alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2

                            ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

         I, Marlene Fahey, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, the Trustee in respect of the USAutos Series 2004-1 Trust (the
"Trust"), certify that:

     1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
              Trust;

     2.       Based on my knowledge, the information in this annual report,
              taken as awhole, does not contain any untrue statement of a
              material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
              the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
              such statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of
              the period covered by this annual report;

     3.       Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be
              provided to the Depositor or the certificateholders by the Trustee
              under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement for inclusion
              in this annual report is included in this report;

     4.       I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
              Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement and
              based on my knowledge, except as disclosed in this annual report,
              the Trustee has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;
              and

Date: March 21, 2007


 /s/ MARLENE J. FAHEY
--------------------------------
Marlene J. Fahey, Vice President
#### Jerry D. BRANSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-35089.

D.C. No. CV-02-00234-ALH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 7, 2004.

Decided May 14, 2004.

James S. Coon, Swanson, Thomas *&*Coon, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Craig J. Casey, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Mark O. Hatfield, U.S. Courthouse, Portland, OR, Lucille G. Meis, Esq., Thomas Elsberry, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and ZAPATA, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM *

Jerry D. Branson appeals the district court order affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that applied 42 U.S.C. § 424a(a), the workers’ compensation offset provision, to his disability award. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we. do not recount them in detail except as necessary. We review de novo the district court’s decision to uphold the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. *Merrill v. Apfel,*224 F.3d 1083, 1084 (9th Cir. 2000). We reverse if the Commissioner’s findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence or if there was legal error. *Id.*at 1084-85.

The parties contest whether Branson’s Oregon workers’ compensation award was reduced because of Oregon’s reverse offset provision. Or.Rev.Stat. § 656.209(1). The ALJ found that Branson did not establish that the workers’ compensation payments received were for permanent total disability, and did not establish that the insurer applied a Social Security offset to reduce the value of his workers’ compensation award. Thus, he concluded, the Social Security offset provision was properly applied to reduce Branson’s Social Security benefits.

The ALJ’s finding was supported by substantial evidence. The memo by Bran-son’s lawyer reflects only that the adjuster would think about applying the offset. It did not prove that the offset was in fact applied. Furthermore, the inference that the offset may have been applied is refuted by the fact that Branson is not permanently totally disabled. He has returned to the workforce.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
(LOGO)ARTHUR ANDERSEN

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.:

We  have  examined  management's  assertion  about  SUNTRUST  MORTGAGE,   INC.'S
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Banks ("USAP") and that the Company had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and
omissions policy in the amounts of $100,000,000  and $28,500,000,  respectively,
as of and for the year ended  December  31, 1999,  included in the  accompanying
management  assertion.  Management is responsible  for the Company's  compliance
with those minimum  servicing  standards and for maintaining a fidelity bond and
errors and  omissions  policy.  Our  responsibility  is to express an opinion on
management's  assertion about the entity's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards and  maintenance  of a fidelity  bond and errors and omissions  policy
based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the  Company  complied  with the
aforementioned  minimum servicing standards and that the Company had in effect a
fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy in the amounts of $100,000,000 and
$28,500,000,  respectively,  as of and for the year ended  December  31, 1999 is
fairly stated in all material respects.

Arthur Andersen LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
February 10,2000
Docket No: FAA-2015-8138 Dir ID: 2014-NM-112-AD

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 5/29/14

Regional Airline Association 5/29/14

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 5/29/14

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 5/29/14
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(R)

                    NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY

P.H. Glatfelter Company (the "Company") pays fees to each non employee director
of the Company. Each non-employee director receives an annual retainer fee of
$27,000 (two-thirds in shares of Glatfelter common stock and one-third in cash)
and an additional $5,000 annual retainer if the non-employee director serves as
chairperson of a committee of the board of directors. Each non-employee director
will also receive $2,000 for attending the annual board retreat, $1,500 for each
attended board meeting and $1,000 for each attended committee meeting. In
addition, each non-employee director will receive an annual Restricted Stock
Unit award valued at $15,500 that will vest ratably over a three-year period.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3002 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Anisic Aldehyde. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2012 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Anisic 

Aldehyde. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ANISIC ALDEHYDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.11.57 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 P-Anisaldehyde) is amended by striking the date in the 

7 effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3002 IS

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Jenna COLLINS and Brandon Collins, Appellants, v. Tom M. PORTER, M.D., Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3701

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 20 - 00012 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF P.E.R., A CHILD On Appeal from the 237th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014 - 510,469, Honorable Les Hatch, Presiding



### April 24 , 2020 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS 1 , JJ. Appellant , Maia Chpak, appeals from the trial court’s Order in Suit to Modify Parent - Child Relationship . Now pending before the C ourt is Chpak’s motion seeking voluntary dismissal of her appeal. The Court finds the motion complies with the requirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and that granting the motion will not prevent any party from s eeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. As no decision of the Court has been delivered to date, we grant the motion. The appeal is dismissed. Because the motion does not address costs, costs will be taxed against

1 Justice Lawrence M. Doss , not participating.2

Chpak . T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(d). No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Per Curiam
A.L.



