alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER      COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)**

**First      Horizon Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2006-4**

|         |                                               |                             |
|--------------|----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|         | First                Horizon Home Loan Corporation |
|    |                                          |                        |
|              | By:                                      | /s/ Kim              Yowell |
|         | Date:              03/01/07                        |
|         | Name:                Kim Yowell                    |
|         | Title:              SVP, Servicing Manager         |

|         |                                                     |                                   |
|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|         | First                  Tennessee Mortgage Services, Inc. |
|    |                                                |                              |
|              | By:                                            | /s/ Terry                L. McCoy |
|         | Date:                03/01/07                            |
|         | Name:                  Terry L. McCoy                    |
|         | Title:                  Vice President                   |

----
<PAGE>

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-70047), pertaining to the Key Employee Plan, May 1994 Stock
Option Plan, 1994 General Stock Option Plan, 1997 Stock Option Plan for
Qualifying Israel Employees, 1997 Executive Stock Option Plan and 1997 Stock
Option Plan for U.S. Employees, of our report dated January 29, 2002, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Paradigm Geophysical Ltd.
included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                      /s/ Kost, Forer and Gabbay

                                      KOST, FORER and GABBAY
                                      a member of Ernst & Young International
Tel-Aviv, Israel
July 1, 2002
EXHIBIT 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Patrick J. Goodman,  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer of CE
Casecnan Water and Energy Company,  Inc. (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, that to
the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the  three-month
          period ended March 31, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated:   May 12, 2003




                             /s/ Patrick J. Goodman
                            -------------------------
                               Patrick J. Goodman
                            Senior Vice President and
                             Chief Financial Officer
                            (chief financial officer)

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to CE Casecnan Water and Energy  Company,  Inc. and will be retained by
CE Casecnan Water and Energy  Company,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Clarence MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sgt Kimberly GARVIN, a/k/a Kimberly Garvin; DHO Mr. Ernest Rowe, Defendants-Appellees, and Dennis Patterson, Region 2 Deputy Director; Warden Mr. Stevenson, Defendants.

No. 16-6604

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

Clarence Scott Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN, Columbia, South Carolina, and Drew Hamilton Butler, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Scott Miller appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Miller’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 motion for failure to comply with a discovery order and for lack of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 & 41. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Miller v. Garvin,*No. 6:15-cv-00108-TMC, 2016 WL 879298 (D.S.C. Mar. 8, 2016). We deny Miller’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,102
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          22,415
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     15,338
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        245,857
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,324
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 303,799
<DEPOSITS>                                     216,467
<SHORT-TERM>                                     9,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,175
<LONG-TERM>                                     39,325
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,804
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 303,799
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,757
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  299
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   203
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,259
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,275
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,883
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,376
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      120
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,130
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    558
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         558
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       341
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    .034
<LOANS-NON>                                         93
<LOANS-PAST>                                       520
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   323
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    944
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,256
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       52
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,324
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,324
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            253
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05197]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Petroleum Environmental Research Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 2, 2022, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Petroleum Environmental 
Research Forum (``PERF'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, TRC Environmental Corporation, Fort 
Collins, CO, has been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and PERF intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On February 10, 1986, PERF filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
March 14, 1986 (51 FR 8903).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 8, 
2020. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on July 31, 2020 (85 FR 46179).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-05197 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Exhibit
32.2


Certification
of Chief Financial Officer


pursuant
to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350)




In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008 (the “Report”) of Columbus Acquisition Corp.  (the “Registrant”),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Michael Sloan, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best
of my knowledge, that:




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




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




/s/ Michael SloanName:
      Michael SloanTitle:
      Senior Vice President andChief
      Financial OfficerDate:
      February 23, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herman L. GILKEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-3105

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed April 14, 2017

(D.C. No. 2:10-CR-20115-JWL-JPO-1) (District of Kansas)

James A. Brown, D. Christopher Oakley, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Topeka, KS, Annette B. Gurney, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Melody, Brannon, Paige Nichols, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas, Topeka, KS, Daniel T. Hansmeier, Laquisha ShalomRoss, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges,

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

This appeal was abated pending a decision by this court in *United States v. Collins,*No. 15-3084. *Collins*was decided on February 14, 2017, and a petition for panel rehearing was granted on April 7, 2017 on a limited basis to issue a revised opinion. This matter is before us on Appellant Herman Gilkey’s *Status Report*wherein .he states that the one issue he intended to raise on appeal—whether the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for a subsequent revocation is measured by the penalties applicable to the first revocation instead of the penalties applicable to. the initial conviction—was rejected by *Collins,*and he is, therefore, constrained to admit that this court should summarily affirm the district court. Upon consideration of Appellant’s status report and in light of this court’s decision in *Collins,*the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
# EUR-Lex - 32003R0183 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R0183

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 183/2003 of 31 January 2003 fixing the maximum aid for concentrated butter for the 284th special invitation to tender opened under the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 429/90 **

*
Official Journal L 027 , 01/02/2003 P. 0006 - 0006 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 183/2003

of 31 January 2003

fixing the maximum aid for concentrated butter for the 284th special invitation to tender opened under the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 429/90

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 509/2002(2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) In accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 429/90 of 20 February 1990 on the granting by invitation to tender of an aid for concentrated butter intended for direct consumption in the Community(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 124/1999(4), the intervention agencies are opening a standing invitation to tender for the granting of aid for concentrated butter; Article 6 of that Regulation provides that in the light of the tenders received in response to each special invitation to tender, a maximum amount of aid is to be fixed for concentrated butter with a minimum fat content of 96 % or a decision is to be taken to make no award; the end-use security must be fixed accordingly.

(2) In the light of the tenders received, the maximum aid should be fixed at the level specified below and the end-use security determined accordingly.

