alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GECS Exhibit 4o


    

      Exhibit
        4(o)

       

      


       

      March
        3,
        2006

       

      Securities
        and Exchange Commission

      100
        F.
        Street, N.E.

      Washington,
        D.C. 20549

       

      
        	
                Subject:
                   

                 

              	
                General
                  Electric Capital Services, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for
                  the fiscal
                  year ended 
December 31, 2005 - File No.
                  0-14804

              


      

      


       

      Dear
        Sirs:

       

      Neither
        General Electric Capital Services, Inc. (the “Corporation”) nor any of its
        subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument with respect to its long-term
        debt
        that is not registered or filed with the Commission and under which the total
        amount of securities authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of the
        registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. In accordance with
        paragraph (b) (4) (iii) of Item 601 of Regulation S-K
        (17 CFR §229.601), the Corporation hereby agrees to furnish to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, a copy of each instrument
        which defines the rights of holders of such long-term debt not filed or
        incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Corporation’s Annual Report on
        Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005.

       

       

       

      
        	
                Very
                  truly yours,

                 

                GENERAL
                  ELECTRIC CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.

                 

                 

                 

              
	
                By:
                  

              	
                /s/
                  Kathryn A. Cassidy

              	 
	 	
                Kathryn
                  A. Cassidy

                Senior
                  Vice President Corporate Treasury
and Global Funding
                  Operation
Group 4 – Google’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief 

(Civil Case Nos. 6:20-cv-00572-ADA, 6:20-cv-00581-ADA, and 6:20-cv-00582-ADA) 

EXHIBIT #12 

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-12 Filed 02/12/21 Page 1 of 4
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-12 Filed 02/12/21 Page 2 of 4
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-12 Filed 02/12/21 Page 3 of 4
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-12 Filed 02/12/21 Page 4 of 4
In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

MARCH 3, 2015

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 

84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).

1. ED99791 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V OUNDRE T. AKINS, APP

2. ED100507 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V SAMUEL M. SELSOR, APP

3. ED100767 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V ROBERT LIGGETT, APP

4. ED100769 SANDRA A. EVOLA, RES V. CHARLES J. EVOLA, APP

5. ED100859 ANDREA L. NEWPORT, RES V. TIMOTHY J. NEWPORT, 

APP

6. ED101011 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V JACOB DAVIS, APP

7. ED101044 DARRELL LEWIS, APP V. STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

8. ED101063 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V MARION ARRINGTON, APP

9. ED101102 TESSA VANVLERAH, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

10. ED101372 BARBARA VELASCO, APP V MARY BECK, RES

11. ED101413 JAMES JOHNSON, APP V SULLIVAN FIRE DEPT. RES

12. ED101449 ROBERT GRAY, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

13. ED101479 S.D.C., RES V Y.T.S., APP

14. ED101651 KIMBERLY AIELLO, APP V CITY OF OVERLAND & DES
#### DAUGHERTY v. LITTLE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 20, 1953.

Guy K. Duerson, Jr., McKee, for appellant.

Carl F. Eversole, Richmond, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing that .no appeal was granted by the circuit court from the judgment referred to in the statement of appeal, the appeal is dismissed. Civil Code of Practice, § 739. .
----

----

| Date                                                                                         | Installment Amount |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|
| July 1, 2007 and the first day of eachmonth thereafter through andincluding December 1, 2010 | $97,366.67         |
| January 1, 2011 and the first day ofeach month thereafter                                    | $116,317.00        |

| promptly, but in anyevent within 3 BusinessDays after Borrower’sreceipt thereof, |      (l)  copies of all material notices, reports and       documentation received from the New York    City Board of Education. |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| Required Amount | Applicable Period                      |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------|
| $5,310,000      | For the 12 month period ending 4/30/10 |

| Applicable Ratio | Month Ending                           |
|------------------|----------------------------------------|
| 1.65:1.00        | For the 12 month period ending 4/30/10 |

----

----

|   | TELTRONICS, INC.,a Delaware corporation                                                           |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | By:                                                                                                         |  /s/ Angela L. Marvin |
|   | Name:                                                                                                       |  Angela L. Marvin    |
|   | Title:                                                                                                      |  CFO |
|   |                                                                                                        |   |
|   | WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE, INC.,a California corporation,as Agent, Lender and Required Lender   |
|   | By:                                                                                                         | /s/ Tiffany Ormon |
|   | Name:                                                                                                       | Tiffany Ormon |
|   | Title:                                                                                                      | Director |

----
#### SIMMONS v. STATE.

