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




Annual Servicer’s Certificate


Provided by Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation


to Holders of Notes and Certificates









NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION




OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE




The undersigned, Michael J. McConnell, Vice President of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows:




(1)           The undersigned has caused a review, under his supervision, to be made of i) the activities; and ii) the performance under the Agreement (as defined below), of the Company during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”); and




(2)           To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled its obligations in all material respects under the Agreement throughout the Reporting Period.




This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Section 4.09(a) of that certain Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 8, 2012 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, in its individual capacity and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2012-B Owner Trust.




Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 26th day of June, 2015.




/s/Michael J. McConnell________________


Michael J. McConnell


Vice President
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3210 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3210

To prohibit United States voluntary contributions to the United Nations 
                            Democracy Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2015

  Mr. Salmon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit United States voluntary contributions to the United Nations 
                            Democracy Fund.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE 
              UNITED NATIONS DEMOCRACY FUND.

    (a) In General.--No funds made available to any Federal department 
or agency may be used to make United States voluntary contributions to 
the United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF).
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) applies with respect to funds 
made available for fiscal year 2016 and subsequent fiscal years.
                                 <all>
```
#### KELLEY v. STATE (three cases).

Nos. 18763-18765.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 3, 1937.

W. Owen Dailey, of Houston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

Conviction for a misdemeanor; punishment being assessed at a fine of $200.-

The prosecution proceeded under subsection (c) of section 3 of article 1, chap. 467, General and Special Laws, 44th Legislature, Second Called Seási'on, 1935 (Vernon’s Ann. P. C. art. 666 — -3(c), which we quote, as follows:

> “It shall be unlawful for any person who is authorized by law to sell malt or vinous liquors for consumption on the premises where sold, or any person who acts as agent or employee of any person, firm, or corporation authorized to sell malt or vinous liquors for consumption on the premises where sold, to have in his possession, at or near the premises where such malt or vinous liquors are sold for such purpose, any liquor produced by the process of distillation or any liquor containing alcohol in excess of fourteen per cent (14%) by volume.”

The complaint and information aver, in substance, that appellant had secured a wine and beer license authorizing him to sell malt and vinous liquors for consumption on the premises known as “Kelley’s Grill.” Further, it is alleged that appellant had in his possession at said premises “where said malt liquors and vinous liquors were so authorized to he sold” for consumption on the premises, liquor produced by the process of distillation. There is no averment, either in the information or complaint, that appellant was engaged in the business of selling or offering for sale malt or vinous liquors to be consumed on the premises where sold. In M. J. Gremillion v. State, 100 S.W. (2d) 106, delivered December 16, 1936, we held that a complaint and information under subsection (c) of section 3, supra, to be sufficient, must embrace an averment to the effect that the accused was engaged in the business of selling or offering for sale malt or vinous liquors to be consumed on the premises where sold. We quote from the opinion in said case, as follows:

> “In the instant 'case there is no averment in the information that appellant was engaged in the business of selling or offering for sale any malt or vinous liquors to be consumed on the premises where sold. All that is charged in the information is that he, meaning the appellant, had a license or permit to do so. This, we think, is insufficient to charge an offense under the law above quoted for the reason that, in our opinion, the Legislature did not intend to punish a person who had obtained a license authorizing, him to engage in the sale of beer and wine at a designated place, but who at no time had sought to exercise the privilege thus granted, although *212he may have had a bottle of whisky at the designated place.”

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

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.
#### Ollie DEATON v. STATE.

No. 19859.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 14, 1938.

W. E. Davenport, of San Angelo, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.'

Conviction is for possessing whisky at a place where only beer could legally be sold under a “beer permit,” punishment being a fine of $100.