(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 284th special invitation to tender under the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EEC) No 429/90, the maximum aid and the amount of the end-use security shall be as follows:

>TABLE>

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 February 2003.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 31 January 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48.

(2) OJ L 79, 22.3.2002, p. 15.

(3) OJ L 45, 21.2.1990, p. 8.

(4) OJ L 16, 21.1.1999, p. 19.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SAMSON PETER RODRIGUEZ

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D15

- 0800

[ February 3, 2016 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; David A. Haimes , Judge; L.T. Case No. 07

- 100 93CF10A

.

Samson Peter Rodriguez, Indiantown, p ro s e.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

We accept the st ate’s concession of error on appeal, vacate the order of the trial court entered November 21, 2014, and remand with directions that the trial court grant appellant an evidentiary hearing on his claim that counsel retained by appellant’s father failed to ti mely file an amended motion for post

- conviction relief, as permitted in Rodriguez v. State , 100 So. 3d 1244, 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). See Medrano v. State , 748 So. 2d 986, 987 (Fla. 1999); Steele v. Kehoe , 747 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1999).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

G ROSS

, D AMOORGIAN and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 18

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution relative to contributions and

expenditures intended to affect elections for Federal, State, and local office.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 17 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. SPECTER, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. CAMPBELL,

and Mr. EXON) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution relative to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections

for Federal, State, and local office.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),

4 SECTION 1. CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES IN FED5 ERAL ELECTIONS.

6 The following article is proposed as an amendment

7 to the Constitution of the United States, to be valid only

8 if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•SJ 18 IS

1 States within seven years after the date of final passage

2 of this joint resolution:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘SECTION. 1. Congress shall have power to set rea5 sonable limits on expenditures made in support of or in

6 opposition to the nomination or election of any person to

7 Federal office.

8 ‘‘SECTION. 2. Each State shall have power to set rea9 sonable limits on expenditures made in support of or in

10 opposition to the nomination or election of any person to

11 State office.

12 ‘‘SECTION. 3. Each local government of general juris13 diction shall have power to set reasonable limits on ex14 penditures made in support of or in opposition to the nom15 ination or election of any person to office in that govern16 ment. No State shall have power to limit the power estab17 lished by this section.

18 ‘‘SECTION. 4. Congress shall have power to imple19 ment and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
Filed 3/19/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2015 ND 51

Angela Nails, Plaintiff and Appellant

v.

US Bank (USA) N.A., Defendant and Appellee

No. 20140329

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable John C. Irby, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Angela Nails, self-represented, 15406 Bellaire Ave., Apt. M, Grandview, MO 64030, plaintiff and appellant; submitted on brief.

Christopher M. Kennelly, P.O. Box 2105, Fargo, ND 58103, for defendant and appellee; submitted on brief.

Nails v. US Bank (USA) N.A.

No. 20140329

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Angela Nails appealed from a district court judgment dismissing her action against U.S. Bank under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b).  Nails failed to file a responsive brief to U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss as required under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(c), and the district court treated the failure to file as an admission and dismissed the claim with prejudice.  Nails argued the district court abused its discretion in granting U.S. Bank’s motion.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (4).

[¶2]U.S. Bank requests attorney fees and double costs under N.D.R.App.P. 38 for a frivolous appeal.  “An appeal is frivolous if it is flagrantly groundless, devoid of merit, or demonstrates persistence in the course of litigation which evidences bad faith.”  Holbach v. Holbach, 2010 ND 116, ¶ 17, 784 N.W.2d 472 (quoting Healy v. Healy, 397 N.W.2d 71, 76 (N.D. 1986)).  Nails’s arguments and unsupported assertions on appeal are “so factually and legally devoid of merit that [she] should have been aware of the impossibility of success on appeal.”  Riemers v. O’Halloran, 2004 ND 79, ¶ 16, 678 N.W.2d 547.  We award U.S. Bank double costs and nominal attorney fees of $500 for defending the appeal.

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom
##### 



Exhibit 10.18 Party City Corporation
Summary of FY 2005 Corporate Bonus Plan Bonus Period:  
    July 4, 2004 through July 2, 2005. Eligible Participants:  
    All officers, corporate directors and certain managers are eligible to participate.
    Employees must be employed (i) in an eligible position for the last six months of the bonus period and (ii)
at the time the bonus is paid.
    Employees must be in good standing at the time the bonus is paid. Good standing is defined as performing
at a meets expectations level in accordance with applicable internal review policies. Bonus Criteria:  
    50% of an employees target bonus will be based on the Companys EBITDA target
(defined as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization).  
    50% of an employees target bonus will be based on the individuals performance:
    The performance goals for the executive officers will be determined by the CEO while the performance goals for
the CEO will be determined by the Compensation Committee. For all other eligible employees, performance goals will
be determined by the applicable supervisor of the employee.
    The performance goals must be measurable and based on goals not otherwise part of the individuals job
description.
    The target bonus for each employee level will be approved by the Compensation Committee.
    If the Company does not achieve 85% of its EBITDA target, employees are not entitled to receive any bonus,
regardless of individual performance.
    The Company reserves the right to adjust the EBITDA target based on market conditions and make other
discretionary adjustments. Pro Rata Bonuses:  
    Eligible employees who work less than twelve months during the fiscal year (i.e., a new hire or due to a leave
of absence) will be eligible for a pro-rated bonus in 1/12th increments corresponding with each full
month of employment.
    Leave of absences (including, but not limited to, absences due to the FMLA, workers compensation or a personal
leave of absence) will result in a prorated bonus payment based on the duration of the leave. Bonus Payout:  
    It is anticipated that FY 2005 bonuses will be paid in September 2005.