alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 19.1


                                NELLIE MAE, INC.

                 Administrator's Annual Statement of Compliance


Fleet National Bank,
  as Owner Trustee
One Federal Street
Boston, MA  02106-2197
Attention:  Chi Ma

State Street Bank and Trust Company,
  as Indenture Trustee
Corporate Trust Department
Two International Place
Boston, MA  02110
Attn:  James Schultz

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     Pursuant to Section 3.2 of the Administration Agreement among Nellie Mae,
Inc., as administrator, Nellie Mae Education Loan Trust, as issuer, Fleet
National Bank, as owner trustee, and State Street Bank and Trust Company, as
indenture trustee, the undersigned, duly authorized officers of Nellie Mae,
Inc., certify as follows: (i) a review of the activities of Nellie Mae, Inc. as
administrator of the Trust from the inception of the Trust through December 31,
1996 and of Nellie Mae, Inc.'s performance under the Administration Agreement
has been made under our supervision and (ii) to the best of our knowledge, based
on such review, Nellie Mae, Inc., as administrator, has fulfilled in all
material respects all of its obligations under the Administration Agreement
throughout such period.

                                        NELLIE MAE, INC.

                                        By: /s/ Lawrence W. O'Toole
                                          ---------------------------------
                                            Lawrence W. O'Toole
                                            President

                                        By: /s/ John F. Remondi
                                          ---------------------------------
                                            John F. Remondi
                                            Treasurer

March 28, 1997
Argued and submitted May 24,

affirmed July 14,

reconsideration denied November 24,

petition for review denied December 14, 1993 (318 Or 171)

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Elton R. Humphrey, Claimant. SAIF CORPORATION and Christian Logging, Inc., *Petitioners, v.*Elton R. HUMPHREY, *Respondent.*

(WCB 91-08256; CA A77851)

855 P2d 668

David L. Runner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Robert L. Ackerman, Springfield, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were John C. DeWenter and Ackerman, DeWenter & Huntsberger, P.C., Springfield.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*670PER CURIAM

In this workers’ compensation case, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant’s compen-sable injury is the major contributing cause of his need for surgery. The claim is therefore compensable under ORS 656. 005(7)(a)(B). *U-Haul of Oregon v. Burtis,*120 Or App 353, 852 P2d 897 (1993).

Affirmed.
Engine and Propeller Directorate 12 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803 (781) 238 - 71 10 , Fax: (781) 238 - 7199

November 21, 2012 Charles A. Barth , Director Office of the Federal Register (NF) National Archives and Records Administration 7 00 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20408 - 0001 Dear Mr. Barth : Under 1 CFR part 51, we request that you approve the incorporation b y reference of the material listed below into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). An original cop y of the material is enclosed. We will reference the following material in 14 CFR 39.13: Turbomeca S.A. Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin No. A292 72 0230, Version C, dated February 29, 2012 . We have also included a draft of the final rule that incorporates the material into the CFR. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerel y, Paul Donato AD Coordinator Engine & Propeller Directorate Aircraft Certification Service (781) 238 - 7125
# C_2005006EN.01004102.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/41

---

Action brought on 22 October 2004 by Walter Parlante against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-432/04)

(2005/C 6/81)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 October 2004, by Walter Parlante, residing in Enghien (Belgium), represented by L. Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Appointing Authority's decision adopted on 5 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint dated 26 February 2004, by which he challenged the decision refusing to promote him from Grade C2 to Grade C1, for the 2003 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Appointing Authority's decision adopted on 5 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint dated 26 February 2004, by which he challenged the decision refusing to promote him from Grade C2 to Grade C1, for the 2003 promotion procedure;

| — | If, and in so far as necessary, annul also the Appointing Authority's original decision in December 2003 refusing to promote the applicant from Grade C2 to Grade C1, for the 2003 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

If, and in so far as necessary, annul also the Appointing Authority's original decision in December 2003 refusing to promote the applicant from Grade C2 to Grade C1, for the 2003 promotion procedure;

| — | Order the Defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies on infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of non-discrimination and manifest error of assessment. The applicant submits that the new promotion procedure does not provide a proper fair examination of officials' individual merits since the examination is made only by comparison with the other officials of the same Directorate-General.

The applicant also alleges that Article 12 of the General Provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations infringes that Article and amounts to discrimination in that certain officials were, in the course of the 2003 promotion procedure, awarded additional priority points on the sole ground that they were proposed for promotion in 2002 without actually being promoted.