The statute under which this prosecution proceeded was held inoperative because of repugnant penalties for the same offense in M. M. Moran v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 122 S.W.2d 318, opinion this date.

The same reasons here make it imperative to reverse the judgment and order the dismissal of the present prosecution.
EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Thomas W. Powell, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Powell Industries, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting, and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.      Date: August 9, 2007
Exhibit 18.1

May 13, 2008

The Supervisory Board

The Nielsen
Company B.V.

770 Broadway

New York, New York 10003

Dear Members of the Supervisory Board,

Note 1 of Notes to
the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of The Nielsen Company B.V. (the Company) included in its Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 describes a change in method of accounting to eliminate a previously
existing one month lag in reporting for certain of the Companys subsidiaries outside the United States and Canada. We conclude that the elimination of the previously existing difference between the parent company and certain of its
consolidated subsidiaries, which represents a change in accounting principle in accordance with EITF No. 06-9, Reporting a Change in (or the Elimination of) a Previously Existing Difference between the Fiscal Year-End of a Parent Company
and That of a Consolidated Entity or between the Reporting Period of an Investor and That of an Equity Method Investee, is to an acceptable alternative method which, based on your business judgment to make this change and for the stated
reason, is preferable in your circumstances. We have not conducted an audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) of any financial statements of the Company as of any date or for any period
subsequent to December 31, 2007, and therefore we do not express any opinion on any financial statements of the Company subsequent to that date.



|                     
|---------------------
|Very truly yours,    
|                     
|/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|New York, New York
Civil Service Federal Employees Federal Employees Federal Employees

Retirement Group Life Health Benefits Retirement

System Insurance Program System

United States

Office of Personnel Management

Retirement and Insurance Service

Benefits Administration Letter

Number: 98-404 Date: March 6, 1998 

Subject: Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program: Termination of

Health Power HMO, Code 3R

This is to inform you that Health Power HMO is terminating enrollment code 3R effective

May 1, 1998. This code serves the Northeastern Ohio counties of Cuyahoga and Mahoning.

Employees may not newly enroll in Code 3R. In addition, the Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) is authorizing a special open season for employees enrolled in Code 3R to

allow them to choose new plans. Employees who wish to maintain FEHB coverage must

enroll in new plans during this special open season.

Health Power HMO will send enrollees in Code 3R a letter on OPM stationery advising them

of this special open season. The letter, which enrollees must present to their personnel offices,

explains that the special open season is effective immediately and will continue no later than 30

days from the date of the letter. (However, agencies are asked to apply this cut-off date

liberally if necessary.)

Enrollment changes made during this special open season should become effective as soon as

possible and no later than May 1, 1998. 

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Abby L. Block, Chief

Insurance Policy 

 and Information Division
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 of
IMH Secured Loan Fund, LLC;
 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;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: May 15, 2008
    /s/ Shane AlbersShane AlbersChief Executive Officer, Investors Mortgage
Holdings,
Inc., manager of IMH Secured Loan Fund, LLC
Office of Personnel Management

Retirement and Insurance Group

1920 1954 1959 1986 

 

Benefits Administration Letter

Number: 96- 706 Date: October 8, 1996 

SUBJECT Metro Area Reemployment Center

As you probably know, the Metro Area Reemployment Center opened in mid-May. The

center, which is staffed with trained professionals, was established to assist employees who

face job loss in finding other employment. It has access to automated job information, offers

self-assessment tools, has pc's that people can use to work on resumes, etc. Also located at

the center is the DC Dislocated Worker Unit, which will provide Rapid Response assistance,

retraining services, job placement support, and unemployment insurance assistance. While

the center was established for employees who face job loss, its services are available to all

Federal employees.

We recently visited the center to see firsthand what it offers, and thought you might like the

opportunity to do so, too. While a visit would probably be most valuable to those of you

who are in agencies that are involved in downsizing, we all know that some people who

would like to retire can only afford to do so if they have other employment available to

supplement their income. Knowing what the center can offer might be useful in counseling

such employees.

The center can accommodate groups of about 10 people at a time. If you would like to

