alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.4

Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions to
Certificateholders

 <TABLE>

 Class                            Interest          Principal               Losses            Ending Balance
<S>                        <C>                 <C>                           <C>             <C>
A1                         15,202,612.63       103,670,654.69                0.00            215,643,345.31
A2A                        14,683,275.67       229,173,538.65                0.00            145,638,461.35
A2B                         9,460,481.41                 0.00                0.00            176,477,000.00
A2C                         8,166,967.80                 0.00                0.00            150,034,000.00
A2D                         2,552,300.54                 0.00                0.00             46,273,000.00
M1                          3,112,293.11                 0.00                0.00             55,185,000.00
M2                          2,918,095.80                 0.00                0.00             51,647,000.00
M3                          1,808,741.62                 0.00                0.00             31,838,000.00
M4                          1,607,497.73                 0.00                0.00             27,593,000.00
M5                          1,447,688.38                 0.00                0.00             24,762,000.00
M6                          1,384,321.14                 0.00                0.00             23,348,000.00
B1                          1,413,706.21                 0.00                0.00             20,518,000.00
B2                          1,362,470.69                 0.00                0.00             18,395,000.00
B3                          1,264,411.00                 0.00                0.00             17,688,000.00
B4                          1,163,260.98                 0.00                0.00             16,273,000.00
B5                          1,062,110.96                 0.00                0.00             14,858,000.00
C                          18,682,530.99                 0.00                0.00             45,987,500.00
P                           3,497,466.69                 0.00                0.00                    100.00
R                                   0.00                 0.00                0.00                      0.00
RX                                  0.00                 0.00                0.00                      0.00
</TABLE>
No. 12-7517 (12A545).

#### Stokley *v.*Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.

C. A. 9th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.
#### Sharon E. Battelli, Appellant, v Fox Hill Country Club, Doing Business as Giorgios, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 382]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated October 15, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defendant satisfied its initial burden on the motion for summary judgment by demonstrating through the deposition testimony of its part-time manager and certain restaurant guests that the alleged leak that caused the wet condition upon which the plaintiff fell started only moments before the accident, and that it did not have notice of the condition (see *Chemont v Pathmark Supermarkets,*279 AD2d 545 [2001]).

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see *generally Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Her reliance on the purported statements of the defendant’s part-time manager and an unidentified female patron to establish notice of the condition on the part of the defendant is misplaced. Assuming arguendo that those statements constituted evidence in admissible form *(but see Paino v Friendly Ice Cream Corp.,*304 AD2d 543 [2003]; *Sherman v Tamarack Lodge,*146 AD2d 767 [1989]), there was no showing that they concerned the same condition which caused the plaintiffs fall, nor do they demonstrate that the defendant had a reasonable time within which to remedy the condition *(see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836 [1986]). Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION**

**The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that:**

(1) The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2003, 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|Date: December 12, 2003 |  | /s/ M. G. DUNCAN       
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | M. G. Duncan           
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer

|Date: December 12, 2003 |  | /s/ DENNIS J. STEVERMER
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | Dennis J. Stevermer    
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mercantile Bankshares Corporation (the “Company”)for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward J. Kelly, III, theChief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1)                 TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)  or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)                 Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Edward J. Kelly, III |   |    |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------|
| Edward J. Kelly, III     |   |         |
| Chief Executive Officer       |   |         |
| August 4, 2006                |   |         |

 

----
#### Marisol Contreras BENITEZ, Appellant, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, not in its Individual Capacity but Solely as Trustee for the Primestar AR-H Fund I Trust, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3969

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed December 8, 2017

Rehearing Denied December 8, 2017

Rehearing Denied January 16, 2018

Eric O. Husby, Tampa, for Appellant.

Ezra Scrivanich, of Scrivanich Hayes, Plantation, for Appellee.

*1163ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant rehearing in this case and withdraw the previously-issued opinion. We substitute the following in its stead. The appeal is dismissed pursuant to Archer v. U.S. Bank National Ass’n, 220 So.3d 477, 478-79 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

DISMISSED.

SAWAYA, WALLIS, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
No. 12-6159.

#### Patt *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.
CAAP-11-0000672, CAAP-11-0000776

#### Fukumitsu v. Fukumitsu

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S JUNE 30, 1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         135,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  765,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (74,400)
<INVENTORY>                                     20,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               868,100
<PP&E>                                       8,528,600
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,650,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,194,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          733,300
<BONDS>                                        993,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,721,800
<OTHER-SE>                                    (173,300)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,194,500
<SALES>                                              0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,745,700
<CGS>                                                0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,213,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (5,800)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                496,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                   182,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            314,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   314,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>WE HAVE NOT STATED SECURITIES SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MATERIAL. WE HAVE INCLUDED THEM IN THE "CASH" TAG.
<F2>NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL OPERATING
REVENUES. WE THEREFORE HAVE NOT STATED THESE SALES SEPARATELY IN THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PER REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).  WE HAVE INCLUDED 
THESE SALES IN THE "TOTAL REVENUES" TAG.
<F3>WE HAVE INCLUDED COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS SOLD IN COST OF SERVICE AND
PRODUCTS IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE "TOTAL COST" TAG, PER
REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S MARCH 31, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          14,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  698,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (75,100)
<INVENTORY>                                     18,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               685,100
<PP&E>                                       8,792,200
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,953,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,008,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,033,800
<BONDS>                                        496,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,721,800
<OTHER-SE>                                    (143,400)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,008,000
<SALES>                                              0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               888,000
<CGS>                                                0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  619,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1,700)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                255,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                    94,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            161,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   161,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>WE HAVE NOT STATED SECURITIES SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MATERIAL. WE HAVE INCLUDED THEM IN THE "CASH" TAG.
<F2>NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL OPERATING
REVENUES. WE THEREFORE HAVE NOT STATED THESE SALES SEPARATELY IN THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PER REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).  WE HAVE INCLUDED 
THESE SALES IN THE "TOTAL REVENUES" TAG.
<F3>WE HAVE INCLUDED COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS SOLD IN COST OF SERVICE AND
PRODUCTS IN OUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE "TOTAL COST" TAG, PER
REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
# L_2011059DE.01007301.xml

