alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Terrance J. Lillis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of PrincipalLife Income Fundings Trust 2007-87 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report isincluded in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 27, 2008   /s/ Terrance J. Lillis   Terrance J. Lillis  Chief Financial Officer- Retirement and Investor Services
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

WATERFURNACE INTERNATIONAL, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:15-CV-8

)

B&S SHEET METAL MECHANICAL, INC., )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

On January 29, 2015, this Court entered an Opinion and Order instructing pro se

Defendant William Jackson that his amended notice of removal was again inadequate with

respect to alleging diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, affording him through

February 12, 2015, to supplement the record with respect to the citizenship of Defendant Jackson

Geothermal HVAC and Drilling, LLC. (Docket # 9; see Docket # 6.) As the party seeking to

invoke federal diversity jurisdiction, Jackson bears the burden of demonstrating that the

requirement of complete diversity has been met. Chase v. Shop’n Save Warehouse Foods, Inc.,

110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). 

But on February 5, 2015, Jackson inexplicably filed what appears to be the same

inadequate Amended Notice of Removal that he filed on January 29, 2015 (Docket # 8), alleging

that “Defendant Jackson Geothermal HVAC and Drilling, LLC, is a fictitious entity organized

and registered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its members being the following

individuals: Defendant Garth Jackson, Defendant William Craig Jackson, Andrew Jackson and

Christopher Jackson,” who are all “individuals domiciled in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.” (Am. Notice of Removal ¶¶ 8-12.) 

To reiterate, the jurisdictional allegations with respect to Defendant “Jackson Geothermal

HVAC and Drilling LLC,” stating that it is a “fictitious entity” are inadequate. If Jackson

Geothermal HVAC and Drilling, LLC, is a limited liability company as its name suggests, the

Notice of Removal must state so, and then articulate the identity and citizenship of each of its

members. See Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998) (stating that a limited

liability company’s citizenship “for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its

members”). 

Therefore Jackson is ORDERED to supplement the record on or before February 19,

2015, to adequately recite the citizenship of Defendant Jackson Geothermal HVAC and Drilling,

LLC. As this Court has already twice informed Jackson, anything less can result in a dismissal

or remand for want of jurisdiction. Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC,

364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). 

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 5th day of February 2015.

s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:15-CR-17-TLS 

 ) 

GLORIA BERNDT ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 11], filed on May 7, 2015. The Defendant has waived objection to 

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and 

Recommendation [ECF No. 11] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject 

to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is hereby 

accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on May 26, 2015. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FDIC Post-Government Employment Certification

The applicable law on post-employment restrictions can be found at 18 U.S.C. § 207.

The post-employment law limits the type of activities a former employee can engage in

following termination of his or her Government employment. Specifically, section 207

imposes a:

. Lifetime prohibition on the representation of any party other than on behalf of the

United States on particular matters involving specific parties in which an employee

participated personally and substantially.

. Two-year prohibition on appearing before or communicating with the United States

on behalf of another part involving matters that were actually pending under the

employee's official responsibility during the one-year period prior to his departure

from Federal service.

. A one-year "cooling-off' period after termination of employment, restricting a former

senior employee from knowingly acting as an agent or attorney for, or otherwise

representing any other person, except the United States, in any formal or informal

appearance before, or with the intent to influence, making any oral or written

communication on behalf of any other person other than the United States to the

FDIC or any of its officers or employees, in connection with any particular

government matter pending before the FDIC, or in which the FDIC has a direct and

substantial interest.

These prohibitions are designed to bar those activities of former employees which may

reasonably give the appearance of making unfair use of prior Government employment

and affiliations.

As a former employee of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, I certify under

penalty of law, that I have not been identified as a "senior employee" subject to the oneyear "cooling-off period". I further certify that the work I am being asked to perform on

behalf of

(name of contractor)

for (solicitation or contract number)

does not involve my representation of any party, other than the United States, on any

matter in which I participated personally and substantially, or which was actually pending

under my official authority prior to my termination of employment with FDIC or the

Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC).

Name of former FDIC or RTC Employee:

Signature Date

May 2009 Version
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28625-28626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13279]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28626]]

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

[Docket No. AB-43 (Sub-No. 168X)]


Illinois Central Railroad Co.--Abandonment Exemption--in Hinds 
County, MS

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: Under 49 U.S.C. 10505, the Commission exempts from the 
regulatory requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903-04 the abandonment by 
Illinois Central Railroad Company of 2.7 miles of rail line, between 
milepost NN-178.50 at Elton and milepost NN-181.21 at Jackson, in Hinds 
County, MS, subject to a public use condition, a historic preservation 
condition, and the standard employee protective conditions. The 
Commission also issues a notice of interim trail use.

DATES: Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of 
financial assistance has been received, this exemption will be 
effective on July 1, 1995. Formal expressions of intent to file an 
offer <SUP>1 of financial assistance under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2) must be 
filed by June 12, 1995. Petitions to stay must be filed by June 16, 
1995. Requests for a public use condition must be filed by June 21, 
1995. Petitions to reopen must be filed by June 26, 1995.