participated in a tour, please indicate your choice below and FAX your response to us. A

tour takes about 30 minutes. The center staff is willing to schedule more tours if needed. If

there are a number of you from your agency who would like to visit the center, you may want

to call to ask about scheduling your own tour. The number is (202) 565-6672. The center,

which is located in Room 650, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00

p.m., Monday through Friday. The Union Station Metro stop is very convenient. There is

limited street parking available.

Mary M. Sugar, Chief

Agency Services Division
I would like to visit the Reemployment Center on 

______August 6 at 10:00 a.m. _______August 21 at 10:00 a.m.

______August 13 at 10:00 a.m.

____________________________ ______________________________

Name Agency

____________________________ _____________________________

FAX number Phone number

FAX your response to (202) 606-1108
Schaeffer, John 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Lin, Chuantung 

Thursday, March 13,20141:41 PM 

Schaeffer, John; Brooks, David 

Lewis, Paul; Mattheisen, Mike; Njo, Heather; Townsend, Mark; Williamson, Tracy; Christian, 

Myrta; Boethling, Bob 

Subject: RE: Dow DEPCT Study plan and cover letter- Feb 27 2014 

Hi John, 

I have reviewed the submitted study plan/protocol and test results for the Physical Chemical (P/C}I Property endpoints 

section of DEPCT (CASRN. 2524-04-1}. The following are ICB's comments: 

1) The test methods/protocols and results for three P/C endpoints, Melting point (Freezing Point) (A1), Boiling 

Point (at a reduced pressure) (A2) and vapor pressure (A3) are adequate and acceptable to fulfill the HPV2 Test 

rule requirements. 

2) ICB suggests to convert the data of Boiling Point of 202 oc@ 98.3 kPa (i.e. 740 mmHg) to 203 "C @ 760 

mmHg. Please note that there was an "experimental BP value of 45 "C@ 3.0 mm Hg" (see the page 123 of 

Study Plan; EPISuite printout) cited in the Study Plan submitted by the sponsor (however, no reference for 

this experimental data was provided in the study). An estimated value of 180°C @ 760 mm Hg (from the cited 

exp. value) using MONO 5 conversion program could be used to compare the submitted test result for this BP 

endpoint. The sponsor estimated BP value from EPtSuite was 198.05 °( (based on the cited exp. 

value}. However, tCB chemist was not able to verify this value. 

3) The test result of the vapor pressure is shown as 93 Pa @ 25 °C. ICB suggests using the converted value of 0.7 

mm Hg @ 25 °(, instead. 

4) The Log Kow (A4) & Water Solubility (AS) values provided in the Study Plan were estimated values using EPISuite 

modules due to the test substance will be hydrolyzed in water rapidly and therefore, the test ofthese two 

endpoints were not feasible. However, the sponsor of this orphan chemical proposes to perform the hydrolysis 

rate (half-life) testing. The test result and a proposed protocol for the biodegradation of the test substance 

(pending the hydrolysis rate test result) will be submitted to EPA in a later date. The hydrolysis rate and the 

biodegradation issues should be EAB's expertise. Bob should be able to provide his view on this aspect. 

Please let me know if you have any question regarding this matter. 

Daniel 

From: Schaeffer, John 

Sent: Wednesday, March OS, 2014 11:42 AM 

To: Brooks, David; Lin, Chuantung 

Cc: Lewis, Paul; Mattheisen, Mike; Njo, Heather; Townsend, Mark 

Subject: PN: Dow DEPCT Study plan and cover letter- Feb 27 2014 

Dave, Daniel 

These require your expedited review- I believe we said we would get back to them within 5 weeks so they could stay on 

schedule 

Thanks! 

1
#### BOONE v. ANDERSON.

No. 1132.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Dec. 31, 1931.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1932.

Boykin & Ray, of Port Worth, for appellant.

Billingsley & Bilingsley, of Port Worth, afid Geo. Sergeant, of Dallas, for appellee.

GALLAGHER, C. J.

Appellant, G. B. Boone, on an ex parte bearing held on the 7th day of May, 1930, recovered a judgment against appellee, J. G. Anderson, for the sum of 8263.30 and costs. Some time after said judgment bad become final, appellee filed in the court in which the same was recovered an equitable action in the nature of a bill of review to set the same aside. Upon hearing thereof, the court entered an order setting said prior judgment aside and directing the clerk to reinstate the original cause on the trial docket for future hearing and disposition. This appeal is prosecuted from said order.

The trial court was without power to grant a new trial as such; the original judgment having become final. In actions to set aside a final judgment upon equitable grounds, the issues are not tried by piecemeal, but the entire case is opened up on its merits, and the relief prayed for is either denied or granted in one proceeding. Since the order or judgment entered in this cause does not determine the rights of the parties nor attempt to make final disposition of the issues involved, it is not final but merely interlocutory, and therefore insufficient to support an appeal. Lynn v. Hanna, 116 Tex. 652, 296 S. W. 280, 281, par. 2; Wise v. Lewis (Tex. Com. App.) 23 S.W.(2d) 299; Barton v. Montex Corporation (Tex. Civ. App.) 295 S. W. 950, 951, par. 1, and authorities there cited; Clay Lumber Co. v. Patterson (Tex. Civ. App.) 28 S.W.(2d) 825, and authorities there cited.

The appeal in this case is therefore dismissed.