alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

 

**Section 1350Certification**

 

In connection with this quarterly report of ML Transtrend DTP EnhancedFuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(this “Report”), I, Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of MerrillLynch Alternative Investments LLC, the manager of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date:  November 12, 2010

 

 
| By:    | /s/  BARBRA E. KOCSIS                         |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Barbra  E. Kocsis                             |   |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer                      |   |
|   | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
  CERTIFICATION
    OF CFO PURSUANT TO
    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
    SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Form 10-Q
      By:
    /s/  Jeffrey
    J. McParland   Title:
    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Targa
    Resources GP, LLC,     A signed original of this written statement required by
    Section 906, or other document authenticating,
    acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
    in typed form within the electronic version of this written
    statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the
    Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and
    furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
    upon request.
 69
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 06, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 06, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21A1802. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. STATE FARM 

MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY .

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion the hereby GRANTED, and 

jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
#### CARR v. STATE.

No. 17332.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 13, 1935.

Alvin R. Dawson and Frank E. Mann, both of Houston, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is rape; the punishment, death.

Mrs. Ethel Wittliff, the injured party, testified, in substance, as follows: On the night of August 25,1934, her husband was at work' away from home. She and her baby had gone to bed on a screened sleeping porch. She was awakened by some one touching her. She was lying on her back and her gown was up to her waist. Appellant, who is a negro, was over her. She made an effort to get up, but appellant cursed her and threatened to kill her. Cutting her on the side with some sharp instrument, he pushed ■ her back on the bed and raped her. At this juncture her husband entered the sleeping porch and engaged in a fight with appellant. Appellant ran from the house, pursued by her husband. She was positive appellant was her assailant.

Edwin Wittliff, the husband of the injured party, gave substantially the same testimony as the foregoing. When he jumped on appellant, appellant cut his shirt. .He pursued appellant as he left the house, but was unable to apprehend him. He positively identified him as his wife’s assailant. In a short, while after the assault, appellant was arrested while lying under the edge of a house two blocks removed from the scene of the assault. The arresting officer testified; in part, as follows: “At that time he was sweating like he had been running, looked like that he just played out, and his clothes were all disarranged and his pants were unbuttoned. His .pants were unbuttoned in front. They were buttoned at the top just enough to hold them up.”

Appellant did not testify in his own behalf, but introduced one witness in an effort to show that he was not at the scene of the assault.

No bills of exception are brought forward.

The judgment 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 ap proved by the court.
OPM.gov / Telework / TMO and Coordinators / Mail Management

# Mail Management

Federal Management Regulation Part 102-192.70 (external link) requires agencies to have a security policy for employees receiving incoming mail and sending outgoing mail at an alternative worksite such as a Government-owned or leased alternative site, telework center, or employee residence. 

The General Services Administration (GSA) recommends all incoming mail must be screened at a federal facility before sending to employees at alternative worksites. The security policy should be coordinated with the Physical Security Officer and address threats from chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear materials, and explosive devices or materials.

It is the agency’s responsibility to develop the plan on receiving mail, packages, and accountable mail. Agencies should consider the following:
        - Develop a plan for how the employee will receive official mail, (i.e., USPS, FedEx, UPS, other service provider (s).
        - Develop an accountable tracking system for sending mail from the alternative worksite.
        - Develop what mail security steps the employee must implement for receiving, sending and storing official mail.
        - Develop policies on resending mail from the agency to the employee including whether the agency is willing to spend the additional funds.

Skip to main content

### In this section

- Telework Training
- TMO and Coordinators Toggle submenu   - Building a Telework Program 
  - Leading Change 
  - Pay, Leave, & Work Schedules
  - Agency Closure
  - Performance Management 
  - Official Worksite
  - Overseas Telework
  - Reasonable Accommodations
  - Emergency Telework 
  - Recruitment & Retention
  - Security & IT
  - Mail Management
  - Dependent Care
  - Agency Roles
- Managing Teleworkers Toggle submenu   - Telework Basics
  - Results-Oriented Management
  - Work Schedules
  - Emergency Planning
  - Assessing Job Tasks
- History, Legislation, & Reports
- Telework Employees Toggle submenu   - Telework Basics
  - Employee Eligibility
  - Emergency Planning
  - Work Schedules
  - Telework Etiquette Quick Tips
1761 East St. Andrew Place

Santa Ana. CA 92705-4934



Tel 714 247 6000

Fax 714 247 6009





ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE







The undersigned, David Co, a Director of Deutsche Bank
Trust Company Americas, as the Certificate Administrator (a “Certifying Servicer'') under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
dated as of September 1, 2012 (the “Agreement”), by and among, UBS Commercial Mortgage Securitization Corp., as Depositor,
Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special
Servicer, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and Park Bridge
Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, here by certifies in accordance with Section 10.11 of the Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicer's activities during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of such
Certifying Servicer's performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | B) | That, as to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations
under the Agreement, in all material respects during the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





DEUTSCHE BANK
TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

as Certificate
Administrator



BY: David Co

Title: Director

Date: March
1, 2014
Exhibit 10.3


 





Consulting
Agreement


 


This
agreement is made and will become effective as of January 1st, 2014
by and between the TearDroppers, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company") and DEVCAP Partners, LLC (the "Consultant")
to assist the Company in its business with general management and corporate finance advisory services. 


