alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 33.2



MANAGEMENTS ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE

Management of the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (or Company) is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the servicing criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are applicable in regard to the servicing platform for the period as follows:

Platform:  Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities and student loan-backed securities issued on or after January 1, 2006, for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services (the Platform)

Applicable Servicing Criteria:  All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by Item 1122(d) servicing criteria in regards to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform as to any transaction, except for the following criteria:  1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities the Company performs with respect to the Platform (the Applicable Servicing Criteria).

Period:  Twelve months ended December 31, 2009 (the Period).

With respect to the Platform as of and for the Period, the Companys management provides the following assertion of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:



The Companys management is responsible for assessing the Companys compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.



The Companys management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.



Based on such assessment, the Company has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to managements assertion of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.

CITIBANK, N.A.

By:  /s/  Karen Montbach

Its: Managing Director

Dated:  February 26, 2010
Revolution UAS LLC, 14812 N. 60th St, Scottsdale, AZ 85254

October 26, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Request for Amendment to Exemption No. 12640, Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–2422 

under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the “Reform Act”) and 

14 C.F.R. Part 11, Revolution UAS, LLC (Revolution UAS), seeks to amend exemption No. 12640, 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–2422; Submitted by Revolution UAS for review May 27, 2015 

and subsequently granted by the FAA on August 27, 2015. 

Based upon Exemption 11110 issued to Trimble Navigation Ltd. (Trimble) on December 10, 2014 

in FAA Docket 2014-0367. The requested exemption would allow Revolution UAS LLC to operate 

the UX5 and UX5hp aircraft manufactured by Trimble or other Trimble aircraft approved for 

commercial operations under Exemption 11110 and 11110A, as amended. Revolution UAS LLC

notes that the FAA recently authorized use of the Trimble UX5 by a third party in Exemption No. 

11257, Regulatory Docket No. FAA20140889, on April 2, 2015, under updated conditions, and 

Revolution UAS LLC hereby confirms that it will accept such conditions as well as those set forth in 

Exemption No. 11240, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0894. As this amendment request is 

identical to the already issued precedent, this request should qualify for summary processing as 

the FAA has already provided public notice of and granted similar exemptions.

The original exemption made a request to allow operations of airframe models for conducting 

aerial photography and videography used to support a broad variety of inspection and ground 

truth operations.

There have been no changes in the request for exemption from specific regulations or conditions 

and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original 

exemption. 

This submission includes the Operating Manuals:

1) Trimble UX5 Data Sheet; and

2) Trimble UX5 Aerial Imaging Solution User Guide (User Guide)

These manuals are very similar to the manuals submitted by Trimble in support of the issuance of 

Exemption 11110, updated to reflect changes reported in Trimble’s March 4, 2015 amendment to 
Exemption 11110. The manuals will be updated by Trimble, as needed to reflect any changes to 

Exemption 11110, based on amendments thereto.

Regards, 

Doug Andriuk

Co-Founder

Revolution UAS, LLC

14812 N. 60th St

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

301-266-2011
----

Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Viviane Le Maire against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-191/05)

(2005/C 182/77)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 May 2005 by Viviane Le Maire, residing in Evere (Belguim), represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in these proceedings objects to the Appointing Authority's refusal to grant her the daily subsistence allowances provided for in Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. It is apparent from the documents annexed to the application that the reason for that refusal is the fact that the period of 120 days referred to in paragraph 2(a) of that provision was exceeded in the present case.

In support of her claims, the applicant argues:

----
Dina A. ZERVAS & Anastasios Zervas, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0347

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
John RAMOS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1809

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Sagia D. CASTANEDA, Appellant, v. Carlos CASTANEDA, Appellee.

