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

 

**Statement of Compliance of The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly The Bank of New York)**

 

I, James W. Hall, Vice President of The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly The Bank of New York), a New York corporation (the “Indenture Trustee”), states:

 

(a)  A review of the Indenture Trustee’s activities for the period from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012 (the “Reporting Period”) and of the Indenture Trustee’s performance under the indenture applicable to the trusts listed on the attached schedule (hereinafter referred to as the “Indenture”) has been made under my supervision.

 

(b)  To the best of my knowledge and based on such review, the Indenture Trustee has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Indenture in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period for Protective Life Secured Trust Notes.

 

 
| Date:   March 06, 2013 | THE   BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (formerly       |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                   | The   Bank of New York), as Indenture Trustee |
|                   |                                          |
|                   | /s/   JAMES W. HALL                           |
|                   | James   W. Hall                               |
|                   | Vice   President                              |

 

----

 

Schedule of Trusts

 

Protective Life Secured Trust 2007-B

Protective Life Secured Trust 2007-D

Protective Life Secured Trust 2007-6

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-3

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-4

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-5

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-6

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-7

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-8

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-9

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-10

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-11

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-12

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-13

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-14

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-15

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-18

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-19

Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-20

 

----
AFS-15-2461-E October 14, 2015

Mr. Todd M. Donahue

President Homestead Helicopters, Inc. 4 Corporate Way

Missoula, MT 59808

Dear Mr. Donahue:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for exemption, and explains why we cannot process your request for exemption, from §§ 43.3(h) and (i) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

You entered a petition for exemption on May 26, 2015, on behalf of Homestead Helicopters, Inc. (Homestead) into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2194), but we are unable to process your request any further. The relief that you are seeking is from the limitations upon pilots regarding what can be performed under preventive maintenance in a remote location, so that pilots employed by Homestead can remove and reinstall crew and passenger doors on company helicopters while in a remote area.

Specifically, 14 CFR § 43.3(h) allows a pilot flying for a part 135 operator to perform specific maintenance items while operating a rotorcraft in a remote area. In paragraph (c) of appendix A of 14 CFR § 43, there are specific items listed that the pilot can perform.

Additionally, 14 CFR § 43.3 (i) allows a pilot of an aircraft type-certificated for 9 or fewer passenger seats operating under a part 135 certificate to be able to remove and reinstall specific items in an aircraft, provided that the pilot can meet certain criteria.

Because Homestead has obtained Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SR00532SE from Certified Technology, and has obtained the Meeker Aviation kit certificate of compliance, Homestead already meets an appropriate level of safety. Therefore, Homestead does not need to obtain an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 43.3 (h) and (i).
Exhibit 10.36





Exhibit 10.36




December 18, 2009




Scott Cormack

President & CEO

OncoGenex Technologies Inc.

Suite 400 — 1001 West Broadway

Vancouver, BC, Canada

V6H 4B1




Re: Letter Agreement Regarding Certain Sublicense Consideration for OGX-011




Dear Scott,




In connection with the transaction OncoGenex Technologies Inc. (“OncoGenex”) intends to consummate
with Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd. (“Teva”) involving the sublicense to Teva of rights to
develop and commercialize OGX-011 (the “Sublicense Agreement”), we understand that $30 million of
the consideration to be paid by Teva to OncoGenex is characterized as a reimbursement for research
and development activities.



This letter serves to confirm that if the entire sum of such $30 million has not been spent by
OncoGenex on such OGX-011 research and development activities by the third anniversary of the date
the Sublicense Agreement is executed by Teva and OncoGenex, then, within 15 days thereafter,
OncoGenex will pay Isis an amount equal to 30% of any un-spent portion of such $30 million minus
$3.5 million. For the avoidance of doubt, if, after calculating any payment to Isis in the
immediately preceding sentence the result is an amount that is less than zero, Isis will have no
obligation to return any funds previously paid by OncoGenex to Isis related to such $30 million.



This letter also serves to confirm that OncoGenex will pay Isis $10 million within 21 days after
execution of the Sublicense Agreement, such amount hereby confirmed to be Isis’ share of the $60
million upfront payment (which includes a $10 million equity investment by Teva in OncoGenex common
stock at a price of $37.38 per share) OncoGenex will receive from Teva upon execution of the
Sublicense Agreement. Except as otherwise expressly stated above, Isis reserves all of its rights
to receive Non-Royalty Revenue under the Amended and Restated License Agreement dated July 2, 2008
entered into between Isis and OncoGenex (the “A&R License”). In addition, OncoGenex confirms it
will pay Isis an amount equal to 30% of the up to $370 million in Non-Royalty Revenue OncoGenex
will be eligible to receive from Teva under the Sublicense Agreement upon achievement of various
milestones, including sales targets hereunder.



Following the closing of the Sublicense Agreement, the parties further agree to execute an
amendment to the A&R License, to the extent reasonably necessary to memorialize the agreements
contained in this letter agreement.