    \1\ See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment--Offers of Finan. Assist., 4 
I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).

ADDRESSES: Send pleadings referring to Docket No. AB-43 (Sub-No. 168X) 
to: (1) Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate 
Commerce Commission, 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20423; and (2) Miles L. Tobin, Esq., 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago, IL 60611-5504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 927-5660. 
[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Commission's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write 
to, call, or pick up in person from: Dynamic Concepts, Inc., Interstate 
Commerce Commission Building, Room 2229, 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 289-4357/4359. [Assistance for 
the hearing impaired is available through TDD services (202) 927-5721].

    Decided: May 17, 1995.

    By the Commission, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Owen, and 
Commissioners Simmons and McDonald.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-13279 Filed 5-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
# Euroopa Liidu C 23/18.

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 23 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 62. aastakäik18. jaanuar 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 23

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

62. aastakäik18. jaanuar 2019

---

| Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Teatised |
| | EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDE, ORGANITE JA ASUTUSTE TEATISED |
| | Euroopa Komisjon |
| 2019/C 23/01 | Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artiklite 107 ja 108 raames antava riigiabi lubamine – Juhud, mille suhtes komisjonil ei ole vastuväiteid (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Sisukord

Lehekülg

II   Teatised

EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDE, ORGANITE JA ASUTUSTE TEATISED

Euroopa Komisjon

2019/C 23/01

Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artiklite 107 ja 108 raames antava riigiabi lubamine – Juhud, mille suhtes komisjonil ei ole vastuväiteid (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   EMPs kohaldatav tekst. |

---

(1)   EMPs kohaldatav tekst.

1

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

II Teatised

EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDE, ORGANITE JA ASUTUSTE TEATISED

Euroopa Komisjon

| 18.1.2019 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 23/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2019

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 23/1

---

Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artiklite 107 ja 108 raames antava riigiabi lubamine

Juhud, mille suhtes komisjonil ei ole vastuväiteid

(EMPs kohaldatav tekst)

(2019/C 23/01)

| Otsuse vastuvõtmise kuupäev | 06.12.2018 |
| --- | --- |
| Abi number | SA.52444 (2018/N) |
| Liikmesriik | Kreeka |
| Piirkond | — | — |
| Nimetus (ja/või abisaaja nimi) | Prolongation of the Greek State Guarantee Scheme for banks (Art. 2 law 3723/2008) |
| Õiguslik alus | Law 3723/2008 „For the enhancement of liquidity of the economy in response to the impact of the international financial crisis“, GG A 250 |
| Meetme liik | Abikava | — |
| Eesmärk | Tõsise häire kõrvaldamine majanduses |
| Abi vorm | Tagatis |
| Eelarve | Üldeelarve: EUR 93 000 (miljonites) |
| Abi osatähtsus | — |
| Kestus | 01.12.2018 – 31.05.2019 |
| Majandusharud | Finantsteenuste osutamine; v.a kindlustus ja pensionifondid |
| Abi andva asutuse nimi ja aadress | Ministry of Finance |
| Nikis 5 – 7, 101 80, Athens, Greece |

Otsuse vastuvõtmise kuupäev

06.12.2018

Abi number

SA.52444 (2018/N)

Liikmesriik

Kreeka

Piirkond

—

—

Nimetus (ja/või abisaaja nimi)

Prolongation of the Greek State Guarantee Scheme for banks (Art. 2 law 3723/2008)

Õiguslik alus

Law 3723/2008 „For the enhancement of liquidity of the economy in response to the impact of the international financial crisis“, GG A 250

Meetme liik

Abikava

—

Eesmärk

Tõsise häire kõrvaldamine majanduses

Abi vorm

Tagatis

Eelarve

Üldeelarve: EUR 93 000 (miljonites)

Abi osatähtsus

—

Kestus

01.12.2018 – 31.05.2019

Majandusharud

Finantsteenuste osutamine; v.a kindlustus ja pensionifondid

Abi andva asutuse nimi ja aadress

Ministry of Finance

Nikis 5 – 7, 101 80, Athens, Greece

Muu teave

—

Otsuse autentne tekst, millest on eemaldatud kogu konfidentsiaalne teave, on kättesaadav järgmisel veebilehel:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm.

---
##### 



Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Thomas E. Jones, as Chief Executive Officer of CHAD Therapeutics, Inc. (the
Company), and Earl L. Yager, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that

(1)  the Companys Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) 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.

|                      |  |                     |                                                                    | 
|--------------------- |  | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Dated: August 8, 2003 |  | /S/ Thomas E. Jones |                                                                    | 
|                      |  |                    
|                      |  |                     | Thomas E. Jones
Chief Executive Officer
Of
CHAD Therapeutics, Inc.
|Dated: August 8, 2003 |  | /S/Earl L. Yager    |                                                                    | 
|                      |  |                    
|                      |  |                     | Earl L. Yager
Chief Financial Officer
Of
CHAD Therapeutics, Inc.
**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 Amended Annual Report of Cannonau Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A2 for the year ended December 31, 2021 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, Craig Burton, 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:

 

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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated this 13th day of June 2022.

