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

                                                                    Exhibit 20.2

                             SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

                             AFCO CREDIT CORPORATION

                           AFCO ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION

                  MELLON BANK PREMIUM FINANCE LOAN MASTER TRUST


         The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of AFCO Credit
Corporation and AFCO Acceptance Corporation (jointly "AFCO"), as Servicer,
pursuant to Section 3.5 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of
December 1, 1996 (as amended, the "Agreement"), among Mellon Bank, N.A., as
Transferor, AFCO Credit Corporation, as Servicer, AFCO Acceptance Corporation,
as Servicer, Premium Financing Specialists, Inc., as Back-up Servicer, Premium
Financing Specialists of California, Inc., as Back-up Servicer and The First
National Bank of Chicago, now Bank One, N.A., as Trustee, does hereby certify
that:

         1.       AFCO is, as of the date hereof, Servicer under the Agreement.
                  Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their
                  respective meanings as set forth in the Agreement.

         2.       The undersigned is a Servicing Officer who is duly authorized
                  pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this
                  Certificate to Trustee.

         3.       A review of the activities of Servicer during the fiscal year
                  ended December 31, 2000, and of its performance under the
                  Agreement was conducted under my supervision.

         4.       Based on such review, Servicer has, to the best of my
                  knowledge, performed in all material respects its obligations
                  under the Agreement throughout such year and no default in the
                  performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing.


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate
this 6th day of March, 2001.

                                    AFCO CREDIT CORPORATION, as Servicer


                                    By   /s/ C. Leonard O'Connell
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name:  C. Leonard O'Connell
                                         Title: Senior Vice President, Treasurer
                                                and Chief Financial Officer



                                    AFCO ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, as
                                      Servicer


                                    By   /s/ C. Leonard O'Connell
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name: C. Leonard O'Connell
                                         Title: Senior Vice President, Treasurer
                                                and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000     DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-24-2000     SEP-24-2000
<CASH>                          293,035         293,035
<SECURITIES>                    113,884         113,884
<RECEIVABLES>                   232,560         252,560
<ALLOWANCES>                    63,347          63,347
<INVENTORY>                     84,169          84,169
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                711,048         711,048
<PP&E>                          316,269         316,269
<DEPRECIATION>                  211,255         211,255
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  840,761         840,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           338,599         338,599
<BONDS>                         0               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0               0
<PREFERRED>                     0               0
<COMMON>                        306,691         306,691
<OTHER-SE>                      0               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    840,761         840,761
<SALES>                         320,501         969,037
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                320,501         969,037
<CGS>                           189,717         590,335
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   272,136         831,205
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                101             1,714
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              946             3,780
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 53,027          146,957
<INCOME-TAX>                    2,393           659
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             55,420          147,616
<DISCONTINUED>                  0               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0               0
<CHANGES>                       0               0
<NET-INCOME>                    55,420          147,616
<EPS-BASIC>                     0.20            0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.20            0.53



</TABLE>
#### Rasmussen vs. McCabe and another. [On Rehearing.]

Gabnisiiment: Justice’s Court: Jurisdiction. *What defect in affidavit for garnishment fatal to justice's jurisdiction.*

The affidavit for garnishment in justice’s court put in evidence by defendants in this case (43 Wis., 473) not having stated that the property, etc., mentioned therein was not by law exempt, etc. (sec. 1, ch. 161, Laws of 1871), this defect was fatal to the jurisdiction of the justice in the garnishee proceeding. *Steen v. Norton,*45 Wis., 612.

*601APPEAL from the County Court of *Winnebago*County.

A somewhat full report of this cause, as presented on the first hearing, will be found in 43 "Wis., 471-478. After the decision there reported, a rehearing was granted on respondent’s motion; and the cause was again submitted on briefs of *HJ. B. Jackson*for respondent, and *Gharles W. Felker*for appellant.

Ryan, C. J.

On the first hearing of this appeal, it was said that the affidavit on which the garnishees were summoned, appears substantially to comply with the statute. *Rasmussen v. McCabe,*43 Wis., 471. This now appears to have been an entire mistake. It may have occurred by comparing the affidavit with sec. 113, ch. 120, R. S. 1858, and not with see. 1, ch. 161 of 1871, amending the former section. The learned counsel of the respondent, in his brief, made many objections to the regularity of the proceedings before the justice; and amongst them, he certainly pointed out the defect in the affidavit by reference to the latter statute, but without discussion. This appears to have been overlooked by the court, which is certainly responsible for the error, especially the chief justice who wrote the opinion. It is another evidence of the great safety of early consideration of cases, following upon full oral discussion at the bar.