 


 









 





Except as expressly amended herein, the A&R License remains in full force and effect in accordance
with its terms. Defined terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the A&R
License.



Please acknowledge your agreement with the terms of this letter by countersigning below.



Sincerely,



	 	 	 
	/s/ B. LYNNE PARSHALL
 

B. Lynne Parshall

	 	 
	Chief Operating Officer,
	 	 
	Chief Financial Officer & Director
	 	 
	Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Acknowledged and Agreed:
	 
	 	 
	/s/ SCOTT CORMACK
 

OncoGenex Technologies Inc.

	 	 
	Scott Cormack
	 	 
	President & CEO
CHARLESTON.

#### State *v.*Martha Pawlak

(No. 5847)

Submitted April 27, 1927.

Decided May 3, 1927.

Intoxicating *Liquors*— Indictment *For Transporting Intoxicating Liquor, Not Negativing Exceptions in Statute, Held Demur-rable (Code, 1923, c. 32A,*§ *31a).*

Syllabus in *State*v. *Taylor,*95 W. Va. 518, applied.

(Indictment and Information, 31 C. J. § 269 : Intoxicating Liquors, 33 C. J. § 147.)

(Noma: Parenthetical references by Editors, C. J. — Cye. Not part of syllabi.)

Error to Circuit Court, Marshall County.

Martha Pawlak was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquors, and she brings error.

*Demurrer sustained; case remanded.*

*A. L. Hooton*and *Martin Broiun,*for plaintiff in error.

*Howard B. Lee,*Attorney General and *J. Luther Wolfe,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Hatcher, President:

In this case the defendant has been convicted and sentenced under an indictment which charges that ‘ ‘ on.day of December, 1925, the said Martha Pawlak, in the said county of Marshall did unlawfully and feloniously transport from one place to another in said county and state intoxicating liquors against the peace and dignity of the State.”

Transportation of intoxicating liquor from one place to another within the state, except under certain circumstances is made an offense by Sec. 31a, Ch. 115, Acts of 1921, which appears in the Code of 1923 as Sec. 31a, Ch. 32A. That section is in part as follows: “It shall be unlawful for any person to order, purchase, sell, or cause intoxicating liquors, to be transported into the state, or from one place to another within the state, in any manner, except pure grain alcohol, for medicinal, pharmaceutical, scientific and mechanical purposes, *556and wine for sacramental purposes to be used by religions bodies,' as now provided by law. ’ ’

It being no crime to transport liquor under tbe conditions excepted by tlie statute, it bas been held by this court that an indictment for transportation which does not negative the exceptions is vulnerable on demurrer. “An indictment under Section 31a of Chapter 115, Acts 1921, Section 31a of Chapter 32A, Barnes’ Code 1923, which fails to negative the exceptions contained therein, is bad on demurrer and motion to quash.” *State*v. *Taylor,*95 W. Va. 518.

The demurrer to the indictment will therefore be sustained, and the case remanded.

*Demurrer sustained; case remanded.*
**2/09 /2013** 

**Patrick Goodrich P.O. Box 123**  **Klawock AK 99925** 

**Lauralyn (“Laura”) J. Remo DOT, Office of Aviation Analysis, Air Carrier Fitness Division, X** 
**- 56**  **1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590**  **United States of America**

**Dear M s. Remo,**  **I am writing to you as an employee of Island Air Express and a full time resident of Prince of Wales Island. I**  **support Isl and Air Express being granted the**  **ability to carry mail. I don’t support this simply for my own**  **economic reasons, but as a resident**  **who also relies**  **heavily on air service. Island Air Express provides the most reliable service to Prince of Wal**  **es Island. The weather here in Southern Southeast Alaska**  **is often not very nice, making it hard for the float planes to deliver the mail. Because of our**  **IFR capability we can o** **ften fly when the float planes are grounded.**  **As I’ m sure**  **you know living on**  **a remote island in Alaska the mail is very important**  **to us . We**  **are not just waiting for**  **letters but more so for food, medicine, clothing, an d other vital supplies.**  **If Island Air was granted the right to carry the mail then those vital supplies would be delivered on a far more reliable basis.**  **It is not just the mail service that is important to the residents of the Prince of Wales. Island A ir provides the**  **safest air transportation to and from Klawock. This is important to us because medical,school, family and work**  **needs take loved ones away from the island on a regular basis. It is a wonderful piece of mind when sending my wife and son on**  **a flight that I know it will safely arrive at its destination. Island Air is locally based, staffed, and owned. Prince of Wales needs the jobs that Island Air provides to local**  **residents. My position as a pilot with Island Air allows me to own a home a**  **nd live full time in Klawock with my family.**  **I can say with total confidence that for safety and reliability in Southeast Alaska you will not find a more able carrier then Island Air Express.** 

