alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

**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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2015 of Line Up Advertisement, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Joelyn Alcantara, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, 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 Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date: July 29, 2015  

*/s/ Joelyn Alcantara*

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

Joelyn Alcantara

President, Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officerand Director

(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer 

and Principal Accounting Officer)

1
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification By
J. Michael Mayer, Chief Financial Officer
of Complete Production Services, Inc.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
   Date: May 4, 2007
    
    By:
    
    /s/ J. Michael MayerJ. Michael MayerSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
#### Richard F. PRATER v. STATE.

No. 17357.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 13, 1935.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1935.

Murray Brownlee, of' McKinney, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is f<?r the violation of the law forbidding the possession for the purpose of sale of intoxicating liquor in a “dry” territory; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

Appellant was charged by indictment with the possession for the purpose of sale of malt liquor containing in excess of 1 per cent, of alcohol by volume, in Collin county, Tex., in which county the sale of intoxicating liquor has been prohibited by local option election held under the laws of the state of Texas, which election was in force at the time of the commission of the offense.

■ The question presented is the same as that dealt with in the case of Foster v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 1 in which an affirmance was ordered in an opinion delivered March 6, 1935.

Upon the reason and authority of the Foster Case, supra, the judgment in the present instance is affirmed.

1

 Opinion withdrawn on rehearing, see 88 S.W.(2d) 481.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant in person presents a motion for rehearing ■ asserting that the indictment is fatally defective. We think the indictment sufficient. Complaint of the insufficiency of the testimony is. of no avail in the absence of a statement of facts.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3032 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3032

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 17, 2015

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to repeal a certain 
    reporting requirement of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    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 ``Securities and Exchange Commission 
Reporting Modernization Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

    Paragraph (6) of section 21(h) of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u(h)) is repealed.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE**

**BARCLAYS DRYROCK ISSUANCE TRUST**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Barclays DryrockIssuance Trust for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2013 (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officerof Barclays Bank Delaware (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify and represent that:

 

1. A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer underthe Amended and Restated Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2012, as amended and restated as of December 17, 2013, by andamong Barclays Dryrock Funding LLC, the Servicer, Barclays Dryrock Issuance Trust and U.S. Bank National Association (the “Agreement”)during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicerhas fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject ofthe Report.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this ServicerCompliance Statement this 17th of March 2014.
cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge 

Daniel Joseph Jarvis 

Alan J. Butte11 & Associates 

Nye County District Attorney 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Nye County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22609]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-51-2024]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 59, Notification of Proposed Production 
Activity; Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp., U.S.A.; (All-Terrain 
Vehicles); Lincoln, Nebraska

    Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp., U.S.A. submitted a 
notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the 
Board) for its facility in Lincoln, Nebraska within Subzone 59A. The 
notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations 
(15 CFR 400.22) was received on September 26, 2024.
    Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be 
limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) 
described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and 
subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from 
conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in 
the background section of the Board's website--accessible via 
www.trade.gov/ftz. The proposed material(s)/component(s) would be added 
to the production authority that the Board previously approved for the 
operation, as reflected on the Board's website.
    The proposed foreign-status materials/components include motor 
vehicle air conditioning units and refrigerant lines for motor vehicle 
air conditioning units (duty rates are 1.4%). The request indicates 
that the materials/components are subject to duties under section 301 
of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of 
origin. The applicable section 301 decisions require subject 
merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 
146.41).
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7c1d3dde7d3d5c6c3c289c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e485a546e5a5c4f4a4b00494158">[email protected]</span></a>. The closing period for their receipt is November 12, 
2024.
    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection 
in the ``Online FTZ Information System'' section of the Board's 
website.
    For further information, contact Juanita Chen at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aac0dfcbc4c3decb84c9c2cfc4eaded8cbcecf84cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82e8f7e3ecebf6e3ace1eae7ecc2f6f0e3e6e7ace5edf4">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 27, 2024.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-22609 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### TODD v. ELLIOTT DEVELOPMENT CO.

No. 8788.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 23, 1932.

Rehearing Denied April 20, 1932.

Osee Pristoe, of Harlingen, for appellant.

C. K. Richards, of Brownsville, for appel-lee.

PLY, C. J.

This suit was instituted by appellant against appellee to recover the sum of $2,-591.31, based on a certain written contract executed by and between the parties. The cause was submitted to a jury on special issues, and upon the responses thereto judgr ment was rendered that appellant take nothing by his suit and appellee recover of appellant the sum of $362.64 on its cross-action.

The contract provided for the sale of trees, by appellant to appellee, at a price of $1 a piece, being citrus trees of a certain size and description. Appellant alleged a breach of the contract by appellee. The latter claimed fulfillment of the contract and asked for judgment for $500, which had been placed by it in the hands of appellant as earnest money to insure its performance of the contract.

There was a well-defined, clear-cut issue as to whether appellee had complied with the contract in going for the trees when notified that they were ready by appellant, and as to whether the loss by freezing’ should have fallen upon appellant or appellee. None of the 'issues raised by pleadings or testimony were noticed by the court, and none of the vital issues were submitted to the jury. The only issue submitted was as to whether appel-lee accepted all the trees in the nursery and: the number thereof. The contract had a number of points in it and there was conflicting testimony in regard to delivery and other matters, and the court had no authority to take the essential differences between the parties from the jury and decide them himself.

Appellant specially pleaded breaches of the contract by appellee and swore to facts tending to sustain his allegations. None of these matters were submitted to the jury, and the issue submitted did not cover the allegations and testimony pertinent to it. Appellant testified, not only that the trees were to be delivered on June 1, but also during the next fall. The issue was confined to June i.

