alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ITEM 1123 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

WITH RESPECT TO THE INDENTURE (“THE INDENTURE”) FOR THE 

ALLSTATE LIFE GLOBAL FUNDING TRUSTS

 

 

I, Janice Ott Rotunno, Vice President of The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. (the “Trustee”), state:

 

(a) a review of the Trustee’s activities for the period January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 and of the Trustee’s performance under the  Indenture has been made under my supervision, and

 

 (b) to the best of my knowledge, except as disclosed in the Trustee’s  platform-level assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122 (d) of Regulation AB dated February 29, 2008 and attached hereto as Schedule A, the Trustee has fulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under the Indenture for the period described above.

 

Date:  March 7, 2008

 

 

|   |   |   |                   |
|--------|--------|--------|------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ Janice Ott Rotunno |  

  |
|   |   |   | Vice President         |

 

SCHEDULE A

 

MATERIAL INSTANCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE

1122(d)(2)(i): *Payments on pool assets are deposited into the appropriate custodial bank accounts and related bank clearing accounts no more than two business days of receipt, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.*

With respect to collections received on assets relating to certain series of securities, such collections were not deposited into a segregated account for each specified series but rather were deposited into a general account held by the Company as Indenture Trustee (hereinafter referred to as the “Indenture Trustee”) and remitted directly to the investors. All collections were properly allocated by the Indenture Trustee to the related series of securities and timely remitted to the investors in such series. The segregated account for each specified series was in existence prior to the time deposits were to be made into such account but such account was not utilized in all instances by the Indenture Trustee as stated above. Procedures have been in place and are currently being reinforced so that collections are deposited into the segregated account for each specified series within the applicabletime frames and then remitted to the investors in such series all in accordance with the related transaction documents.
**CERTIFICATION        **

| 1. | I                  have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Barnabus Energy,                  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: May 12, 2006                                                                                              |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                                            |   |   |   |
|                                                                                                            |   |   |   |
| /s/ David              Saltman                                                                             |   |   |   |
| David              Saltman                                                                                      |   |   |        |
| President                and                Chief Executive Officer(Principal                Executive Officer) |   |   |   |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: D.G.D., A MINOR

PETITION OF: T.L.D., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

No. 9 MM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of March, 2022, the “Request for Acceptance of 

Submitted Filing” is GRANTED, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
Hi Nick, 

 

Thanks for the pointer to the Region 5 website. It looks like EPA issued a rule on June 28, 1989 that established the 

FESOP criteria (five total) for limited criteria pollutants as part of the SIP (54 FR 27274). In a November 3, 1993 

memo titled “Approaches to Creating Federally Enforceable Emissions Limits,” (Seitz memo – you can find this on the 

web) EPA explained this could be extended to federally enforceable limits for HAP emissions if the program were 

approved pursuant to CAA section 112(l). In a 1995 DFR, EPA approved Indiana’s FESOP program (60 FR 43008) and 

in that rule, explained the fifth criterion was “The permits are issued subject to public participation.” They go on to 

say that “This means that the State agrees, as a part of its program, to provide USEPA and the public with timely 

notice of the proposed issuance of such permits, and to provide USEPA, on a timely basis, with a copy of each 

proposed (or draft) and final permit intended to be federally enforceable.” 

 

My follow-up questions are: 

- How does this differ from the public participation requirement of Title V? 

- Does EPA keep a list or record of the states with FESOP programs? Does EPA have a list of the FR citations for 

those FESOP programs? Can you point me to a person at EPA (non-Regions) with background on this issue? 

- Does EPA have any information on the burden to states to process a Title V permit? What about a FESOP? 

 

Thanks, 

Cortney 

 

FESOP 

Higgins, Cortney 

to: 

Nick Parsons 

10/04/2012 04:45 PM 

Cc: 

Penny Lassiter, Paul Versace, JohnB Chamberlin 

Hide Details 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul Versace/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, JohnB 

Chamberlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

History: This message has been replied to. 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Settings\Temp\notes87944B\~web1950.h... 10/9/2012
Exhibit
10.6


 


SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT


 





	TO:	The Directors of Industrial Human Capital, Inc. (the “Company”).



 


The undersigned hereby subscribes for 2,000,000
shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share (the “Shares”) of the Company. In consideration for the issue of the Shares,
the undersigned hereby agrees and undertakes to pay $9,638.55 to the Company.


 


The undersigned agrees to take the Shares subject
to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Company and authorizes you to enter the following name and address in the stockholder ledger
of the Company:


 


		Name:	A.G.P./Alliance Global Partners
	 	 	 
	 	Address:	590 Madison Avenue, 28th Floor
	 	 	 
	 	 	New York, NY 10022










 


A.G.P./Alliance Global Partners


 





	Signed:	/s/ Thomas J. Higgins	 
	Name:	Thomas J. Higgins	 
	Title:	Managing Director	 



 





	Dated:	April 9, 2021



 





Accepted:


 


Industrial Human Capital, Inc.


 








	Signed:	/s/ Scott W. Abshner	 
	Name:	Scott W. Absher	 
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer	 


 








	Dated:	April 9, 2021
#### Eli Kraizberg, Doing Business as Greier Management Company, et al., Respondents, v John Shankey et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review determinations of the Town Board of Stony Point, dated August 11, 1987, and April 12, 1988, respectively, denying the petitioner’s application to create a sewer district, the members of the Town Board of the Town of Stony Point appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nicolai, J.), dated October 19, 1988, which annulled the determinations of the Town Board and directed it to create a sewer district.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In November 1986 the petitioners Eli Kraizberg, doing business as Greier Management Company, and Abraham Jacobi, developers of certain property in the Town of Stony Point, filed a petition with the appellant members of the Town Board of the Town of Stony Point (hereinafter the Board), for an extension of the existing town sewer district to include their property as well as certain premises owned by the North Rockland Central School District. This application was denied based on the alleged lack of capacity at the town’s central plant and infiltration/inflow problems.

