alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.4

                     CHASE MANHATTAN AUTO OWNER TRUST 2002-A
                           ANNUAL ISSUER'S CERTIFICATE
                                       of
                            COMPLIANCE WITH INDENTURE

         The undersigned certifies that she is an Authorized Officer of
Wilmington Trust Company, not in its individual capacity, but solely as Owner
Trustee for Chase Manhattan Auto Owner Trust 2002-A and that she is duly
authorized to execute and deliver this certificate on behalf of the Issuer in
connection with Section 3.9 of the Indenture between the Issuer and Wells Fargo
Bank Minnesota, National Association, as Indenture Trustee, dated as of March 1,
2002 (the "Indenture"). All capitalized terms used herein without definition
shall have the respective meanings specified in the Indenture.

         The undersigned further certifies that a review of the activities of
the Issuer for the preceding calendar year has been made under her supervision
and, to the best of her knowledge, based on such review, the Issuer has complied
with all conditions and convenants in all material respects under the Indenture
throughout the preceding calendar year.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed hereto my signature as of this 25th
day of March, 2003.

                     CHASE MANHATTAN AUTO OWNER TRUST 2002-A
                     BY: WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, not in its individual
                     capacity, but solely as Owner Trustee


                     /s/ Mary Kay Pupillo

                     ----------------------------------------
                     Name: Mary Kay Pupillo
                     Title: Senior Financial Services Officer

         Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association, as Servicer, hereby
requests that Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner Trustee, execute the above
Issuer's Certificate and deliver it to Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National
Association, as Indenture Trustee.


                     CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA,
                     NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Servicer

                     /s/ Richard J. Naeder
                     ----------------------------------------
                     Richard J. Naeder
                     Authorized Signatory
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

LIFETIME INDUSTRIES, INC., )

)

Plaintiff )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-819 RLM

)

TRIM-LOK, INC., )

)

Defendant )

OPINION AND ORDER

Lifetime Industries filed a motion for a stay pending appeal, asking the court

to stay disposition of Trim-Lok’s motion for attorney’s fees until its appeal has

been fully briefed, argued, and decided. The court denies the motion to stay for the

following reasons.

The court considers four factors in determining whether to grant a stay:

(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is

likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be

irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will

substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding;

and (4) where the public interest lies.

Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). Lifetime Industries bears the initial

burden of showing that the likelihood of success on appeal is substantial and that

it will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is denied. Matter of Forty-Eight

Insulations, Inc., 115 F.3d 1294, 1300-01 (7th Cir. 1997); Adams v. Walker, 488

F.2d 1064, 1065 (7th Cir. 1973). If it meets that burden, the court will balance the

harms and will use a “sliding scale” approach to determine whether a stay is
warranted. Matter of Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 115 F.3d at 1300-01. If not,

no further inquiry is necessary and the motion to stay should be denied. Id. at

1301; Green River Bottling Co. v. Green River Corp., 997 F.2d 359, 361 (7th Cir.

1993).

Patent cases are notoriously complex, so the court can’t rule out the

possibility that Lifetime Industries might succeed on one or more of the arguments

it proposes to raise on appeal. But the mere possibility of success on the merits

isn’t enough to justify a stay, see Matter of Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 115 F.3d

at 1301; Michigan Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945

F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 1991), and Lifetime Industries hasn’t shown anything

more. The court considered and rejected its arguments in ruling on the motions

to dismiss, and Lifetime Industries hasn’t presented any authority that would

persuade the court to reconsider its decision now. Even if it had, Lifetime

Industries hasn’t made any showing of irreparable harm, so an inquiry into the

balance of harms isn’t unnecessary. Matter of Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 115

F.3d at 1301; Green River Bottling Co. v. Green River Corp., 997 F.2d at 361.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for a stay pending appeal [Doc. No.

49] is DENIED, and the plaintiff is given until January 24, 2017 to file its

response to the defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees [Doc. No. 44].

