alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex4-6.htm


    Exhibit 4.6

      


       

      WAIVER

      


      In
consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s
participation in the United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital
Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States
or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required
to comply with the regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury as
published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008.

      


      I
acknowledge that this regulation may require modification of the compensation,
bonus, incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements
(including so-called “golden parachute” agreements) that I have with my employer
or in which I participate as they relate to the period the United States holds
any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital
Purchase Program.

      


      This
waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any
state related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation,
including without limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I
would otherwise receive, any challenge to the process by which this regulation
was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of these
regulations on my employment relationship.

      


      


      


      
        
          
            	
                    Date:

                  	 
      
	 
      	
                    Signature

                  
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                    Print
      Name
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                         438,083
<SECURITIES>                                   312,657
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,392,873
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    394,919
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,968,890
<PP&E>                                       1,549,677
<DEPRECIATION>                                 848,739
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,866,620
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,481,451
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,304,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,866,620
<SALES>                                      3,940,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,940,607
<CGS>                                        2,005,503
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,508,778
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                443,722
<INCOME-TAX>                                   141,991
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            301,731
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   301,731
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.82<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.78<F1>
<FN>
<F1>The Company effected a two for one split on November 18, 1996. Earnings per
share has been restated to reflect this split for only the quarter ended
September 30, 1996 in conjunction with the adoption of FAS 128.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 34.1**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Discover Bank 

New Castle, DE 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria, that Discover Bank (the “Bank”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities transactions involving credit card receivables conducted by Discover Card Master Trust I and Discover Card Execution Note Trust (the “Platform”) as ofand for the year ended November 30, 2011, excluding the criteria set forth in Items 1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(1)(iv), (d)(2)(iii), (d)(2)(iv), (d)(2)(v), (d)(2)(vi), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(i), (d)(4)(iv), (d)(4)(vi), (d)(4)(vii),(d)(4)(viii), (d)(4)(ix), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), (d)(4)(xiii), (d)(4)(xiv), and (d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Bank with respect to the Platform. Appendix A tomanagement’s assertion identifies the individual asset backed-transactions defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Bank’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion on management’s assertion about the Bank’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Ourexamination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, ona test basis, evidence about the Bank’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Bank performed those selected activitiesin compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Bank duringthe period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arisingfrom errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Bank during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonablebasis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Bank’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

Inour opinion, management’s assertion that the Bank complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended November 30, 2011, for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Chicago,IL 

February 21, 2012
Jesse LEAHY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3397

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 15(b)






Texas Utilities Electric Company:


We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited condensed
consolidated interim financial information of Texas Utilities Electric Company
and subsidiaries ("TU Electric") for the periods ended September 30, 1998 and
1997, as indicated in our report dated November 12, 1998; because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in TU
Electric's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
1998, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-69554 and
333-42985 on Form S-3; and Registration Statement No. 33-83976 on Post
Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3, of Texas Utilities Electric Company.

We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of sections 7 and 11 of that
Act.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
November 12,1998
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 725 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 725

To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in State of Ohio 
                               v. Huston.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2022

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in State of Ohio 
                               v. Huston.

Whereas, in the case of State of Ohio v. Huston, 22-CR-B01061, pending in 
        Licking County Municipal Court in Newark, Ohio, the prosecution has 
        requested the production of testimony, and, if necessary, documents from 
        Aidan Gavin, an employee in Senator Rob Portman's office;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent current and former employees of the 
        Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony or 
        documents relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Aidan Gavin, and any other current or former 
employee of Senator Portman's office from whom relevant evidence maybe 
necessary, are authorized to testify and produce documents in the case 
of State of Ohio v. Huston, except concerning matters for which a 
privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Mr. 
Gavin and any current or former employee of Senator Portman's office in 
connection with the production of evidence authorized in section one of 
this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
*E-FILED 6/5/06* 

XXXXXXXXXXX

Case 5:05-cv-01890-RS   Document 17   Filed 06/05/06   Page 1 of 3

June 5, 2006

Case 5:05-cv-01890-RS   Document 17   Filed 06/05/06   Page 2 of 3

Case 5:05-cv-01890-RS   Document 17   Filed 06/05/06   Page 3 of 3
Edward LEVINE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D19-1424

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 24, 2019

Robert Wesley, Public Defender, and Melissa Vickers, Assistant Public Defender, Orlando, for Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General Tallahassee, and, Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the January 11, 2019 judgment and sentence rendered in Case No. 2013-CF-9302-O, in the Circuit Court *1265in and for Orange County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

BERGER, HARRIS and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT EQUIFAX, INC.; [PROPOSED] ORDER -1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Scott J. Sagaria (SBN 217981)

SJSagaria@sagarialaw.com

Elliot W. Gale (SBN 263326)

EGale@sagarialaw.com

Joe Angelo (SBN 268542)

JAngelo@sagarialaw.com

SAGARIA LAW, P.C.

3017 Douglas Blvd., Ste 100

Roseville, CA 95661

Telephone: (408) 279-2288

Facsimile: (408) 297-2299

Attorneys for Plaintiff Tanesha Collazo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TANESHA COLLAZO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, 

INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 4:17-cv-00416-YGR

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF 

DEFENDANT EQUIFAX, INC.; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

TO THE COURT, CLERK OF COURT, AND ALL PARTIES:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff Tanesha Collazo and defendant

Equifax, Inc. that Equifax, Inc. be dismissed from this action with prejudice pursuant to 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a)(2), and that each party shall bear its own 

attorneys’ fees and costs.

//

//

//

//

//

Case 4:17-cv-00416-YGR Document 46 Filed 05/31/17 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT EQUIFAX, INC.; [PROPOSED] ORDER -2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DATED: May 30, 2017 Sagaria Law, P.C.

By: /s/ Elliot Gale

Elliot Gale

Attorney for Plaintiff Tanesha Collazo

DATED: May 30, 2017 Nokes & Quinn, APC

By: /s/ Thomas P. Quinn, Jr.

Thomas P. Quinn, Jr.

Attorney for Defendant Equifax, Inc.

I, Elliot Gale, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this 

Stipulation. I hereby attest that Thomas P. Quinn, Jr. has concurred in this filing.

/s/ Elliot Gale

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the Parties, Equifax, Inc. is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:17-cv-00416-YGR Document 46 Filed 05/31/17 Page 2 of 2
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 724 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the historic definition of a recession 

is 2 negative quarters of gross domestic product growth. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2022 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, and Ms. LUMMIS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the historic definition of a recession is 2 negative quarters of gross domestic product growth. 

Whereas, globally, the most commonly used and widely accepted definition of recession is 2 negative quarters of 

gross domestic product growth; 

Whereas most of the recessions in the United States identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research have 

consisted of 2 negative quarters of gross domestic product growth and in each of the last 10 instances in which 

there have been 2 or more such quarters, a recession was 

officially declared; 

Whereas use of the historic definition of a recession by the 

Federal Government has been important for purposes of 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 724 IS 

economic study and analysis, historic comparisons, and 

policy making: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the 

2 Federal Government should continue to use the historic 

3 definition of a recession. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Bradford W. POPE v. Kimberly Michell POPE

2160779

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 26, 2018

Dismissed.
---

Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of PDC 2004-D Limited Partnership (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned certify pursuant to § 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 Exchange 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
      Registrant.





/s/ Richard W.
    McCullough
            
            September
      23, 2009Richard
      W. McCulloughChief
      Executive OfficerPetroleum
      Development CorporationManaging
      General Partner/s/ Gysle R. Shellum
            
            September
      23, 2009Gysle
      R. ShellumChief
      Financial OfficerPetroleum
      Development CorporationManaging
      General Partner





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 required
by Section 906, has been provided by the Registrant and will be retained by the
Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00242-CR

JEREMY ADAM MANGUM,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 24-01317-CRM-CCL2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jeremy Mangum appeals from the trial court’s judgment, signed June 27, 2024; 

however, the trial court’s certification of his right of appeal, which Mangum and his 

counsel signed, indicates that this is a plea-bargain case and that Mangum has no right 

of appeal and that Mangum has waived his right of appeal. Accordingly, this appeal 

must be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d) (“The appeal must be dismissed if a 

certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of 

the record under these rules.”); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 
Mangum v. State Page 2

2006) (plea bargain); Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (waiver 

of appeal).

Notwithstanding that we are dismissing this appeal, Mangum may file a motion 

for rehearing with this Court within 15 days after this opinion and judgment are 

rendered if he believes this opinion and judgment are erroneously based on inaccurate 

information or documents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. Moreover, if Mangum desires to 

have the opinion and judgment of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for 

discretionary review, that petition must be filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals 

within 30 days after either the day this Court’s judgment is rendered or the day the last 

timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this Court. See id. R. 68.2(a).

For the reasons stated, this appeal is dismissed. 

MATT JOHNSON

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed August 8, 2024

Do not publish

[CR25]
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 Cass Information Systems, Inc. ("the
Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric H.
Brunngraber, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Exchange 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.


                                           /s/ Eric H. Brunngraber
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Eric H. Brunngraber
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           May 6, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Cass Information Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Cass
Information Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
EX-35.2
Wachovia Securities
201 South College Street
CP9
Charlotte, NC 28244-1075

(logo) WACHOVIA SECURITIES


1123 SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
as of August 1, 2007, by and among Wachovia Commercial Mortgage Securities,
Inc., as Depositor, Wachovia Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,
LNR Partners, Inc., as Special Servicer, and Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-C33 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein
not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 3.13 of this Agreement, Timothy Ryan and Marilyn Addison,
Managing Director Customer Relationship Management and Director of Compliance
Third Party Oversight, do hereby certify that:

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer, during the period from
   August 1, 2007 and of its performance December 31, 2007, per the Agreement
   during such period has been made under our supervision; and

2. To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has
   fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material
   respects throughout the period August 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate as of the
10th day of March 2008.



/s/ Timothy Ryan
Timothy Ryan, Managing Director
Wachovia Bank National Association

/s/ Marilyn Addison
Marilyn Addison, Director
Wachovia Bank National Association
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA STARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

PFIZER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01488-JST 

ORDER VACATING MOTION 

HEARING

Before the Court is Defendant Pfizer's motion to stay and Plaintiff’s motion to remand. 

ECF No. 17. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the 

Court finds that the parties’ briefs have thoroughly addressed the issues, rendering the matter 

suitable for disposition without oral argument. The hearing on this matter, currently scheduled for 

June 12, 2014, is hereby VACATED.

However, if any party advises the Court in writing by no later than two days from the date 

of this Order that most or all of the argument for its side will be conducted by a lawyer who has 

been licensed to practice law for four or fewer years, and who has not previously presented 

argument before this Court, then the Court will reschedule the hearing at a time that is convenient 

to all parties in order to provide that opportunity. Counsel shall confer with each other, and the 

party requesting the rescheduling of the hearing shall identify the upcoming available dates on the 

Court’s calendar at which all counsel are available for the hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2014

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01488-EMC Document 28 Filed 06/02/14 Page 1 of 1