alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

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 AB Private Credit Investors Corporation (the Fund)
for the year ended December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), J. Brent Humphries, as Chief Executive Officer of the Fund, and Wesley Raper, as Chief Financial Officer of
the Fund, each hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:



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



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: March 20, 2018 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ J. Brent Humphries       
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | J. Brent Humphries           
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: March 20, 2018 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Wesley Raper             
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Wesley Raper                 
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

**Servicer Compliance Statement of John Deere Capital Corporation**

 

I, Steven N. Owenson, Senior Vice President and Controller of John Deere Capital Corporation, state:

 

A review of John Deere Capital Corporation’s activities for the period from October 31, 2016 through October 29, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) and of John Deere Capital Corporation’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 11, 2015 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables, Inc. and John Deere Owner Trust 2015 has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, John Deere Capital Corporation has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 
| Date: January 12,   2018 | John Deere Capital   Corporation |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                          |                             |
|                          |                             |
|                          | By                               | /s/ Steven N. Owenson |
|                          |                             | Steven   N. Owenson |
|                          |                             | Senior   Vice President and Controller |

 

----
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FT. WORTH DIVISION

EUGENIO VARGAS

Plaintiff,

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ Case No. 4:22-CV00430

V.

§

§ 

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, JULIE 

HEDRICK, ERIK HARRIS

Defendants.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN REQUEST 

FOR COURT TO APPOINTMENT A MEDIATOR 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Eugenio Vargas, Plaintiff herein, and files this Written Request for Court 

to appoint a Mediator, and in support thereof would respectfully show unto the court the following:

I.

In compliance with this Court’s Mediation Order entered on February 22, 2023, Counsel 

for Plaintiff and Defendants have attempted to meet and confer on a selection of a mediator, a date, 

a manner, and duration of mediation. Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants’ have exchanged

numerous emails attempting to schedule and choose a mediator between August 10, 2023 to 

August 31, 2023. As of the date of this filing the parties are unable to agree on a mediator, a date, 

a method, or a duration for a mediation to occur. Plaintiff reasonably believes that using the 

services of a court-mandated mediation service, in Tarrant County may increase the likelihood of 

a resolution of this case and will save valuable judicial resources. However, without judicial 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 109 Filed 08/31/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 3721
2

intervention, the parties are unable to agree on a mediator. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court 

please appoint a mediator who may set the case for mediation in accordance with the Mediation 

Order entered as of February 22, 2023; and for such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may 

show himself justly entitled to receive.

Respectfully submitted,

K.D. PHILLIPS LAW FIRM, PLLC

 

 

By: /s/ Kerri Phillips 

Kerri Phillips

Texas Bar No. 24065906

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com

6010 W. Spring Creek Parkway

Plano, Texas 75024

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Fax: (940) 400-0089 

For Service of Filings: 

notice@KDphillipslaw.com

 

 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 109 Filed 08/31/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 3722
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on August 31, 2023, a true and correct copy of the above was served on 

Defendants’ attorney via the e-filing manager. 

Jeff Bartos

Charlette Matts

James Sanford

/S/ Kerri Phillips

 Kerri Phillips

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 109 Filed 08/31/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 3723
gy 

P.O. Box 955922542 Singletree Lane

South Jordan, Utah 84095

Re: Final Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Pio Pico Energy CenterDear Mr. Chandler:In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C 7401 et seq.), the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (EPA) has reviewed your application for a CAAPrevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit authorizing the construction and operationof a new 300-megawatt (MW, nominal) natural gas-fired power plant known as the Pio Pico

Energy Center in San Diego County, California.EPA issued and published requests for public comment regarding EPA’s proposed action on theabove-referenced application in June 2012 and August 2012. EPA received comments during

the public comment period. Enclosed is a copy of our Response to Comments document for ourfinal permit decision. After consideration ofthe expressed views of all commenters, the pertinentfederal statutes and regulations, and additional material relevant to the application and containedin our Administrative Record, EPA hereby issues the enclosed PSD Permit for the facilitydescribed above. The final permit, Response to Comments document and other key documents

relevant to the final PSD permit are also available through a link at our website,

www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/r9-permits-issued.html#psd, or at www.regulations. gov

(Docket ID # EPA-R09-OAR-201 1-0978).

Within 30 days after the service of notice announcing the EPA’s final permit decision, any

person who filed comments on the proposed permit or participated in the public hearing maypetition the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) to review any condition ofthe finalpermit. The petition must include a statement ofthe reason(s) for requesting review by the EAB,

including a demonstration that any issues being raised were raised during the public comment

period to the extent required by the regulations at 40 CFR Part 124 and when appropriate, a

showing that the conditions in question are based on 1) a finding of fact or conclusion of law

which is erroneous, or 2) an exercise of discretion or an important policy consideration which theEAB should, in its discretion, review. Please see 40 CFR 124.19 and visithttp://www.epa.gov/eab/ for more information regarding the procedures for appeal of a PSD

permit decision to the EAB.

Printed on Recycled Paper
Sincerely,

Deborah Jordan

Director, Air Division

cc: Steve Hill, Sierra Research

Tom Weeks, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District

Eric K. Solorio, California Energy CommissionMichael Tollstrup, California Air Resources Board

2
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 03274**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 03274\03274_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03274\03274_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 03274\03274_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03274\03274_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03274\03274_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

03274\Certification Statement Plant ID 03274.pdf Plant certification statement 03274\Supplemental Documents\AEP ELGs ICR submittal letter 9-13-10.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 03274\Supplemental Documents\AEP RVS 03274 A5-2 Aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03274\Supplemental Documents\AEP RVS 03274 A5-3 WB-1 Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03274\Supplemental Documents\AEP RVS 03274 A5-3 WB-2 Diagram.xls Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                             
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|No chart available.                                                        
|No chart available.                                                        
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) Crude Oil Consumed at Refineries (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
#### ALLEN v. STATE.