Because the issues were not submitted to the jury by the court, but were decided by the court, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3263 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3263

  To make innovative technology loan guarantee support available for 
                     battery storage technologies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2015

  Mr. Takano introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
    Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To make innovative technology loan guarantee support available for 
                     battery storage technologies.

    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 ``Battery Storage Innovation Act''.

SEC. 2. BATTERY STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES.

    Section 1703(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
16513(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(11) Battery storage technologies for residential, 
        industrial, or transportation applications.''.
                                 <all>
```
July 9, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MARCOS JESUS ITURB E , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00512

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on April 30, 2015. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Check Payment � �

 _____________________________________ 

 

Attachment 1 to BAL 03-805 

Please provide the following information after reviewing the SHPS Invoicing 

Procedural Process document: 

Agency: Contact Name: 

Phone Number: Fax Number: 

Email: Mailing Address: 

Will your agency be paying FSA fees on behalf of your employees? 

� YES (Please complete the remainder of this form) 

� NO (Please sign and return form. You do not have to complete the 

sections below) 

Choose one method listed below for receiving the Invoice from SHPS: 

Preferred Method of Invoice Receipt 

Email Address for invoice to be sent: 

� Email 

Preferred Method of Invoice Receipt 

Mailing address for invoice to be sent: 

� Regular Mail 

Choose one method listed below to indicate how you will remit payment to 

SHPS: 

� ACH Payment Wire Payment 

Signature 

Please sign and fax form to Jennifer Hirschmann at 202/606-2023 

All agencies must respond no later than June 27, 2003
EXHIBIT 31.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





I, Morry F. Rubin, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Anchor Funding Services, 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;





3. Based on my knowledge, the 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 (if any) 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,  to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance  with generally accepted accounting principles;





c) 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; and





d) 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 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 the 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; and





b) 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: August 16, 2010
By:
/s/ MORRY F. RUBINMorry F. RubinChief Executive Officer
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: 2011-SW-044-AD These comments are in

Directorate ID: FAA-2012-0632 response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.1


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
PHH CORPORATION
CASH PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE AWARD 




THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to the Cash Performance Incentive Award (the “Award Agreement”) awarded to ______________ (the “Participant”) under the PHH Corporation 2014 Equity and Incentive Plan (as amended from time to time, the “2014 EIP”), is made this 27th day of July, 2017.  Capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this Award have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the 2014 EIP.


INTRODUCTION


PHH Corporation (the “Company”) has previously made a Cash Performance Incentive Award to the Participant under the EIP with a Grant Date of March 29, 2017.  The award contains targets, which are attached to the Award Agreement as Appendix A.  The Company wishes to modify the definition of the term “Excess Cash Available for Distribution by 12/31/17,” which appears on Schedule 1.


AMENDMENT


The Award Agreement is amended, as of the date and year first above written, by revising the definition of “Excess Cash Available for Distribution by 12/31/17” where it appears at the end of Section I of Schedule 1 to read as follows:


“‘Excess Cash Available for Distribution by 12/31/17’ means, as of December 31, 2017, the Company’s cash and cash equivalents, plus [* * *] minus [* * *], plus [* * *], minus [* * *], determined in the manner determined by the Committee.”


Except as specifically amended hereby, the Award Agreement shall remain in full force and effect prior to this First Amendment.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has signed this First Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


PHH CORPORATION




By: _______________________________
Robert B. Crowl
President and Chief Executive Officer
PHH Corporation




______________
[***] INDICATES MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN OMITTED AND FOR WHICH CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED. ALL SUCH OMITTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 24b-2 UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3097 

To prohibit the payment of surcharges for commemorative coin programs 

to private organizations or entities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 16, 2015 

Mr. AMASH (for himself, Mr. RIBBLE, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. 

LABRADOR, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. GOSAR, 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE, Mr. LOUDERMILK, Mr. SANFORD, Mr. BUCK, Mr. 

BRAT, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. MEADOWS, and Mr. PERRY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the payment of surcharges for commemorative 

coin programs to private organizations or entities, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commemorative Coins 

5 Reform Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3097 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF SURCHARGES TO 

2 NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES. 

3 Section 5134(f) of title 31, United States Code, is 

4 amended to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(f) PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF SURCHARGES TO

6 ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERN7 MENT.— 

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

9 provision of law, no surcharges collected with respect 

10 to the sale of any numismatic item may be paid to 

11 any organization outside of the Federal Government, 

12 other than with respect to the costs of producing 

13 and selling such item. 

14 ‘‘(2) PAYMENT OF COSTS.—Surcharges col15 lected in connection with the sale of any numismatic 

16 item shall be used to recover all numismatic oper17 ation and program costs allocable to the program 

18 under which such numismatic item is produced and 

19 sold. 

20 ‘‘(3) EXCESS DEPOSITED INTO TREASURY.— 

21 Amounts of surcharges collected in excess of the 

22 amounts described in paragraph (2) shall be trans23 ferred by the Fund to the general fund of the Treas24 ury for the purpose of deficit reduction.’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3097 IH

1 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY. 

2 Subsection (f) of section 5134, United States Code, 

3 as amended by this Act, shall apply with respect to any 

4 commemorative coin program established or numismatic 

5 item produced pursuant to an Act enacted on or after the 

6 date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 No.333-38020 pertaining to the Grant Prideco, Inc. 401(k) Savings Planof our report dated June 27,2007, with respect to the financial statements and supplemental schedule of the Grant Prideco, Inc.401(k) Savings Plan included in this Annual Report (Form 11-K) as of December 31, 2006.              /s/ Pannell Kerr Forster of Texas, P.C.     Houston, Texas