 


The
Company agrees to retain the Consultant for a period of three years (3) for $7,500 per month ("Consulting Term"), to
be available and assist the management of the Company as may reasonably be requested.


 


Company agrees to
provide Consultant access to all business materials to ascertain best practices in the trailer - manufacturing industry. The Company
also agrees to reimburse preapproved business expenses in · accordance with the Company's policies and procedures.


 


Either
party may terminate this Agreement at any time on 30 days notice. If the Company terminates this Agreement for other than "Cause",
the Consultant shall continue to receive the consulting fee. Each party shall be given 10 days
to cure any breach. 


 


This
Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above




 


The TEARDROPPERS, INC.


 


By: /s/ Raymond Gerrity


Raymond Gerrity, Pres.


 


By: /s/ Kevin O’Connell - Managing Member





Kevin O’Connell, Managing Member
Benefits Administration Letter

Number: 17-802 Date: December 21, 2017 

United States

Office of 

Personnel Management

 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

 

 

Purpose 

Subject: The Federal Flexible Spending Account Program (FSAFEDS) Increasing 

Health Care Account Maximum by $50 to $2,650

This Benefits Administration Letter is to notify agencies that the Office of Personnel 

Management is increasing the maximum contribution under the Federal Flexible 

Spending Account Program (FSAFEDS) to Health Care and Limited Expense Health 

Care Flexible Spending Accounts for the 2018 benefit year. The maximum contribution 

will increase by $50 to $2,650. 

Background 

In October 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released Revenue Procedure 2017-58, 

raising the cap to $2,650 for the 2018 benefit year. OPM is adopting this higher maximum to 

create a more attractive FSAFEDS benefit to attract and retain Federal employees. 

Questions 

You should direct employees with questions about this change to WageWorks at 1-877-

FSAFEDS (372-3337). 

Human Resource offices may contact FSA@opm.gov with questions about this change.

 Sincerely,

Alan Spielman 

Director

Healthcare and Insurance
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pzena Investment Management, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Richard S. Pzena, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: May 4, 2011
/s/ RICHARD S. PZENAName: Richard S. PzenaTitle: Chief Executive Officer
#### HENSON v. STATE.

No. 17441.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 20, 1935.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1935.

Keeney & Moseley, of Texarkana, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Robbery is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for ten .years.

*681In the first count of the indictment the appellant was charged with robbery by assault upon the person of T. P. 'Strickland, and taking from him $54 in money.

The evidence heard in the trial court is not brought forward for review.

The verdict declared the appellant guilty as charged in the first count of the indictment, and fixed his penalty as above stated; namely, confinement in the penitentiary for ten years.

A motion for new trial was filed, but in the absence of the facts before the court nothing is perceived in the motion which would affect the verdict or authorize a reversal of the judgment. The motion was controverted. The trial judge heard the conflicting views and passed upon the motion. As the recordi appears, the conclusion of the trial judge is binding upon this court.

The sentence is properly written and condemns appellant to confinement in the penitentiary for not less than five nor more than ten years.

We find in the record a written statement by the appellant to the affect that he was not able to pay for a statement of facts. Nothing in the record discloses that a motion to require the court reporter to make a statement of facts without payment was presented to the trial judge, or that he acted in the matter.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant insists in his motion that.because he filed an affidavit of inability to pay for a stenographic report of the facts, this would ipso facto entitle him to a reversal of his case where no statement of facts appeared in the record. We cannot agree to the soundness of this proposition. We find from the record that he was able to make and did make a $3,000 bond for the appeal of this ease. While it is true that on the same day on which the court adjourned the trial term, an affidavit was made by appellant setting out his inability to pay for a statement of facts, or secure the officer in making the same, we find nothing in the record showing that such affidavit was ever called to the attention of the trial judge, or that he was ever asked to make an order directing the court stenographer to prepare the statement of facts. In eases which have been before this court on such showing we have uniformly held the fact of there being in the record no statement of facts not ground for reversal. Olivus v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 191, 134 S. W. 694; Wood v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. R. 609, 150 S. W. 194; Jackson v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. R. 292, 156 S. W. 1183; Lewis v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 177 S. W. 972; Fennell v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 408, 235 S. W. 885; Sisson v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 601, 244 S. W. 1012; Williams v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 592, 244 S. W. 1023.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): August 24, 2007
 EXTERRAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS, L.P.
  Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction 
of incorporation)
    
    001-31934
(Commission File Number)
    
    75-2344249
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 12001 North Houston Rosslyn 
Houston, Texas
(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    77086
(Zip Code)
 281) 447-8787
 N/A
 
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17
CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17
CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.SIGNATUREEXHIBIT INDEXOffice Lease Agreement    Table of Contents  
 Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.
 EESLP Company
   
 Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 (d) Exhibits.
 Exhibit No.
    
