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



Exhibit 1.2
 Ford Credit Floorplan Master Owner Trust __
SERIES __
FLOATING RATE ASSET BACKED NOTES
 INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
 Agreement Servicer Ford Credit Representatives Underwriters
 FCF Corp FCF LLC Transferors Transferor Underwriting
Agreement
 (a)
    
    the Series ___Class A Floating Rate Asset Backed Notes (the
Class A Notes); and(b)
    
    the Series ___Class B Floating Rate Backed Notes (the Class
B Notes and, together with the Class A Notes, the Notes).
 Issuer Trust Agreement Owner Trustee Delaware Trustee  Base Indenture Indenture Trustee  Indenture
Supplement




---



##### 



Indemnification and Contribution
 Act provided however provided further
   2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



Payment of Expenses
 Notices
   4




---



##### 



Ford Motor Credit CompanyOne American RoadSuite 2411, Office 212-016Dearborn, Michigan 48126Attention: Corporate SecretaryTelephone: (313) 323-1200Fax: (313) 248-7613
 Successors
 Governing Law . THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
 Submission to Jurisdiction
 Waiver of Jury Trial . EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT IRREVOCABLY WAIVES, TO THE
FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY AND ALL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL
PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS
AGREEMENT.
 Severability
 5




---



##### 



Counterparts
 6




---



##### 



FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANYBy:Name:Title:
 [UNDERWRITER]By:Name:Title:[UNDERWRITER]By:Name:Title:[UNDERWRITER]By:Name:Title:
 
 7
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PORT PENN HUNTING LODGE § ASSOCIATION, a Delaware General § Partnership, § No. 235, 2019 § Petitioner-Below, § Appellant, § Court Below: § Court of Chancery v. § of the State of Delaware § MATTHEW S. MEYER, individually § and in his official capacity as the § C.A. No . 2018-0328 TMR County Executive for New Castle § County, NEW CASTLE COUNTY, § a political subdivision of the State of § Delaware, TRACY SURLES, § individually and in her official capacity § as the General Manager of Special § Services for New Castle County, § MARY A. JACOBSON, individually § and in her official capacity as Legal § Counsel to the Department of Land Use § for New Castle County, RICHARD E. § HALL, individually and in his official § capacity as the General Manager of the § Department of Land Use for New Castle § County, § § Respondents-Below, § Appellees. §

Submitted: November 13, 2019

Decided: November 18, 2019

Before VALIHURA

, VAUGHN and TRAYNOR , Justices.

This 18th day of November, 2019, having considered this matter on the briefs and

oral arguments of the parties and the record below, and having concluded that the sameshould be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Court of Chancery

in its Memorandum Opin ion dated May 9, 2019;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery

be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. 1

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice

1 We note that the Court of Chan cery rejected Appellant’s regulatory taking argument because of Appellant’s failure to exhaus t administrative remedies. Port Penn Hunting Lodge Ass’n v. Meyer

, 2019 WL 2077600, at *7 (Del. Ch. May 9, 2019) (observing that, “Section 40.31.600 of New Castle County’s Unified Development Code require s a petitioner pursuing a Takings claim to first pursue the administrative remedy of a beneficial use appeal with the New Castle County Board of Adjustment.”). In defending the court’s reject ion of Appellant’s “takings” claim, the County argued to this Court in its brief that, “Port Penn, however, does not al lege that it has been denied all economically viable use of the land because it cannot – it may unquestionably develop its property using septic systems.” Answering Br. at 27. At oral argument, the County raised new
facts on this issue which contradict these statements in its briefi ng. For example, it advised this
Court that it has enacted a moratorium on the installation of septic systems. See Oral Argument Video at 19:26–19:38, https://livestream.com/accounts/59698 52/events/8882479/videos/198891718 (informing the Court that Appellant cannot curren tly develop the property with individual septic systems because “the County Council has passed a moratorium on those . . . .”). The new facts raised at oral argument are not te chnically part of the record befo re us, and so we do not consider them. They may be relevant in any further ad ministrative proceedings before the New Castle Board of Adjustment.
James Ray DEAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3900

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 7, 2019

James Ray Dean, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED .

Wetherell, Osterhaus, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  N EVADA B ELL , Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. P AC -W EST T ELECOMM , I NC ., No. 01-15790

Defendant-Appellant, D.C. No.