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 5, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00405

- CV

David GILLESPIE

, Appellant

v.

A.L. HERNDEN and Frederick R. Zlotoucha, Appellee s

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Be xar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 10278 Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On September 15, 20 0 5, we ordered appellant to offer a reasonable explanation for filing a late notice of appeal. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). “[A]ny plausible statement of circumstances indicating that failure to file . . . was not deliberate or intentional, but was the result of inadvert[e] nce, mistake, or mischance, [would] be accepted as a reasonable explanation.” Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc. , 774 S.W.2d 668, 670 (Tex. 1989); see also Dimotsis v. State Farm Lloyds , 966 S.W.2d 657, 657 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1998, no pet.). Any conduct short of deliberate or intentional noncompliance qualifies as inadvertence, mistake or mischance, even if that cond uct can also be characterized as professional negligence.

Garcia , 774 S.W.2d at 670; Dimotsis , 966 S.W.2d at 657. Appellant timely responded to our order, sta ting that his counsel , in light of other deadlines in his law practice, inadvertently failed

to ti mely file the notice of appeal . The explanation is reasonable. We, therefore, grant the motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal and ORDER this appeal retained on the court’s

docket . We further ORDER that appellant’s brief is due on Novemb er 4, 2015.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of October, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 99.1





Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The undersigned, as Chief
Executive Officer of Alliance HealthCard, Inc., certifies that the Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2002, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Alliance HealthCard, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The
foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code and is subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c).








/S/    ROBERT D.
GARCES


---

Robert D. Garces


Chief Executive Officer





Date: January 9, 2003




36
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 60772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21111]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Forty-Third Meeting of the SC-224 Airport Security Access Control 
Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Forty-Third Meeting of the SC-224 Airport Security Access 
Control Systems.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of Forty-Third Meeting of the SC-224 Airport Security Access 
Control Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 29, 2016, 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 
910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karan Hofmann at khofmann@rtca.org or 
(202) 330-0680, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 
910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at 
(202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of the Forty-Third Meeting of the SC-224 
Airport Security Access Control Systems. The agenda will include the 
following:

Thursday, September 29, 2016, 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
    2. Review/Approve Previous Meeting Summary
    3. Report from the TSA
    4. Report on Safe Skies on Document Distribution
    5. Report on TSA Security Construction Guidelines progress
    6. Review of DO-230H Sections
    7. Action Items for Next Meeting
    8. Time and Place of Next Meeting
    9. Any Other Business
    10. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 29, 2016.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17 
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-21111 Filed 9-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
exv10w38



 





Exhibit 10.38




Description of Compensation for Zix Corporation Board of Directors Members



Cash Compensation





	–	 	Cash payment of $2,000 per meeting per director for attendance in person at Board meetings.
	 
	–	 	Cash payment of $1,000 per meeting per director for attendance at telephonic Board meetings.
	 
	–	 	Annual cash payment of $5,000 per director for serving as Chair of a Board committee
(assuming attendance of at least two-thirds of the meetings).
	 
	–	 	Annual cash payment of $3,000 per director for serving as a member (i.e., not the Chair) of a
Board committee (assuming attendance of at least two-thirds of the meetings).




Stock Option Compensation





	–	 	Initial Stock Option Grants — When a non-employee director is first elected or
appointed to our Board of Directors, the director is granted nonqualified options to purchase
25,000 shares of our common stock. These options vest quarterly and pro-rata over one year
from the grant date, and the exercise price is 100% of the common stock price on the grant
date.
	 
	–	 	Annual Stock Option Grants — Also, on an annual basis, each non-employee director
that has served on our Board of Directors for at least six months as of the first business day
in January will be granted nonqualified options to purchase a number of shares of our common
stock equal to the greater of (i) one-half of one percent of the number of our outstanding
            shares (measured as of the prior December 31) or (ii) 200,000 shares, divided by the greater
of (i) five or (ii) the number of non-employee directors that have served on our Board for at
least 6 months as of the grant date; provided that, the number of shares of Common Stock
covered by any such January option grant shall not exceed 40,000 shares. The options will vest
quarterly and pro-rata over three years from the grant date and the option exercise price will
be 100% of our common stock price on such day.
	 