The defect of the affidavit is fatal to the jurisdiction of the justice in the garnishee proceeding. This was fully considered in the late case of *Steen v.*Norton, 45 Wis., 412. The court adheres to the rule of that case, and it governs this.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Document

Exhibit 10.4

THIRD AMENDMENT OF INVESTORS' RIGHTS AGREEMENT
This Third Amendment of Investors' Rights Agreement (this "Third Amendment") is made as of June 29, 2016, and amends the Investors' Rights Agreement, dated January 30, 2015, among NerdWallet, Inc. (the "Company") and the other parties thereto (the "Agreement"), as amended on June 19, 2015 and August 26, 2015.
Under Section 3.1(a) of the Agreement, the Company shall deliver to each Major Investor within one hundred twenty (120) days (the "Delivery Period") after the end of each fiscal year of the Company: a balance sheet as of the end of such year; statements of income and of cash flows for such year; and a statement of stockholders' equity as of the end of such year, all such financial statements audited and certified by independent public accountants of nationally recognized standing selected by the Company.
Under Section 6.6 of the Agreement, any term of the Agreement may be amended with the written consent of the Company and the holders of a majority of the Registrable Securities then outstanding.
1.Section 3.1 (a) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:
"(a)      as soon as practicable, but in any event before October 1 of the year following the end of each fiscal year of the Company (i) a balance sheet as of the end of such fiscal year, (ii) statements of income and of cash flows for such fiscal year, and (iii) a statement of stockholders' equity as of the end of such fiscal year, all such financial statements audited and certified by independent public accountants of nationally recognized standing selected by the Company;"
Except as expressly amended by this Third Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.
Capitalized terms used in this Third Amendment and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning given in the Agreement.
[signature page follows]









This Second Amendment is executed and delivered as of the date first written above.
						
	NERDWALLET, INC.

	By:	/s/ Tim Chen
	Name:	Tim Chen
	Title:	CEO


						
	INSTITUTIONAL VENTURE PARTNERS XIV, L.P.

	By:	Institutional Venture Management XIV LLC

	Its:	General Partner

	By:	/s/ Jules Maltz
	Name:	Jules Maltz
	Title:	Managing Director
# C_2015397EN.01000102.xml

| 28.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 397/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 397/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7790 — Carrefour Group/Rue du Commerce)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 397/02)

On 24 November 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7790. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7790. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2015288EN.01000201.xml

| 2.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/2

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

0,05 % on 1 September 2015

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

1 September 2015

(2015/C 288/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1236 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,87 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4634 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73280 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4954 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0825 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3560 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,022 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 314,50 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2375 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4407 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2845 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5956 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4856 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7079 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7749 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5869 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 321,48 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,0403 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1514 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5520 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 856,11 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7000 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,515 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,9868 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,165 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,1066 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,9495 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,5056 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1236

JPY

Japanese yen

134,87

DKK

Danish krone

7,4634

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73280

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4954

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0825

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3560

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,022

HUF

Hungarian forint

314,50

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2375

RON

Romanian leu

4,4407

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2845

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5956

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4856

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7079

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7749

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5869

KRW

South Korean won

1 321,48

ZAR

South African rand

15,0403

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1514

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5520

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 856,11

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7000

PHP

Philippine peso

52,515

RUB

Russian rouble

72,9868

THB

Thai baht

40,165

BRL

Brazilian real

4,1066

MXN

Mexican peso

18,9495

INR

Indian rupee

74,5056

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

2

Source

---
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS
INTELIDATA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
HERNDON, VIRGINIA


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements  No.
333-16115,   No.  333-16117  and  No.   333-16121  of  InteliData   Technologies
Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated  February 26, 1999 (which  expresses
an  unqualified  opinion  and  includes  an  explanatory  paragraph  relating to
InteliData  Technologies  Corporation's ability to continue as a going concern),
appearing  in this  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K  of  InteliData  Technologies
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1998.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
March --, 1999
**EXHIBIT
32**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **18
U.S.C. 1350,**
 **AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I,
Nazzareno E. Paciotti, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
GVI Security Solutions, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:
 
 (i) The
Company's accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (ii) The
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 ****Date: April 14,2005
    By:
    /s/ Nazzareno E.
      PaciottiNazzareno E. Paciotti,Chief Executive Officer and Chief
      Financial Officer
THIRD DIVISION

MILLER, J.,

RAY and BRANCH, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be

physically received in our clerk’s office within ten

days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.

http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

January 30, 2015

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

A12A1622. HARGIS v. THE STATE. 

