 31,              


                                            1997           1996            1996        1995         1994         1993        1992

                                                                                               (In Thousands)

Earnings from Continuing Operations:
<S>                                      <C>           <C>              <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>          <C>     
   Income (loss) before income taxes     $154,221      $127,571         $294,304    $282,497     $154,871    $364,198     $133,728
Fixed charges (see computation below)      74,654        78,993          152,830     165,154      127,909     129,160      156,428
   Less allowance for interest 
     capitalized                           (2,032)       (2,678)          (5,094)     (6,540)      (6,692)     (4,101)      (8,422)
                                         --------      --------         --------     -------     --------    --------     --------
Total Earnings Available for Fixed 
   Charges                               $226,843      $203,886         $442,040    $441,111     $276,088    $489,257     $281,734
                                         ========      ========         ========    ========     ========    ========     ========

Fixed Charges:
   Interest expense before deducting
      interest capitalized               $ 70,837      $ 75,254         $145,406    $157,653     $120,295    $122,204     $149,165
   Rentals(b)                               3,817         3,739            7,424       7,501        7,614       6,956        7,263
                                         --------      --------         --------     -------     --------    --------     --------
                                         $ 74,654      $ 78,993         $152,830    $165,154     $127,909    $129,160     $156,428
                                         ========      ========         ========    ========     ========    ========     ========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges            3.0           2.6              2.9         2.7          2.2         3.8          1.8
                                         ========      ========         ========    ========     ========    ========     ========

</TABLE>

________________

(a)  Amounts  include the  Company's  portion of the  captions as they relate to
     persons accounted for by the equity method.

(b)  These  amounts  represent  1/3 of rentals  which  approximate  the interest
     factor  applicable to such rentals of the Company and its  subsidiaries and
     continuing unconsolidated affiliates.