	–	 	Committee Service Option Grants —  Also, on an annual basis, when an non-employee
director is first appointed or elected to serve on the Board’s Audit Committee, the
Compensation Committee, or the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, or their
respective successors-in-interest, or on the day the non-employee director is first appointed
(or, if later, the date the committee first becomes active) to serve on another eligible
committee of the Board, then such director shall be granted for annual service on each such
committee, nonqualified options to purchase 5,000 shares of Common Stock, if serving as the
chair of the committee, or 3,000 shares of Common Stock, if serving as a member but not the
chair of the committee. The options will vest quarterly and pro-rata over three years from the
grant date and the option exercise price will be 100% of our common stock price on such day.
Unassociated Document



 




Exhibit 4.8.22 - Electronic Catalogue (8) - 090218Fan Box - Airtight


090218机组说明:


Description of the 090218 Unit:








	
名称


Name

	
材料说明


Material Description

	
生产厂家


Manufacturer


	
机组框架


Unit Framework

	
铝合金型材


Aluminum Alloy Sections

	
苏州莱德


Suzhou Laide


	
通用三通角件


Universal Tee Corner fittings

	
塑料注塑件


Plastic Injection Parts

	
苏州莱德


Suzhou Laide


	
20mm围护壁板


20mm Enclosure Wall Panel

	
聚氨脂高压发泡隔热复合板


Polyurethane High-pressure Foam Insulating Composite Board

	
苏州莱德


Suzhou Laide


	
钣金件


Sheet Metal Component

	
镀锌钢板或钢板喷塑


Galvanized Steel Sheet or Steel Sheet Spray Plastics

	
苏州莱德


Suzhou Laide


	
风机


Fan

	
外转子离心通风机


External-rotor Centrifugal Fan

	
金永利


Jinyongli


	
过滤器(F7)


Filter (F7)

	
中效铝合金框架无纺布袋式


Medium Efficiency Aluminum Alloy Frame Non-woven Bag Filter

	
苏州莱德


Suzhou Laide


	
吊架


Hanger


 

	
槽钢喷漆


Channel Steel Painting

	
苏州莱德


Suzhou Laide
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

129) ll-K- (B) -119 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:52 AM Sheet 129 of 325 
P.2 

AII-K-(B)[_-11_9 j 

COMPLIANCE COAL OPTIONS FOR COST ANALYSIS. 

Letter from L. Jones, EPA:ESED to Informal Analysis Working Group. 

July 13, 1983. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-114
SUNCOAST WATERKEEPER, INC. and Captain Kathe Fannon, Appellants, v. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT and Cargor Partners VIII-Long Bar Pointe, LLLC, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-2484

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Airworthiness Directive 

Alpha Aviation HR200 Series and R2000 Series Aircraft I O VIL A~TION AUTHORITY 

I OF NEW Z:U.UWD 

Issued by the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand in accordance with section 721(3A) of the Civil Aviation Act. An Airworthiness Directive 

(AD) contains regulatory information which is mandatory. An operator of an aircraft must not operate the aircraft unless the operator complies 

with every applicable AD issued by the Director in accordance with section 721(3A) of the Civil Aviation Act. An AD is issued where the 

Director believes on reasonable grounds that an unsafe condition exJsts in an aircraft or aeronautical product. 

OCAIR2000/25A 

Applicability: 

Requirement: 

Note 1: 

Note 2: 

Compliance: 

Effective Date: 

Background: 

Engine Air Intake Box and Ducting - Inspection 

Model HR 200/100, HR 200/100S, HR 2001120, HR 20011 20B and HR 2001160 aircraft, SINs 

001 through 378. 

Model R 2100, R 2100 A, R 2112, R 2120 U, R 2160 and R 2160 D aircraft, SINs 001 through 

378. 

To prevent loss of engine power due to a possible paint adherence defect inside the engine air 

intake box, accomplish the following: 

Inspect the engine air intake box (including the deflection flap) and the engine air intake 

ducting (include the area downstream of the filter) per Alpha Aviation Service Bulletin No. AASB-71-007 dated August 2014 or later approved revisions. 

If any defects are found, replace affected parts per SB No. AA-SB-71-007 before further flight. 

The replacement of defective parts is not a terminating action to the repetitive inspection 

requirements mandated by this AD. 

From the effective date of this AD do not install a painted engine air intake box or a repaired 

engine air duct on any aircraft. 

(EASA AD 2014-0155 and CEAPR SB No. 161R3 dated 6 Sep 2012 refer) 

Within the next 100 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS. 

DCAIR2000125 - 29 June 2006 

DCAIR2000/25A - 5 September 2014 

DCAIR2000125A revised to introduce Alpha Aviation Service Bulletin No. AA-SB-71-007 dated 

August 2014 which provides more specific inspection and replacement instructions. This SB 

supersedes the requirements in CEAPR SB No. 161. 

Owen Oils 

Airworthiness Specialist 

Delegate of the Civil Aviation Authortiy of New Zealand 

28 August 2014
Marlene RIDDLE v. Craig RIDDLE

2150862

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 24, 2017 Reh. denied March 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 Globetech  Environmental,
Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David
Alexander,  Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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


By: /s/ Theodor Hennig
Theodor Hennig

Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director

(Principal Financial Officer)

April 18, 2006


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.