| 4.3.2011 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 59/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2011

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 59/73

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2010/26/EU der Kommission vom 31. März 2010 zur Änderung der Richtlinie 97/68/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Angleichung der Rechtsvorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten über Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung der Emission von gasförmigen Schadstoffen und luftverunreinigenden Partikeln aus Verbrennungsmotoren für mobile Maschinen und Geräte

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 86 vom 1. April 2010
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 86 vom 1. April 2010

Seite 38, Anhang III Abschnitt 3, Tabelle 3.7.1.4 „Vorschrift D“, Spalte „Motordrehzahl“, zweite Zeile:

anstatt:

„Nenndrehzahl“

muss es heißen:

„Zwischendrehzahl“.

---
No. 12-6386.

#### Young *v.*Texas.

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-rari denied.
# L_2010012EN.01000101.xml

| 19.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 12/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 12/1

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 41/2010

of 18 January 2010

correcting the French, Latvian and Polish versions of Regulation (EC) No 546/2003 on certain notifications regarding the application of Council Regulations (EEC) No 2771/75, (EEC) No 2777/75 and (EEC) No 2783/75 in the eggs and poultrymeat sectors

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 192, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 2783/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 15 June 2009, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 504/2009 (3) amending Regulation (EC) No 546/2003 (4). In the French, Latvian and Polish language versions of that Regulation, the term ‘barn’ was translated incorrectly and therefore a correction of those three language versions is necessary. The other language versions are not affected. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 15 June 2009, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 504/2009 (3) amending Regulation (EC) No 546/2003 (4). In the French, Latvian and Polish language versions of that Regulation, the term ‘barn’ was translated incorrectly and therefore a correction of those three language versions is necessary. The other language versions are not affected.

| (2) | Regulation (EC) No 546/2003 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 504/2009 should therefore be corrected accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 546/2003 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 504/2009 should therefore be corrected accordingly.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

This correcting regulation concerns only the French, the Latvian and the Polish language versions.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 18 January 2010.

For the Commission

José Manuel BARROSO

The President

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 104.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 151, 16.6.2009, p. 22.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 81, 28.3.2003, p. 12.

4

---
Opinion issued June 23, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00360-CV

———————————

LEECO STEEL, LLC, Appellant

V.

GLOBENET METALS, LLC,

AUBREY R. CONNER AND PIERCE METALS, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 353rd Judicial District Court

Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-14-005356

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Leeco Steel, LLC, has filed a motion to dismiss its appeal

because it has settled the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).1 Although the

 

1

The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Third Court of Appeals 
2

appellant’s motion lacks a certificate of conference, the motion has been on file 

with the Court for more than 10 days and no party has responded to the motion. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a)(2). No other party has filed a notice of 

appeal and no opinion has issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), (c).

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. 

P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale.

 

to this Court pursuant to its docket equalization powers. See TEX. GOV’T CODE 

ANN. § 73.001 (West Supp. 2014); Order Regarding Transfer of Cases From 

Courts of Appeals, Misc. Docket No. 15-9054, at ¶ II (Tex. Mar. 24, 2015).
No. 12-7381.

#### Muhammad *v.*Stapleton et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-7472.

#### Barron-Galvan *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# L_2010117EN.01006001.xml

| 11.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 117/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 117/60

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 402/2010

of 10 May 2010

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pintadeau de la Drôme (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Pintadeau de la Drôme’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Pintadeau de la Drôme’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 10 May 2010.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 222, 15.9.2009, p. 12.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.1.   Fresh meat (and offal)

FRANCE

Pintadeau de la Drôme (PGI)

---
No. 12-7555.

#### Jones *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE

JAIME LUEVANO,

Relator

. §

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00185

- CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus against

the Honorable James T. Carter to reopen a writ of habeas corpus and inquiry/examination trial and

concludes that Relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the

petition for writ of m andamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14 TH DAY OF JANUARY , 20 21

.

JEFF ALLEY, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox , and Alley , JJ.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAN FENG LIN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72548

Agency No. A077-997-915

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Dan Feng Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

FILED

JUN 23 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72548

denial of a motion to reopen, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.

2007), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lin’s motion to reopen as

untimely because Lin filed it over three years after the BIA issued its final removal

order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Lin failed to demonstrate changed country

conditions, including a change in laws or the enforcement of family planning laws,

to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to

reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 988-989 (9th

Cir. 2009); He, 501 F.3d at 1132-33. 

We reject Lin’s contention that the BIA erred in its evaluation of the

evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). We also reject Lin’s contention that the

BIA did not adequately examine her evidence because she has not overcome the

presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439

F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.