**Sincerely, Patrick Goodrich**  **Resident of Klawock Chief Pilot**  **Island Air Express**
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

09/26

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Sep 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★ ■ ■ ■

■

★

●

●

●

●

★

●

●

● ●
Dajuan M. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106759

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: May 7, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Lisa M. Stroup, Missouri Public Defender Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Dora A. Fichter, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

Dajuan Brown ("Brown") appeals the motion court's denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his motion for post-conviction relief under Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 29.15.1

*340Brown was convicted of first degree robbery and armed criminal action after jury trial. Brown was sentenced to two concurrent, fifteen-year terms of imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. The conviction was affirmed by this Court by order and memo under Rule 30.25 after direct appeal in *State v. Brown,*484 S.W.3d 876 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016).

Brown contends the trial court clearly erred in denying his motion raising allegations of ineffective assistance from trial counsel and appellate counsel. For Point I, Brown argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence and argument the Detective assigned to the case did not perform the pre-trial identification according to established Police Department uniform procedures. For Point II, Brown argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to highlight the alleged use of his non-dominant hand to hold a gun in closing argument. For Point III, Brown argues appellate counsel failed to argue on direct appeal the trial court erred in failing to strike a policeman on the jury for cause. For Point IV, Brown argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object during voir dire to the follow-up question "Did you get a good look at the robber?" to potential jurors who were victims of robberies.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for use of the parties setting forth the reasons for the decision.

Finding no clear error, we affirm under Rule 84.16.

1

All rule citations are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2013) unless otherwise indicated.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION.1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cosi, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three  month period ended March 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Hyatt, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director of the Company, and I, William Koziel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| Date:   May 12, 2011 |   | /s/   JAMES HYATT                                    |
|---------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | James   Hyatt                                        |
|                      |   | President,                                           |
|                      |   | Chief   Executive Officer, and Director              |
|                      |   |                                                 |
|                      |   |                                                 |
| Date:   May 12, 2011 |   | /s/   WILLIAM KOZIEL                                 |
|                      |   | William   Koziel                                     |
|                      |   | Chief   Financial Officer (chief accounting officer) |
|                      |   | Treasurer   and Secretary                            |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cosi, Inc. and will be retained by Cosi, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-07-248-CV

IN RE CARTER & BURGESS, INC. 	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s “Motion for Stay Pending Resolution Of Its Petition For Writ of Mandamus” and petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a),(d). Accordingly, relator's “Motion for Stay Pending Resolution Of Its Petition For Writ of Mandamus” and petition for writ of mandamus are denied.

							PER CURIAM

PANEL A:	DAUPHINOT, LIVINGSTON, and  WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  July 19, 2007
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 14075 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:18

- cr - 00056

- PGB

- TBS

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

THOMAS DEAN PERON, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (March 18, 2019) Before MARCUS , MARTIN and NEWSOM , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 18-14075 Date Filed: 03/18/2019 Page: 1 of 22 Adeel Bashir, appointed counsel for Thomas Dean Peron in this direct criminal appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reve als that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and
Peron’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRM ED

.

Case: 18-14075 Date Filed: 03/18/2019 Page: 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6301]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,336]


Kennametal, Inc., Latrobe, PA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 23, 2009, in response to a 
worker petition filed on behalf of workers at Kennametal, Inc., 
Latrobe, Pennsylvania.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of March 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-6301 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
CHARLESTON.

#### T. J. Dayton *v.*J. W. Dayton

(No. 6374)

Submitted April 23, 1929.

Decided April 30, 1929.

*Wm. T. George,*for appellant.

*W. Merle WatMns,*for appellee.

HatcheR, Judge:

This is a suit for divorce, charging cruel and inhuman treatment. Depositions were taken on behalf of each party. The divorce commissioner found against plaintiff, and the circuit court upheld that finding.

The evidence does not substantiate charges of personal cruelty. The plaintiff testified, however, that the defendant had accused her of marital infidelity. The defendant ad*300mitted that be bad accused ber of being out in tbe woods or park at nigbt for immoral purposes, and that bis accusation was based solely on suspicion. Tbe plaintiff gave plausible explanations of tbe facts wbicb aroused defendant’s suspicions and denied any improper conduct. His accusation amounts to a charge of prostitution, and ithe plaintiff’s uncontradicted testimony establishes its falsity. Under section 6, chapter 64, Code, a false charge of prostitution made by tbe husband against tbe wife is deemed cruel treatment, and is ground for a limited divorce. Tbe plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to a divorce *a mensa*and tbe decree of tbe circuit court will be reversed, and tbe cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 Date: November 6, 2008
    
    /s/ JAMES HYATTPresident,Chief Executive Officer, and
DirectorDate: November 6, 2008
    
    /s/ WILLIAM KOZIELWilliam KozielChief Financial Officer(chief accounting officer)Treasurer and Secretary