No. 22386.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 3, 1943.

C. F. Sentell, of Snyder, and Brummett & Brummett, of Dickens, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for receiving and concealing stolen cattle. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of two years.

The record is before us without bills of exception or statement of facts, in the ab*250sence of which no question has been presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
September 2 0 , 2016

Exemption No. 15700 A

Regulatory Docket No

. FAA

– 2015

– 3 9 21

Mr. Joseph E. Rebman

Rebman, Linhares & Beachem

Counsel to Yield Scout LLC

165 North Meramec Avenue, Suite 310

St. Louis, MO 63105

- 3772

Dear Mr. Rebman :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter dated May 27, 2016 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of Yield Scout LLC (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to your

current exemption . That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and ( c ), 61.101(e)(4 ) and (5), 61.113(a),

61.315(a) , 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and

(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the

petitioner to conduct UAS operations

. Yo u requested an amendment to change the company

name from J.T&T Leasing, LLC, dba Yield Scout to Yield Scout LLC

.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were th e basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in ac ting on this pe tition would be detrimental to the petitioner

.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 15700

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained2

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is

granted an amendment to change the operator name

.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, Yield Scout LLC is hereafter referred to as the operator. All

conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 15700 remain in effect

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

gro unds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

T his exemption terminates on March 31, 2018 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/ s/

John S. Duncan

Di rector, Flight Standards Service
**Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) -**  **Information Collection Request (ICR)**

**Change Worksheet** 1. Id entification of the Information Collection Title: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Removal of Certain Vacated Elements OMB control number : 2060

- 0003 2. Description of the Change in Requirements In this good cause final rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V regulations to remove fro m the Code of Federal Regulations portions of those regulations that were initiall y promulgated in the 2010 Tailoring Rule and that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) specificall y identified as vacated in the April 10, 2015, amended judgment, Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA. The rule removes from the PSD and title V regulation s those vacated provisions that can be removed from the EPA regulations through a ministerial action. The removed regulations include portions of Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule as applicable to the PSD program and the PSD and title V regulations that require d EPA to consider further phasing

in the GHG permitting requirements at lower GHG emission thresholds

. 3. Description of the Burden In the regulatory

impact anal ys is for the Tailoring Rule, we estimated that the average annual burden on an industrial respond ent submitting a part C (PSD) perm it application is 1,006 hours and the average annual burden on a reviewing authority processing a part C (PSD) permit application is 336 hours. By removing portions of Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule from the PSD regulations, permit applicants and reviewing authorities would not incur these part C permitting burdens for Step 2 sources. In addition, not phasing

- in the GHG permitting requirements for additional sources under the PSD and title V program will further reduce burden for both permit applicants and PSD and title V permitting authorities. These potential burdens were not estimated as part of the Tailoring Rule, but would have been estimated as part of the rulemaking that would have determined whether to phase

- in the PSD and title V permitting requirements at lower GHG emissions thresholds. Therefore, to the extent this rule has any substantive effect, it relieves regulatory burdens . The rule relieves regulatory

burdens by

removing regulations that (1) would have require d permit applicants to request PSD permits if GHGs are the only pollutant emitted by

the new source or modification to an existing source above the applicable major source thresholds ; (2) required the EPA to consider further phasing

- in the GHG permitting requirements at lower GHG emission thresholds.
Served: January 30, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 30th of January, 2012

Essential Air Service at

ALPENA, MICHIGAN

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0300

NOTICE OF EXTENSION

By Order 2012-1-6, January 10, 2012, we re-solicited proposals for Essential Air Service

(EAS) at Alpena, Michigan, no later than January 31, 2012. On January 30, the City of 

Alpena requested an extension of the deadline, indicating that the city council and newly 

elected Mayor had not been sufficiently involved in the process. The Mayor indicated that 

“Any amount of time you can afford us would give me time to ensure that I have done 

everything I can for our community.” 