#  and CV-99-00492-ECR N EVADA P UBLIC U TILITIES ORDER C OMMISSION ; J UDY M. S HELDREW , and M ICHAEL A. P ITLOCK , Commissioners, Defendants. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Edward C. Reed, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 12, 2005—San Francisco, California

Filed January 24, 2005
Before: John T. Noonan, Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges,

and Robert E. Jones.*

COUNSEL D. Anthony Rodriguez, San Francisco, California, for the defendant-appellant. *The Honorable Robert E. Jones, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
1013Kevin M. Fong, San Francisco, California, for the plaintiffappellee.

ORDER The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 1014 B ELL v. P AC -W EST T ELECOMMPRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2005 Thomson/West.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(17)
              - products_data(2)
              - products_publications(42)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - (-)multimedia_image(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(3)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(14)
              - american samoa(1)
              - arizona(4)
              - arkansas(9)
              - california(25)
              - colorado(10)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(12)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(18)
              - georgia(7)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(4)
              - idaho(2)
              - indiana(17)
              - iowa(5)
              - kansas(5)
              - louisiana(35)
              - maine(13)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(13)
              - michigan(2)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(2)
              - missouri(12)
              - montana(15)
              - nebraska(2)
              - nevada(2)
              - new hampshire(3)
              - new jersey(8)
              - (-)new mexico(4)
              - new york(14)
              - north carolina(13)
              - north dakota(35)
              - ohio(20)
              - oklahoma(5)
              - oregon(4)
              - pennsylvania(4)
              - puerto rico(6)
              - south carolina(5)
              - south dakota(30)
              - tennessee(2)
              - texas(42)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(1)
              - vermont(37)
              - virginia(7)
              - washington(21)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(12)

## By Year

Photography        August 1, 2016        Erosion along the Rio Puerco during the flood of 2006

Photography        April 1, 2017        Remote Control Streamflow Measurement

Photography        October 17, 2016        Rio Brazos near Tierra Amarilla, NM

Illustrations        June 17, 2022        Installing natural infrastructure can impact the water and carbon budgets of dryland streams and watersheds
Charlie JACKSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4036

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit 7

LOGO

---

| |  | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Chartered AccountantsPlace de la Cité, Tour Cominar
2640 Laurier Boulevard, Suite 1700
Sainte-Foy, Quebec
Canada G1V 5C2
Telephone +1 (418) 522 7001
Facsimile +1 (418) 522 5663
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Æterna Zentaris Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004 of our
report dated February 25, 2005, except as to note 25c) which is as of March 10, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements for the three-years ended
December 31, 2004 which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders.

LOGO

Chartered Accountants

Quebec,
Quebec, Canada
February 25, 2005

PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to the Canadian firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International
Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit  32.a








CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE


13a-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








As required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Ivor J. Evans, hereby certify that:





|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Annual Report of Meritor, Inc. on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and




|   |                                                                                                                                                       
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Meritor, Inc.



















/s/ Ivor J. EvansIvor J. EvansChairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer








Date:  December 12, 2014
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

-Ur. 1. ?redeckl 

County Auditoz 

Ollrorton, Psxar 

Jatr 6W 

the Tin 18arlt.r 

Under the temu at Seatlon 6X0, 15 II. S. C. A., 

the real Plwp~rty of bdfuwe ?Lant QoYpontliYn 10 

rubject to State aad aaunt-f ~3 alarem turtiar. X.W., 

the builaia$g in quoatlen wuuld be tuabla by the oatoltr 

and State, an a part of the land on vhich it ir dtuated. II Its erection har enhawed the tslue of the 
b. 1. rredaeki - rage 2 

.
IV 

House Calendar No. 87 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 492 

[Report No. 113–362] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 899) to provide for additional 

safeguards with respect to imposing Federal mandates, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 

Ms. FOXX, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 899) to provide 

for additional safeguards with respect to imposing Federal mandates, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this reso2 lution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

3 XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of 

4 the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 899) to provide for additional safe6 guards with respect to imposing Federal mandates, and 

7 for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 492 RH 

1 dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 

2 of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined 

3 to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided 

4 and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 

5 of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

6 After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

7 amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 

8 considered as read. All points of order against provisions 

9 in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be 

10 in order except those printed in the report of the Com11 mittee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 