No. 4D16-3431

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 7, 2018

June Galkoski Hoffman of Fowler White Burnett, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Steven Cripps of Law Offices of Orsley & Cripps, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order granting the former husband's petition for modification of alimony. We remand, however, for a recalculation of the alimony arrearage amount. The circuit court determined that the arrearage amount was $9,800 based on a reduction of the former husband's alimony obligation from $2,650 a month to $500 a month dating back to May 9, 2014. It appears that the total arrearage for the 28-month period should be $14,000. Any basis for further reducing the arrearage amount is not apparent in the record. *See**Polcz v. Polcz,*160 So.3d 113, 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (case remanded for clarification of arrearages, where "mathematical findings [did] not support the court's final decision as to a reduction in arrearages"); *Allison v. Allison* , 605 So.2d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (case reversed for clarification of the arrearages amount when it was *443unclear how the trial court calculated the deduction).

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
EX PARTE Gary WALLACE

CR-15-1290

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 3, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
J-S08032-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant

v.

AMBER MEGHAN FURRY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 141 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 9, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-01-CR-0001213-2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED: MAY 8, 2023

I agree that we are bound by the en banc Majority decisions in Richards

and Moroz to treat Appellant’s prior acceptance of ARD as a first DUI offense. 

See Commonwealth v. Richards, 284 A.3d 214, 220-21 (Pa. Super. 2022), 

appeal granted, 518 MAL 2022 (Pa. Mar. 15, 2023) (en banc); 

Commonwealth v. Moroz, 284 A.3d 227, 233 (Pa. Super. 2022) (en banc).1

However, for the reasons expressed in my Dissenting Opinions, I believe 

Richards and Moroz were wrongly decided. See Richards, 284 A.3d at 222-

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See also Commonwealth v. Verbeck, 290 A.3d 260 (Pa. 2023); 

Commonwealth v. Hummel, __ A.3d __, 1147 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. April 

4, 2023).
J-S08032-23

- 2 -

26 (Dissenting Op., McCaffery, J.); Moroz, 284 A.3d at 235-39 (Dissenting 

Op., McCaffery, J.). Thus, I am constrained to concur in this decision.

Judge Colins joins the Concurring Statement.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 Veramark Technologies, Inc., (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald
C. Lundy, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (3) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                 
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (4) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
of the Company.

/s/ Ronald C. Lundy
Ronald C. Lundy
Treasurer
May 14, 2003

20
IN the INTEREST OF J.J.R., K.M.R., and M.P.R., Children.

J.D.R., Appellant, v. S.R., Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3799

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-09-01T21:49:16Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-09-01T21:49:21Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-09-01T21:49:21Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="100515">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="2">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-09-01T21:49:16Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>OFFICE OF THE ATl-ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 
AUSTIN 
</p>
<p>IWimrblb Ben Charlie @am 
Dlatrlat Attorney </p>
<p></p>
</div>
<div class="page"><p></p>
<p>-t? 
</p>
<p>mwiornble Bkacbarlle chapmul, page 2 </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>
Oliver SAMUELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3413

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 10, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 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-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,652
<SECURITIES>                                    51,740
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,418
<ALLOWANCES>                                        53
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,889
<PP&E>                                          98,645
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,471
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,955
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,543
<BONDS>                                         53,322
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        148
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,955
<SALES>                                          3,570
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,464
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,337
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     9
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 806
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,303
<INCOME-TAX>                                       489
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                814
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       814
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      Exhibit 11


DAUGHERTY RESOURCES, INC.
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(United States Dollars)
Unaudited


         The table below presents information necessary for the computation of
loss per share of the common stock, on both a primary and fully diluted basis,
for the nine months ended September 30, 1999 and 1998, and the years ended
December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996. The computations below reflect the 1 for 5
Reverse Stock Split effective June 30, 1998.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                          NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                            SEPTEMBER 30                    YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                            ------------                    ----------------------

                                              1999             1998               1998             1997               1996
                                              ----             ----               ----             ----               ----

<S>                                      <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>
Net loss applicable to share of
Common Stock and Common
Stock equivalents                        $(1,267,712)      $(1,172,326)      $  (902,319)      $(1,405,829)      $  (734,605)