The applicant also relies on breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 21 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 21

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 5, 2017

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en 
    bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight 
                    rules'', and for other purposes.

    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 ``Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. EN BLOC CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF DISAPPROVAL PERTAINING 
              TO ``MIDNIGHT RULES''.

    (a) In General.--Section 801(d) of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(4) In applying section 802 to rules described under paragraph 
(1), a joint resolution of disapproval may contain one or more such 
rules if the report under subsection (a)(1)(A) for each such rule was 
submitted during the final year of a President's term.''.
    (b) Text of Resolving Clause.--Section 802(a) of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting after ``resolving clause of which is'' the 
        following: ``(except as otherwise provided in this 
        subsection)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of a 
        joint resolution under section 801(d)(4), the matter after the 
        resolving clause of such resolution shall be as follows: `That 
        Congress disapproves the following rules: the rule submitted by 
        the __ relating to __; and the rule submitted by the __ 
        relating to __. Such rules shall have no force or effect.' (The 
        blank spaces being appropriately filled in and additional 
        clauses describing additional rules to be included as 
        necessary)''.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 4, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE HANOVER
DIRECT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND
STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 25, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-25-2000
<CASH>                                           3,376
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,708
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,888)
<INVENTORY>                                     55,892
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,040
<PP&E>                                          93,881
<DEPRECIATION>                                (48,586)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 192,064
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,438
<BONDS>                                         50,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       142,641
<OTHER-SE>                                   (101,182)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   192,064
<SALES>                                        130,150
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,150
<CGS>                                           53,016
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  138,050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,459
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   784
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,014
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,373)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        75
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,448)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,448)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)


</TABLE>
# C_2005057EN.01002601.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/26

---

Action brought on 1 December 2004 by Imagination Technologies Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-461/04)

(2005/C 57/44)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 December 2004 by Imagination Technologies Ltd, established in Hertfordshire (United Kingdom), represented by M. Edenborough, Barrister, and P. Brownlow and N. Jenkins, Solicitors.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the second Board of Appeal No 108/2004-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the second Board of Appeal No 108/2004-2;

| — | annul the decision of the Examination Division dated 12 September 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Examination Division dated 12 September 2003;

| — | remit the Community trade mark application No 2 396 075 to the Office, or alternatively to the Board of Appeal, for further examination; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the Community trade mark application No 2 396 075 to the Office, or alternatively to the Board of Appeal, for further examination;

| — | order the Office to pay to the applicant the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the prosecution before the Examination Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office to pay to the applicant the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the prosecution before the Examination Division.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Community trade mark concerned: | The word mark ‘PURE DIGITAL’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 38 (Electric and electronic apparatus for use with multi-media entertaining systems, video apparatus, computer hardware, provision of telecommunications access to computer databases and the internet, ...) — application No 2 396 075 |
| --- | --- |
| Decision of the examiner: | Refusal of the application. |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal. |
| Pleas in law: | Violation of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94. |

Community trade mark concerned:

The word mark ‘PURE DIGITAL’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 38 (Electric and electronic apparatus for use with multi-media entertaining systems, video apparatus, computer hardware, provision of telecommunications access to computer databases and the internet, ...) — application No 2 396 075

Decision of the examiner:

Refusal of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law:

Violation of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CERTIFIED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         233,117
<SECURITIES>                                 1,869,052
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               447,503
<PP&E>                                       1,760,734
<DEPRECIATION>                                 135,908
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,784,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,119,514
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,150
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,664,656
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,416,834
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,854
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,397,690)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,397,690)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.63)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 4.20

      FIRST ADDENDUM TO THE AGREEMENT FOR A COMMERCIAL LOAN IN YEN AT FIXED
          INTEREST RATE AND THREE-YEAR MATURITY, DATED MARCH 16, 2001

Know all men by these presents, the First Addendum to the Agreement for a
Commercial Loan in Yen at Fixed Interest Rate dated March 16, 2001, made by and
between Telefonica Internacional S. A., with address at Madrid, Gran Via, 28,
with NIF No. A-78035441, represented by Mr. Isidro Javier Delgado Martinez, with
National Identity Document (DNI) No. 16.790.223-Q and D. Arturo Pascual Garcia,
with DNI No. 16.779.507-H, hereinafter Telefonica, as party of the first part;
and Telefonica del Peru S.A.A., with address at Av. Arequipa No. 1155, Santa
Beatriz, Lima, represented by its General Manager, Mr. Juan Revilla Vergara,
identified by DNI No. 08234014 and its Central Finance Manager, Mr. Antonio
Villa Mardon, identified by DNI No. 10840875, hereinafter the Borrower, as party
of the second part, under the following terms and conditions:

ONE:  RECITALS

On March 16, 2001, the parties entered into an Agreement for a Commercial Loan
in Yen at Fixed Interest Rate (hereinafter the Main Contract) whereby Telefonica
granted a commercial loan to the Borrower in the amount of 16 456 000 000 yen.