We recognize the importance the community places on this issue, and thus will grant a twoweek extension, i.e., to Feburary 14, 2012. However, we note that the initial request for 

proposals, Order 2011-9-5, was issued on September 13, 2011, and the Department has a 

duty to relieve the incumbent, Pinnacle Airlines Corporation, d/b/a Delta Connection, of its 

forced-service obligation. 

Dennis DeVany, Chief,

EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
#### WILLMAN v. STATE.

No. 22378.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 3, 1943.

Paul Petty, of Ballinger, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Theft of wool is the offense; the punishment, one year in the state penitentiary.

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

No error appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3154 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3154

 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 
                    higher wages to their employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 19, 2013

Mr. Rokita (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mrs. Black, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. 
Broun of Georgia, Mr. Bucshon, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Cassidy, 
Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Cole, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Crawford, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. 
Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. 
    Fincher, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Gingrey of 
 Georgia, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Gowdy, Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mr. Griffin of 
 Arkansas, Mr. Harper, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Hudson, Mr. 
 Huelskamp, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, Mr. Hurt, Mr. Jones, Mr. King of 
 Iowa, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Long, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Miller 
  of Florida, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Nunnelee, Mr. Olson, Mr. Pearce, Mr. 
Ribble, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, 
    Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Stivers, Mr. Stutzman, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. 
 Westmoreland, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Womack, Mr. Young of 
  Indiana, Mr. Mica, and Mr. Stockman) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 
                    higher wages to their employees.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rewarding Achievement and 
Incentivizing Successful Employees Act'' or the ``RAISE Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF HIGHER WAGES.

    Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(a)) 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) Notwithstanding a labor organization's exclusive 
representation of employees in a unit, or the terms and conditions of 
any collective bargaining contract or agreement then in effect, nothing 
in either--
            ``(A) section 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(5), or
            ``(B) a collective bargaining contract or agreement renewed 
        or entered into after the date of enactment of the RAISE Act,
shall prohibit an employer from paying an employee in the unit greater 
wages, pay, or other compensation for, or by reason of, his or her 
services as an employee of such employer, than provided for in such 
contract or agreement.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2


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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust III and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P.
(the "Partnership") for the period ended December 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kathleen Skero, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General
Partner of the Partnership, 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
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING III, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ KATHLEEN SKERO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Kathleen Skero *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: March 24, 2006
_____________________

*  Kathleen Skero functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27496]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Filing

October 20, 2000.
    In the matter of RT01-78-000, RT01-79-000, RT01-80-000, (Not 
Consolidated), Minnesota Power, Mt. Carmel Public Utility Company, 
Sun River Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    Take notice that on October 16, 2000, the entities listed in the 
caption above made compliance filings pursuant to 18 CFR 35.34(c) and 
the Commission's Order No. 2000.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 2000, 65 FR 
809 (January 6, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,089 (1999), order on 
reh.g, Order No. 20000-A, 65 FR 12,088 (March 8, 2000); FERC Stats. 
& Regs. 31,092 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filings should 
file a motion to intervene, comments, or protest the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 214). All such motions, comments and 
protests should be filed on or before November 20, 2000. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests 
may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web 
site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27496 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned executive officers of BCSB Bankcorp, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007 (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 as of and for the period
covered by the Report.



By:

/s/ Joseph J. BouffardName:

Joseph J. BouffardTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ Anthony R. ColeName:

Anthony R. ColeTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: January 28, 2008
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SERGIO MEDINA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3005

[October 26, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; James W. McCann, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 09CF000901A.

Sergio Medina, Arcadia, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.