No. 25161.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 21, 1951.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for the offense' of robbery, ' with a sentence -of five years in the penitentiary. •

The record is before the Court without a statement of facts or bill of exception. No question is .presented for review and all proceedings appear regular.

The judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3588 

AN ACT 

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt fire hydrants from the prohibition on the use of lead pipes, 

fittings, fixtures, solder, and flux. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3588 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Fire Safe3 ty Act of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXEMPTING FIRE HYDRANTS FROM PROHIBITION 

5 ON USE OF LEAD. 

6 Section 1417(a)(4)(B) of the Safe Drinking Water 

7 Act is amended by inserting ‘‘fire hydrants,’’ after ‘‘show8 er valves,’’. 

9 SEC. 3. EVALUATION OF SOURCES OF LEAD IN WATER DIS10 TRIBUTION SYSTEMS AND ALTERNATE ROUT11 ING SYSTEMS. 

12 The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

13 Agency shall— 

14 (1) consult with and seek the advice of the Na15 tional Drinking Water Advisory Council on potential 

16 changes to the regulations pertaining to lead under 

17 the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et 

18 seq.); and 

19 (2) request the Council to consider sources of 

20 lead throughout drinking water distribution systems, 
3 

•HR 3588 EH

1 including through components used to reroute drink2 ing water during distribution system repairs. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 2, 

2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3588 

AN ACT 

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt 

lead pipes, fittings, fixtures, solder, and flux. fire hydrants from the prohibition on the use of
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6


                 RESTATED INTERCOMPANY NOTE: ASTORIA GAS TURBINE

$62,899,000                                                    February 22, 2000


                  FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ASTORIA GAS TURBINE POWER LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, (the "Borrower"), hereby promises to pay to the order
of NRG NORTHEAST GENERATING LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its
successors and assigns (the "Lender"), on demand in lawful money of the United
States in immediately available funds, at the office of the Lender located at
1221 Nicollet Mall, Suite 700, Minneapolis, MN 55403, the principal sum of
SIXTY-TWO MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY-NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($62,899,000) or,
if less, the aggregate unpaid principal amount of the loan remaining outstanding
hereunder.

                  The Borrower also promises to pay as interest on the unpaid
principal amount hereof semi-annually on June 15 and December 15 of each year,
beginning on June 15, 2000 in like money at said office from the date hereof
until paid, an amount equal to eight and four tenths percent (8.4%) (its
"Proportionate Share") of the interest due in respect of certain bonds issued by
the Issuer pursuant to an indenture entered into by the Issuer, certain
guarantors thereto and the Chase Manhattan Bank, as trustee, of even date
herewith.

                  The Borrower may voluntarily prepay this Note, in whole or in
part provided, however, the Borrower may not prepay more than its Proportionate
Share of the principal amounts set forth in Schedule A hereto before the date
specified on such schedule without the prior written consent of the Lender. The
Lender shall record all such prepayments of principal, and the principal sum due
under this Note shall be reduced accordingly.

                  The Borrower hereby waives presentment, demand, protest or
notice of any kind in connection with this Note. All amounts payable under this
Note are payable without relief from valuation and appraisement laws.


<PAGE>   2


                  This Restated Intercompany Note shall be construed in
accordance with and be governed by the law of the State of New York.

                                            ASTORIA GAS TURBINE POWER LLC

                                            By:   /s/ Brian B. Bird
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Name:  Brian B. Bird
                                                  Title: Treasurer


                                        2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7238

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANA LILIA GAMBOA-FELIX, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-23; CA-02-725-2) Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 5, 2004 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Francis Fleming, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, San Diego, California, for Appellant. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ana Lilia Gamboa-Felix appeals from the denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate her sentence. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason would find that her constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Gamboa-Felix has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 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.

DISMISSED
#### J. H. ROBINSON TRUCK LINES, Inc. v. KERKSEY.

No. 9782.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

March 30, 1949.

Rehearing Denied April 20, 1949.

H. M. Hooper, of Austin, for appellant,

Tom Gambrell, of Lockhart, for appellee.

ARCHER, Chief Justice.

This is a suit for damages resulting from a collision between trucks belonging to the litigants. This appeal is from an interlocutory order overruling defendant’s plea of privilege.

Appellant assigns as error “the action of the court in overruling defendant’s plea of res judicata inasmuch as plaintiff had. taken a non-suit in a previous suit between the same litigants involving the same subject matter and after defendant had duly filed a plea of privilege which 'had been controverted by plaintiff.”

The plea of res judicata should have been sustained and the cause of action transferred to one of the district courts of Nueces County, Texas.

“A statutory ‘plea of privilege’ is more than a pleading and amounts to prima facie proof of defendant’s right to have venue changed from county in which suit was filed to county named in plea. Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 86.”

“Where plaintiff took a nonsuit as against one defendant on trial of pleas of privilege presented by several defendants, plaintiffs abandoned their contest of such defendant’s plea of privilege and admitted that it was well taken and that venue should be changed to county named in plea, and such nonsuit became res judicata on issue of venue precluding plaintiff from making such defendant a party defendant to the same action when venue as to other defendants was changed to a third county. Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 86.” Syllabus in Tempelmeyer v. Blackburn, 141 Tex. 600, 175 S.W.2d 222.

Reversed and cause transferred to Nueces County.
1 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3988

___________ Richard J. Wollenberg, III, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, * United States Postal Service, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 7, 2008 Filed: March 17, 2008

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Richard J. Wollenberg, III, appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Title VII discrimi nation action. After reviewing the record de novo, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in a light most favorable to Wollenberg, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman , 289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review ), we conclude summary judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.