Average number of shares of
Common Stock Outstanding                   2,329,352         2,183,783         2,035,188         1,831,926         1,610,168

Common Stock equivalents                   1,514,134         1,464,355         1,448,355         1,353,244           283,293

Total shares of Common Stock
and Common Stock equivalents               3,843,486         3,648,138         3,483,543         3,185,170         1,893,461

Primary loss per share of
Common Stock                             $      (.54)      $      (.54)      $     (0.44)      $      (.77)      $      (.46)


Fully diluted loss per share of          $      (.33)      $      (.32)      $     (0.26)      $      (.44)      $      (.39)
Common Stock
<FN>

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

         Common Stock equivalents are considered anti-dilutive because of the net losses incurred by the Company.



</TABLE>
___________ No. 95-3533

___________ Teamsters National Freight * Industry Negotiating Committee, * on behalf of Teamster Local * Union Nos. 116, 120, 123, 346, * and 544, and on behalf of all * Teamster represented employees * of Midwest Motor Express, Inc., * *

Plaintiff-Appellee, * Order Remanding For * Statement of Reasons v. * Supporting Denial of * Rule 11 Sanctions. MME, Inc.; Midwest Motor Express,* Inc.; Midnite Express, Inc.; John* T. Roswick; Richard N. Roswick; * W. J. Greenstein; Raymond J. * Patton; James F. Greenstein; * Lambert L. Glatt; Jodi L. Kary; * Daniel Zeller; E. J. Roswick; * Nels Roswick; John H. Roswick; * Marlin Kling, * *

Defendants-Appellants. *

___________ Submitted: October 22, 1996 Filed: November 8, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, HEANEY, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Midwest Motor Express and the other defendants appeal the distric t court's refusal to grant their motion for Rule 11 sanctions against th e plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff alleged claims of RICO violations, fraud, and embezzlement against the defendants. The district court grante d the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of a factual basi s to support the

### -2-

allegations made, and for a failure to allege the essential elements of a RICO case based on mail and wire fraud in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P
. 9(b). The district court, however, denied the d efendants' motion for Rule 11 sancti ons without stating fully its reasons for the denial. Th e plaintiff has not appealed from the dismissal.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictates that th e imposition of sanctions upon a determination that Rule 11 has been violate d is discretionary with the district court. We review all aspects of a district court's Rule 11 determination for an ab use of discretion. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. , 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990). We cannot meaningfull y review the district court's exercise of discretion, however, absent th e benefit of a full statement of reasons explaining why the district court denied the motion for sanctions.
Accordingly, we retain jurisdiction of this case but remand it to the district court for the limited purpose of reques ting the district court to articulate the reasons supporting its exercise of discretion to deny the defendants' motion fo r Rule 11 sanctions. The district court's statement of reasons shall be certified to this court within 45 days.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EX PARTE M.P.F.

CR-15-1503

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 21, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Tallapoosa Cir. Ct.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 2, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00266

- CR

James KEARNS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022W0277

Honorable Velia J. Meza , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due by August 22, 2022, but it was not filed. This court notified

appellant’s counsel of the deficiency on August 26, 2022, and on September 1, 2022, appellant

filed a motion requesting a twenty

- day extension of time. After consideration, we grant the

extension and order appellant to file his brief by September 12, 2022

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 2nd day of September, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Cl erk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information
extracted from the June 30, 1997 10-Q Balance Sheets, Income Statements, and
Cash Flow Statements, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               4958000
<SECURITIES>                                          186000
<RECEIVABLES>                                         996000
<ALLOWANCES>                                           15000
<INVENTORY>                                          2212000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     9234000
<PP&E>                                               7505000
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      17205000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 726000
<BONDS>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                               14000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                          16218000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        17205000
<SALES>                                              1480000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     1480000
<CGS>                                                 723000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1073000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       490000
<INCOME-TAX>                                          186000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   304000
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                          304000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            .02
        

</TABLE>