    Description10.1
    
    Office Lease Agreement by and Between RFP Lincoln Greenspoint, LLC and Exterran
Energy Solutions, L.P.




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURE
  EXTERRAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS, L.P.Date:  August 30, 2007
    By:
    /s/ J. Michael AndersonJ. Michael AndersonSenior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer




---



##### Table of Contents



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit No.
    
    Description10.1
    
    Office Lease Agreement by and Between RFP Lincoln Greenspoint, LLC and Exterran Energy
Solutions, L.P.
#### STOKES v. STATE.

No. 16763.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 23, 1934.

*883H. L. Carpenter, of Greenville, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The proof on the part of the state was to the effect that, on the 26th of October, 1932, some one burglarized the freight depot at Celeste and took therefrom some shoes and poeketknives. Some time after the burglary appellant offered to sell some poeketknives and shoes to a number of persons. The state made an effort to identify the articles appellant had in his possession by showing that they were of the same kind as the property stolen from the freight house.

Appellant did not testify in his own behalf, but introduced several witnesses who testified that the knives and shoes had been won by appellant in a game of chance at Crawley’s filling station in Leonard, Tex. In short, if the testimony of these witnesses had been believed the jury would have acquitted appellant. Appellant timely and properly excepted to the charge of the court for its failure to embrace an instruction covering this affirmative defense. In addition to excepting to the charge, appellant submitted a requested instruction on the subject. The court declined to amend the charge, and refused to submit the requested instruction. Nowhere in the charge was appellant’s defense affirmatively submitted to the jury. The rule is well settled that, where the accused on trial presents affirmative evidence going to. show the existence Of facts which would constitute a defense against the charge, it is his right to have such matter affirmatively submitted in the charge of the court. Pinkerton v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 449, 244 S. W. 606, and authorities cited. Reversible error is presented.

It is shown in two bills of exception that the state proved by the officer having appellant in custody that during the time appellant was under arrest he did not tell him (the officer) that he got the knives and shoes from a man in the town of Leonard, and further that appellant kept silent concerning the matter. These bills present reversible error. The state could not avail itself of appellant’s silence during the time he was under arrest as evidence of guilt, or as destructive of the explanation given upon the trial of his possession of the property. Taylor v. State, 118 Tex. Cr. R. 340, 42 S.W.(2d) 426, and authorities cited.

The state’s attorney before this court confesses error.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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.
Civil Service 

Retirement 

System 

Federal Employees’ 

Group Life 

Insurance Program 

Federal Employees 

Health Benefits 

Program 

Federal Employees 

Retirement 

System 

Long Term 

Care Insurance 

Program 

United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Retirement and Insurance Service 

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 02-303 Date: February 6, 2002 

Subject: Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program Payroll Survey 

As you know, OPM has selected a contractor for the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program 

(FLTCIP). We have contracted with Long Term Care (LTC) Partners, a partnership of 

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and John Hancock Life Insurance Company, to provide 

coverage under FLTCIP. 

Since FLTCIP premiums can be paid through payroll deductions, we asked agency payroll 

officials to help us determine a conceptual framework for processing payroll and pension 

deductions. We formed a "Payroll Advisory Committee," comprised of agency payroll and 

retirement system officials, and have conducted several brainstorming sessions with it. As a 

result, we have agreed with the committee that each agency payroll office (APO) /retirement 

system has unique systems and procedures. LTC Partners has developed the attached survey to 

help it understand the systems and general processes being used by APOs and retirement 

systems. 

This survey should be completed ONLY by DIRECT payroll providers. In other words, if an 

agency’s payroll functions are cross-serviced, ONLY the cross-servicer should complete the 

survey. For example, if the National Finance Center (NFC) provides payroll services for an 

agency, the NFC, not the agency, will complete the survey. Please fax (202-606-7944) or email 

(finance@opm.gov) one completed survey per payroll provider to us by February 15, 2002. 

If you have any general questions about this letter, we would prefer that you email us at 

finance@opm.gov, so that we may have a record of them. You may also phone us on (202) 606-

0606. Specific questions about completing the survey should be directed to either Kathy 

Brennan or Linda Hazelton of LTC Partners, as follows: 
2

Voice Mail E-mail 

Kathy Brennan 617-886-2885 kbrennan@jhancock.com

Linda Hazelton 617-886-2899 lhazelton@jhancock.com

 Robert A. Yuran, Chief 

 Financial Policy Staff 

 Retirement and Insurance Service 

Attachment
Attachment A 

Personal Identity Verification (PIV) and Common Access Cards (CAC)

Digital Signature Instructions 

1. Complete all required fields on the fillable FEGLI form.

2. Save the document as a Portable Document Format (PDF).

3. Open the newly saved PDF and select Tools from the menu bar above.

4. Under “Forms & Signatures”, click “Certificates”.

5. You will be taken back to the signature page of the PDF. You will note a new menu bar

toward the top of the screen. Select the Digitally Sign option from the menu bar above.

6. You will then have to outline the box in which you will need to digitally sign.

7. You will be prompted to enter your PIV or CAC passcode. Once the document is

digitally signed, save the document again.