12 amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 

13 the report, may be offered only by a Member designated 

14 in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debat15 able for the time specified in the report equally divided 

16 and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall 

17 not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to 

18 a demand for division of the question in the House or in 

19 the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 

20 such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consid21 eration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 

22 and report the bill to the House with such amendments 

23 as may have been adopted. The previous question shall 

24 be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 492 RH 

1 thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 

2 one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 87 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 492 

[Report No. 113–362] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 899) 

purposes. to imposing Federal mandates, and for other to provide for additional safeguards with respect 

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE of Louisiana v. Darnay THIBODAUX

No. 2017-KP-1452

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 18, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator's guilty plea waived all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings leading to her conviction. *State v. Crosby* , 338 So.2d 584, 586 (La. 1976).

Relator has now fully litigated her application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless she can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted her right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record *774a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
EXHIBIT 10.3


 


ANDREW CORPORATION


EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE BENEFIT PLAN AGREEMENT


 


THIS AGREEMENT, made this 5th day of July, 2004, by and between Andrew
Corporation (the “Company”) and Marty Kittrell (the “Executive”),


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Andrew Corporation Executive
Severance Benefit Plan, as amended and restated effective May 14, 2004 (the
“Plan”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Executive has been designated as an eligible participant
in the Plan;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Executive and Company hereby agree as follows:


 


1.                                       Plan
Benefits.  The Executive has been
designated as a TIER II Participant in the Plan and shall be eligible solely
for the benefits set forth therein applicable to TIER II Participants.  The receipt of such benefits shall be subject
to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Plan, including, but not
limited to, terms related to the amount, time and form of benefits.  By execution of this Agreement, the
Executive agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Plan, as amended and
restated effective May 14, 2004, and as may be subsequently amended.


 


2.                                       Arbitration.  The Executive acknowledges that
Section 7.2 of the Plan contains an arbitration provision, and by
execution of this Agreement agrees to be bound by the terms of such arbitration
provision.


 


3.                                       Plan
Not Contract of Employment.  The
Plan does not constitute a contract of employment and nothing in the Plan shall
be construed to give the Executive the right to be retained by the Company or
to any benefits not specifically provided by the Plan.


 


4.                                       Plan
Supercedes Prior Change in Control Severance Agreements.  The Executive acknowledges and agrees that
the benefits and terms set forth in the May 14, 2004 restatement of the Plan,
as applicable to the Participant based on the Tier designated in paragraph 1
above, are a replacement for and in lieu of any benefits to which the Executive
may have been entitled under the Plan prior to its restatement or under any
other agreement with the Company relating to Change in Control severance
benefits.  The Executive further
acknowledges such benefits and terms may be subsequently amended pursuant to
Section 7.1 of the Plan.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed as of the date first above written.


 


	
  EXECUTIVE

  	
  ANDREW CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Marty R. Kittrell

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Ralph E. Faison

  	
   

  
	
  , individually

  	
   

  	
  By: Ralph E. Faison

  
	
   

  	
  Its: President & Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark Stubbs, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of CallWave, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of CallWave, Inc.



|      |  |                   |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|----- |  | ----------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|      |  |                   |  | 
|Date: |  | November 12, 2007 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Mark Stubbs        
|      |  |                   |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Mark Stubbs            
|      |  |                   |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
Louis FERNANDEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3949

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Demetrius SNELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2209

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 20, 2018]

Daniel Tibbitt of Daniel J. Tibbitt, P.A., North Miami, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

May, Ciklin and Levine, JJ., concur.
Kristina ROBINSON, Appellant, v. Victor ROBINSON, as Administrator Ad Litem for the Estate of Raychelle L. Holmes-Robinson, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1565

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 19, 2018

Michael Bowlus, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Jeffrey A. Cramer and Clayton T. Miller of Cramer Law Center, P.L., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Wetherell and Winsor, JJ., concur.
Jeffrey Allen ELPERS, DOC #U39257, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-700

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 21, 2018

**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 Annual Report of Delta Mutual, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin G. Chilek,
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
to the best of my knowledge: (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.

                                                /s/ Martin G. Chilek
                                                ---------------------
                                                Martin G. Chilek
                                                Chief Financial Officer

 April 3, 2006
Steve AUSTIN Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1792

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 7, 2018.

Steve Austin Jr., in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, EMAS, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.