 

/s*/Carmen J. Carbona*

Carmen J. Carbona

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("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 to Cannonau Corp., and will be retained Cannonau Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Hieda A. KEELER, petitioner, v. RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL, INC., et al.

No. 13-6560.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

TERRANCE S. MCKINNEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:15-cv-00079-WCL-SLC

)

)

THE OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF OF )

WHITLEY COUNTY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a motion for entry of agreed protective order (DE 16),

seeking approval of a proposed agreed protective order (DE 16-1) submitted by the parties

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G). For the following reasons, the motion

will be DENIED. 

Rule 26(c)(1) allows the Court to enter a protective order for good cause shown. 

However, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has made it clear that a protective order may

only issue if the order “makes explicit that either party and any interested member of the public

can challenge the secreting of particular documents.” Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v.

Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999). Language permitting an interested

member of the public to challenge the secreting of particular documents is missing from the

tendered order.

Also, the proposed agreed protective order mistakenly cites to the local rules of the

Southern District of Indiana and that court’s “Uniform Stipulated Protective Order.” (DE 16-1 at

1, 2, 3, 8). Of course, the local rules of the Southern District of Indiana and that court’s uniform
stipulated protective order do not apply to a proceeding in the Northern District of Indiana. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for entry of agreed protective order (DE 16)

seeking approval of the proposed agreed protective order (DE 16-1). The parties may submit a

revised proposed protective order consistent with the requirements of Rule 26(c)(1), Seventh

Circuit case law, and this Court’s local rules.

SO ORDERED. 

Entered this 19th day of October 2015.

S/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

2
#### LYNCH, Appellant, v. LASCH, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 31, 1899

Action by Charles Lynch against Sophie F. Lasch.

No opinion. Judgment reversed on argument, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.
*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 15, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41472

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

HECTOR RAUL GARZA,

 DefendantAppellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-02-CR-374-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Hector Raul Garza appeals his conditional guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent

to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marihuana. Garza contends that the district court erred in

denying his motion to suppress. He argues that the Border Patrol agents’ activation of their vehicle’s
-2-

overhead lights after his vehicle stopped constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment that was

not supported by reasonable suspicion. 

The Government contends that Garza has waived this issue by failing to raise it before the

district court. Garza’s motion to suppress before the district court contended that “the roving patrol

stop of [his] vehicle was done without reasonable suspicion . . . .” The district court addressed only

whether Garza voluntarily stopped his vehicle in its decision on the motion. 

Motions to suppress must be made before trial. FED. R. CRIM. P. 12(b)(3). The failure to

make such a motion constitutes a waiver and bars a defendant from raising the objection on appeal.

See FED. R. CRIM. P. 12(f) (2001); United States v. Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d 127, 129 (5th Cir.

1997). Likewise, the failure to raise a particular issue in a suppression motion operates as a waiver

unless the district court grants relief for good cause shown. See United States v. Carreon-Palacio,

267 F.3d 381, 389 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733, 738 (5th Cir. 1983).

Because Garza did not adequately raise the issue of whether the activation of the overhead lights on

the Border Patrol vehicle after Garza stopped his vehicle constituted a seizure in his motion to

suppress before the district court, he has waived this argument. See United States v. Medina, 887

F.2d 528, 533 (5th Cir. 1989); Harrelson, 705 F.2d at 738. Accordingly, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
#### VALENTINE, Respondent, v. ERIE R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 3, 1899.)

Action by Elizabeth M. Valentine, as executrix, etc.,_ against the Erie Railroad Company

No opinion. _ Motion for reargument denied. Motion for certificate to appeal to the court of appeals denied, with $10 costs. See 55 N. Y. Supp. 1150.
EXHIBIT 21
 El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P.
Ownership List as of December 31, 2008
 Jurisdiction ofCompany Name
    
    Incorporation
    
    
    % HeldEl Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P.
    
    DelawareEl Paso Pipeline Partners Operating Company, L.L.C.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100.00El Paso Wyoming Gas Supply Company, L.L.C.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100.00Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.
    
    Colorado
    
    
    50.00EPPP CIG GP Holdings, L.L.C.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100.00Colorado Interstate Gas Company
    
    Delaware
    
    
    40.00CIG Finance Company, L.L.C.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100.00CIG Funding Company, L.L.C.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100.00Colorado Interstate Issuing Corporation
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100.00WYCO Holding Company, L.L.C.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100.00WYCO Development LLC
    
    Colorado
    
    
    50.00EPPP SNG GP Holdings, L.L.C.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100.00Southern Natural Gas Company
    
    Delaware
    
    
    25.00SNG Finance Company, L.L.C.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100.00SNG Funding Company, L.L.C.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100.00Southern Gas Storage Company, L.L.C.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100.00Bear Creek Storage Company
    
    Louisiana
    
    
    50.00Southern Natural Issuing Corporation
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100.00WIC Holdings Company, L.L.C.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100.00Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.
    
    Colorado
    
    
    50.00
[No. 37775-2-I.

Division One.

August 25, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jason Lee McIntyre, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-04373-5, Joan E. DuBuque, J., entered November 6, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.