TWO:  PURPOSE

The parties hereby agree to, as from the date hereof, incorporate numeral (v) to
clause 3.3 of the Main Contract, as per the following literal tenor:

         "3.3  Early Redemption

         The Borrower may request the early redemption of all or part of the
         Loan Amount, provided that the following requirements are met:

         (...)

         (v)  If the amount requested to be redeemed by the Borrower should
              not meet the requirement set forth in numeral (ii) above or if the
              payment date proposed by the Borrower should not satisfy the
              requirement specified in the preceding numeral (iii), Telefonica
              will be required to provide prior and written approval and will be
              afforded a two-day period for such purpose; upon expiration of
              said period, the request from the Borrower shall be deemed
              approved".

THREE:  EFFECTIVENESS OF MAIN CONTRACT

The parties represent that, save the modifications agreed upon in this Addendum,
the other clauses of the Main Contract remain unchanged.

                                       1

<PAGE>

Signed in Madrid, on February 18, 2003.

TELEFONICA INTERNACIONAL S. A.      TELEFONICA DEL PERU S. A.A.


/s/ Isidro Javier Delgado Martinez                   /s/ Juan Revilla Vergara
----------------------------------                   ------------------------
Isidro Javier Delgado Martinez                       Juan Revilla Vergara


/s/ Arturo Pascual Garcia                            /s/ Antonio Villa Mardon
----------------------------------                   ------------------------
Arturo Pascual Garcia                                Antonio Villa Mardon

                                       2
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: November 13, 2014 517396

________________________________ In the Matter of OMAR SANTOS, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT BRIAN FISCHER, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

________________________________ Calendar Date: September 16, 2014 Before: Peters, P.J., Rose, Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________ Omar Santos, Gouverneur, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondents.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Determination confirmed. No opinion. Peters, P.J., Rose, Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.-2- 517396

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
1

CAUSE NO. 14-14-00568-CR 

MARCUS BROOKS, § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

APPELLANT §

 § 

VS. § 14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

 §

THE STATE OF TEXAS, § 

APPELLEE § AT HOUSTON, TEXAS 

CASE NO. 1408106 

THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 

 §

VS. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

 §

MARCUS BROOKS § 230TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: 

 COMES NOW MARCUS BROOKS, appellant, by and through his attorney of record, 

KURT B. WENTZ, who files this Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Appellant’s Brief and in 

support thereof would show this Court as follows: 

I.

 The appellant has been found guilty of injury to a child under the age of 15 and sentenced 

to 60 years' confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice. 

II.

 On August 5, 2014 the court reporter’s record was received by the Court. 

The appellant’s brief was originally due on or about September 6, 2014. 

ACCEPTED

14-14-00568-CR

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

8/5/2015 10:57:52 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/5/2015 10:57:52 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

III.

This Court has granted previous requests for an extension of time to file the appellant's 

brief and recently ruled that the brief is due July 31, 2015.

IV.

The attorney for the appellant was unable to file the appellant’s brief on July 31, 2015 

because early that morning counsel was involved in an accident causing him to spend several 

hours at a local emergency and suffering pain throughout the remainder of the day.

The appellant’s brief is now complete and being contemporaneously filed with this 

Motion.

V.

Counsel for the appellant requests that the Court accept the appellant’s brief for filing and 

file the appellant’s brief upon approving this motion.

VI.

This motion is not intended for the purposes of delay but only so that justice may be 

done.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appellant prays that the Court grant this 

motion in all things.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Kurt B. Wentz____________________________

KURT B. WENTZ

5629 Cypress Creek Parkway, Suite 115

Houston, Texas 77069

Phone: 281/587-0088

e-mail: kbsawentz@yahoo.com

State Bar No. 21179300

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Kurt B. Wentz, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this motion was served on 

the Assistant District Attorney for Harris County, Texas presently handling this cause on the 5

th

day of August, 2015.

/s/Kurt B. Wentz___________________________

KURT B. WENTZ