BRANCH, Judge.

In Hargis v. State, 319 Ga. App. 432 (735 SE2d 91) (2012), this Court granted

appellant Anthony Hargis a new trial concerning his conviction for attempted

manufacture of methamphetamine and other crimes. Id. at 439 (2). In State v. Hargis,

294 Ga. 818 (756 SE2d 529) (2014), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed this

Court’s decision and remanded the case to this Court. Id. at 827. After the Supreme

Court issued its decision,Hargisfiled a motion for reconsideration, but then withdrew

that motion, stating as he did so that he “waive[d] any issues on remand in the Court

of Appeals.” The State moved the Supreme Court to include Hargis’s motions in the

appellate record, and the Supreme Court granted the State’s motion. The Supreme

Court then remanded the case to this Court.
We hereby adopt the Supreme Court’s decision as our own, and we deem

abandoned those issuesraised in Hargis’s initial brief to this Court but left undecided

pending the outcome of his appeal to the Supreme Court. The State’s motion to

dismissthis appeal is denied. See O’Kelley v. Hayes, 132 Ga. App. 134 (1) (207 SE2d

641) (1974) (abandonment of enumerated errors is not grounds for dismissal of an

appeal). The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. Miller, P. J., and Ray, J., concur.

2
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2268 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2268

 To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify each alien 
who is serving, or has served, in the Armed Forces of the United States 
on the application of any such alien for an immigration benefit or the 
 placement of any such alien in an immigration enforcement proceeding, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 24, 2021

   Ms. Duckworth (for herself, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. 
Durbin, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Wyden, and Ms. Hirono) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify each alien 
who is serving, or has served, in the Armed Forces of the United States 
on the application of any such alien for an immigration benefit or the 
 placement of any such alien in an immigration enforcement proceeding, 
                        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 ``Immigrant Veterans Eligibility 
Tracking System Act'' or the ``I-VETS Act''.

SEC. 2. IDENTIFYING ALIENS CONNECTED TO THE ARMED FORCES.

    (a) In General.--Upon the application by an alien for an 
immigration benefit or the placement of an alien in an immigration 
enforcement proceeding, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall--
            (1) determine whether the alien is serving, or has served, 
        as a member of--
                    (A) a regular or reserve component of the Armed 
                Forces of the United States on active duty; or
                    (B) a reserve component of the Armed Forces in an 
                active status; and
            (2) with respect to the immigration and naturalization 
        records of the Department of Homeland Security relating to an 
        alien who is serving, or has served, as a member of the Armed 
        Forces described in paragraph (1), annotate such records--
                    (A) to reflect that membership; and
                    (B) to afford an opportunity to track the outcomes 
                for each such alien.
    (b) Prohibition on Use of Information for Removal.--Information 
gathered under subsection (a) may not be used for the purpose of 
removing an alien from the United States.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7081

MICHAEL TYRELL MCKNIGHT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior

District Judge. (2:15-cv-03149-MBS)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Tyrell McKnight, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Tyrell McKnight seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The 

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised 

McKnight that failure to timely file specific objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate 

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review 

of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have 

been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. 

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). McKnight has waived 

appellate review by failing to file specific objections after 

receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2014211EN.01000201.xml

| 5.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 July 2014

(2014/C 211/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3588 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,67 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4566 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79260 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3129 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2160 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,4115 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,444 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,28 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1394 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3895 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8939 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4529 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4451 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5311 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5548 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6928 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 372,56 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,6051 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,4314 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5890 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 091,50 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3291 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,089 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 46,7450 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,009 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0089 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,6284 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,1679 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3588

JPY

Japanese yen

138,67

DKK

Danish krone

7,4566

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79260

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3129

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2160

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,4115

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,444

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,28

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1394

RON

Romanian leu

4,3895

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8939

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4529

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4451

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5311

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5548

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6928

KRW

South Korean won

1 372,56

ZAR

South African rand

14,6051

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,4314

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5890

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 091,50

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3291

PHP

Philippine peso

59,089

RUB

Russian rouble

46,7450

THB

Thai baht

44,009

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0089

MXN

Mexican peso

17,6284

INR

Indian rupee

81,1679

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---