In July 1987 Greier and Jacobi petitioned the Board for the creation of a sewer collection and treatment district known as Stony Point Sewer District No. 6. On August 11, 1987, Greier and Jacobi’s July 1987 application was denied after a public hearing. The instant proceeding was commenced, and, in an order dated January 7, 1988, the Supreme Court directed that a new vote be taken, and findings made pursuant to Town Law § 194 (1). On April 12, 1988, a new vote was taken, and findings were made. Thereafter, in the judgment appealed from, the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nicolai, J.), annulled the Board’s determinations, holding that "[t]he findings made by respondent Board were not supported by the evidence”. We affirm.

The Legislature has delegated the power to create sewer improvement districts to town boards *(see,*Town Law § 190 *et*
      *371
      *seq.).*The statute provides that, upon petition and after notice and hearing, a town board shall determine the sufficiency of the petition, the benefit to the property and owners in the proposed district, whether all benefited property and owners are in the proposed district and whether it is in the public interest to grant the relief sought *(see,*Town Law § 194 [1]). We find that the Board’s determination denying the establishment of the sewer district was not based upon a determination of the public interest but upon the desire of the town residents and the Board to minimize development *(see, Matter of Harper v Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*55 AD2d 405, 411-412, *affd*43 NY2d 980). Therefore, we conclude that the Board’s determination was arbitrary and capricious and was not supported by substantial evidence.

We have considered the Board’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Eiber, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
|                                                                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                         
|View History:                                                                                                
|                                                                                                             
|Ohio Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                             
|                                                                                                             
|Ohio Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 24     | 75     | 16     | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 1      | 180    | 0      | 51     | 30     | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 14     | 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO WAO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC.,

ZTE (TX), INC.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO:

WA:20-CV-00495-ADA

ORDER SETTING MOTION HEARING HEARING

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

MOTION HEARING by Zoomoom on Wednesday, September 01, 2021 at 10:00 AM.

set

IT 31st day of August, 2021.

Alan D Albright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00495-ADA Document 108 Filed 08/31/21 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (1189).                    

*Date and Time:*                         November 30-December 1, 2000; 8:00 am-5:00 pm.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Room 580, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Fred G. Heineken and Dewey Ryu, Program Directors, Division of Bioengineering and Environmental Systems, National Science Foundation; 4201 Wilson Boulevard; Arlington, Virginia 22230; Telephone: (703) 292-8320.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology CAREER proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: October 10, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-26317  Filed 10-12-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5562 

To reduce temporarily the rate of duty on certain sports footwear. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the rate of duty on certain sports 

footwear. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN SPORTS FOOTWEAR. 

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 Sports footwear with outer 

soles and uppers of rubber 

or plastics, valued over 

$6.50 but not over $12/ 

pair, the foregoing not for 

men (provided for in subheading 6402.19.70) ......... Free 47¢/pr. + 

10.5% No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5562 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

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

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 31, 2022

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22

- 505 Lower Tribunal No. 18

- 21048

________________ 

### Janet Rodriguez , Appellant,

vs. 

### US Bank Trust NA, et al. , Appellee s

.

An Appeal f rom non - final orders f rom the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Migna Sanchez

- Llorens , Judge. Janet Rodriguez, in proper person

. No appearance, for appe llee s

. Before FERNANDEZ, C

. J., and HENDON, and LOBREE , JJ.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). (“After service of the initial brief ..., the court may summarily affirm2 the order to be reviewed if the court finds that no preliminary basis for reversal has been demonstrated.”).
Affirmed.
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 Quarterly
Report of Storage Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 28, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Patrick J. Martin, Chief 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.

/s/ PATRICK J. MARTIN 
Patrick J. MartinChief Executive Officer May 8, 2003
* 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

April 8, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10581

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID RAY WALLACE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:02-CR-328-ALL-R

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

David Ray Wallace appeals from his jury-trial conviction and

sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e). Wallace argues that the district

court erred in finding that he consented to a search of his

person. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the

prevailing party, supports the district court’s findings and

denial of Wallace’s motion to suppress. See United States v.
No. 03-10581

-2-

Shelton, 337 F.3d 529, 532, petition for cert. filed, 72 U.S.L.W.

3393 (U.S. Nov. 24, 2003) (No. 03-781).

Wallace further argues that the district court erred in

enhancing his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). This

court reviews the issue de novo. See United States v. MartinezCortez, 988 F.2d 1408, 1410 (5th Cir. 1993). The presentence

report reveals that Wallace had three convictions for aggravated

robbery which served as predicate offenses for the sentence

enhancement. See United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 419 (5th

Cir. 1998). The district court did not err.

Finally, Wallace challenges the constitutionality of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g). He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by

circuit precedent. This court has repeatedly held that the

constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is not open to question. 

United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Nissan North America, Inc., Appellant

No. 06-19-00007-CV v.

Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, et al., 

Appellees

Appeal from the 126th District Court of 

Travis County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. D-1-GN17-004072). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Nissan North America, Inc., pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 22, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk