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

Servicer Compliance Certificate

FIFTH THIRD AUTO TRUST 2013-1





The undersigned, a duly authorized
officer of Fifth Third Bank (Fifth Third), an Ohio banking corporation, as servicer (in such capacity, the Servicer) under the Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 21, 2013 (as amended and supplemented,
or otherwise modified and in effect from time to time, the Servicing Agreement), by and among Fifth Third Auto Trust 2013-1, the Servicer and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Indenture Trustee, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from August 21, 2013 through December 31, 2013 (the Reporting
Period), and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate on behalf of the Servicer
this 28th day of March, 2014.



FIFTH THIRD BANKBy:

/s/ Nathan Steuber


Name:

Nathan SteuberTitle:

Vice President


Servicer Compliance Certificate

(FTAT 2013-1)
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Tamas HARRIS, Jr., Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2093

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 824 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 824

 To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. Steele-
                                 Smith.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 11, 2022

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. Steele-
                                 Smith.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Steele-Smith, Cr. No. 21-77, pending in 
        the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the 
        prosecution has requested the production of testimony from Daniel 
        Schwager, a former employee of the Office of the Secretary of the 
        Senate, and from Nate Russell and Diego Torres, custodians of records in 
        the Senate Recording Studio, a department of the Office of the Sergeant 
        at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;
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 officers and 
        employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request 
        for evidence 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 Daniel Schwager, a former employee of the Office of 
the Secretary of the Senate, and Nate Russell and Diego Torres, 
custodians of records in the Senate Recording Studio, are authorized to 
provide relevant testimony in the case of United States v. Steele-
Smith, except concerning matters for which a privilege should be 
asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Messrs. Schwager, Russell, and Torres, and any current or former 
officer or employee of their offices, in connection with the production 
of evidence authorized in section one of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Axcess International, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report 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 with
respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined Exchange Act
Rules 13-15(f) and 15d-(f)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidating
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report was prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report (the
Evaluation Date); andc)
    
    presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the required
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 6.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our
most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.
  /s/ ALLAN GRIEBENOWAllan Griebenow, President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11004]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Amendment Consent Decree Pursuant to the 
Safe Drinking Water Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy and 28 C.F.R. 50.7, notice 
is hereby given that on April 24, 1995, a proposed Amendment To Consent 
Decree For Injunction Relief in United States v. Silver Bow Water Inc., 
et al., Civil Action No. 94CV026, was lodged with the United States 
District Court for the District of Montana.
    The proposed amendment modified a consent decree entered on May 15, 
1992 which resolved claims by the United States and State of Montana 
against Silver Bow Water, Inc. and the City-County of Butte-Silver Bow 
under Sections 1414 and 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 
300g-3 and 300i. The consent decree required inter alia, the 
construction of two drinking water filtration plants. The scheduled 
date for completion, startup and compliance of the two plants with the 
Safe Drinking Water Act was December 31, 1994 under the decree. The 
proposed amendment modifies the compliance schedule for the Moulton 
water treatment plant to allow for construction of custom filtration 
technology with a final compliance date on June 1, 1995. The compliance 
schedule for the Big Hole water treatment plant is unaffected by the 
proposed amendment.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed amendment to consent decree. Comments should be addressed to 
the Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, 
Washington, D.C. 20044, and should refer to United States v. Silver Bow 
Water, Inc. et al., DOJ Ref. #90-5-1-1-3751A.
    The proposed consent decree amendment may be examined at the Office 
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 
Montana Office, 301 S. Park, Helena, Montana 59626 and at the Consent 
Decree Library, 1120 ``G'' Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 
20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the proposed decree amendment may be 
obtained in person or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G 
Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. In requesting a copy, 
please refer to the referenced case and number, and enclose a check in 
the amount of $2.50 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), payable to 
the Consent Decree Library.
Joel Gross,
Acting Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 95-11004 Filed 5-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10956]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-238-001]


Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Supplemental Filing 
of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

April 28, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 26, 1995, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing the following tariff sheet 
to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, to be effective 
May 4, 1995, the effective date of Order No. 577. Columbia Gulf states 
that this filing is intended to supplement Columbia Gulf's April 19, 
1995, filing initiating this docket.

Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 192

    In Order No. 577, the Commission modified its capacity release 
regulations to permit shippers to release firm capacity for a period of 
one calendar month or less without having to comply with advance 
posting and bidding requirements. On April 19, 1995, Columbia Gulf 
filed tariff sheets initiating this docket reflecting the changes 
dictated by Order No. 577. In that filing, Columbia Gulf also shortened 
the duration of minimum posting periods in Section 14.2(e) of the 
General Terms and Conditions (GTC) of its tariff.
    Further review of this tariff section revealed that it is different 
from GTC Section 14.2(e) in Columbia as Transmission Corporation's 
(Columbia) FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, which is 
simply the result of an oversight during the Order No. 636 
restructuring process for Columbia and Columbia Gulf. Columbia Gulf 
cites to its restructuring orders as requiring that this provision be 
identical for Columbia and Columbia Gulf. Columbia Gulf further states 
that the above referenced tariff sheet corrects Columbia Gulf's GTC 
Section 14.2(e) to be identical to Columbia's same provision.
    Columbia Gulf states that copies of its filing have been mailed to 
all firm customers and affected state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before May 5, 1995. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Copies of Columbia Gulf's filings are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-10956 Filed 5-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Winthrop
Residential Associates III, A Limited Partnership and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
       
<S>                                            <C>               
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996 
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996 
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996 
<CASH>                                           1,437,000 
<SECURITIES>                                             0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0 
<PP&E>                                                   0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,862,000 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0 
<BONDS>                                                  0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0 
<PREFERRED>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                                 0 
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,835,000 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,862,000 
<SALES>                                                  0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   305,000 
<CGS>                                                    0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        3,000 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    295,000 
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                295,000 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       295,000 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        10.92 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        10.92 
                                                                 


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Bahir Manios, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F as amended by Amendment No. 1 of Brookfield Infrastructure Partners L.P.;

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
| Dated: March 6, 2019                          |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                               |   |   |
| /s/ Bahir Manios                                   |   |   |
| Name: Bahir Manios                                 |   |   |
| Title: CFO, Brookfield   Infrastructure Group L.P. |   |   |

 

----
Marino POLANCO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10161.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
10-301

United States v. Capeci

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.

CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS

PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1 AND

FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY

ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER

THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION

“SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A

COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York,

on the 7th day of June, two thousand eleven,

Present: AMALYA L. KEARSE,

ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

GERARD E. LYNCH,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

 -v- 10-301

JERRY CAPECI,

Interested-Party-Appellant,

MILANA MURCIA,

Defendant.

 

Appearing for Appellant: Stephen Gikow, Media Freedom & Information Access Practicum,

Yale Law School, New Haven, CT, Nathan Siegel, Levine Sullivan

Koch & Schultz, LLP, Washington, D.C. (on the brief). 

 
2

Appearing for Appellee: Nicholas L. McQuaid, Assistant United States Attorney for the

Southern District of New York (Preet Bharara, United States

Attorney for the Southern District of New York; Jesse M. Furman,

Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New

York, on the brief)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 

(Karas, J.).

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. 

Jerry Capeci seeks review of the January 6, 2010 order of the United States District Court

for the Southern District of New York (Karas, J.) ordering that the transcript of certain

proceedings that took place before it continue to be sealed. Capeci sought to unseal the

transcript, arguing its sealing violated the First Amendment. We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

For the purposes of this appeal, we assume without deciding that there was a presumptive

public right of access to the proceeding in question, and that the presumption of openness may

be overcome only “by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to

preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Press-Enterprise Co. v.

Superior Court of California, 478 U.S. 1, 9 (1986). 

 We find no error with the district court’s reasons for sealing, set forth in its sealed order

of January 6, 2010. The government is reminded that should the conditions for unsealing set

forth in the sealed order come to pass, it is under a continuing obligation to inform the district

court.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Subramanian Sundaresh, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Adaptec, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the "Form 10-Q"), that the
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Adaptec, Inc. for the quarterly periods covered by the Form 10-Q.

|Date: August 5, 2008 | By: /s/ SUBRAMANIAN SUNDARESH
                Subramanian SundareshChief Executive Officer
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, Mary L. Dotz, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Form 10-Q, that the Form 10-Q
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Adaptec, Inc. for the periods covered by the Form 10-Q.

|Date: August 5, 2008 | By: /s/ MARY L. DOTZ
                Mary L. DotzChief Financial Officer
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

---