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: December 31, 2016 

2
 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court 

3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:16-CR-47-TLS 

 ) 

JOSE CERROGORDO RAZO ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

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

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 137], filed on August 9, 2017. The Defendant has waived objection 

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

and Recommendation [ECF No. 137] 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), if applicable and necessary, the plea of guilty to the offenses charged in Counts 

One (1) and Eight (8) of the Indictment are hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged 

guilty of such offenses. 

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

order.

SO ORDERED on August 25, 2017. 

s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
BOWENS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION—CONCURRENCE AND

DISSENT

ECKER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with and join parts I, II, and III of the majority

opinion. I respectfully dissent, however, from part IV

of the majority opinion, in which the majority concludes

that, even if the cruel and unusual punishment claims

raised by the petitioner, Tyreese Bowens, are not barred

by the doctrine of res judicata, he cannot prevail on

those claims in light of this court’s recent decisions in

State v. McCleese, 333 Conn. 378, A.3d (2019),

and State v. Williams-Bey, 333 Conn. 468, A.3d

(2019). For the reasons articulated in my dissenting

opinions in those cases, I believe that juvenile offenders

cannot constitutionally be sentenced as adults without

an individualized sentencing proceeding in which the

sentencing judge must consider the mitigating effects

of youth and its associated features, and also that the

availability of parole eligibility under § 1 of No. 15-84

of the 2015 Public Acts, codified at General Statutes

§ 54-125a, is not a substitute for such an individualized

sentencing hearing. See State v. McCleese, supra, 429

(Ecker, J., dissenting); State v. Williams-Bey, supra,

477 (Ecker, J., dissenting); see also State v. Taylor G.,

315 Conn. 734, 796–97, 110 A.3d 338 (2015) (Eveleigh,

J., dissenting).
#### Christopher M. Charney et al., Appellants, v LeChase Construction et al., Respondent. Frederico Wrecking Co., Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v Contour Erection and Siding Systems, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. LeChase Construction Services, LLC, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Contour Erection and Siding Systems, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 713]

Motions for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Databases
                        Alfalfa Transcription Factor Database
                                    iPhyClassifier - Phytoplasma Sequence ClassificationSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory Docs







Endopeptidase Alignment of Various Phytoplasmasheadline bar /ARSUserFiles/80420560/dr.davis.gif


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






University Partnershipsheadline bar List of Universities
               Business


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 538 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 126
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 538

                          [Report No. 112-46]

To amend the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act to reauthorize 
                                the Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 10, 2011

  Mr. Cardin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                             August 2, 2011

               Reported by Mrs. Boxer, with an amendment
  [Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act to reauthorize 
                                the Act.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION 
              ACT.

    Section 10 of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 
U.S.C. 6109) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

<DELETED>    ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
to carry out this Act such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal 
years 2012 through 2017.</DELETED>
    ``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry 
out this Act $6,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2017.
    ``(b) Use of Funds.--Of the amounts made available under subsection 
(a) for each fiscal year, not less than 75 percent shall be expended 
for projects carried out at a location outside of the United States.''.
                                                       Calendar No. 126

112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 538

                          [Report No. 112-46]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To amend the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act to reauthorize 
                                the Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 2, 2011

                       Reported with an amendment
```
#### William Robert THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Sandra SMOCK; Charles Adams, Doctor; University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston Texas, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-41221

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 12, 2009.

William Robert Thompson, Department of Criminal Justice, Rosharon, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

William Robert Thompson, Texas prisoner #824551, filed an untimely notice of appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court entered an order apprising Thompson that he must file no later than December 27, 2007, a motion pursuant to Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(5)(A) for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal. The order informed Thompson that he must show excusable neglect or good cause to justify the granting of an extension.

Thompson did not comply with the district court’s order. He has not filed a motion for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal or any pleading that might be construed as such.

A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2366, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). The absence of a timely notice of appeal in this case means that this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. *Id.*The instant appeal is therefore DISMISSED.

*

 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.
#### THOMAS BROWN CONTRACTING CO., Respondent, v. NEW- YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 27,1912.)

Action by the Thomas Brown Contracting Company against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
NTT DoCoMo, Inc.
 List of Subsidiaries




---



##### 



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
 Name
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationDoCoMo Service Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Engineering Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Mobile Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Support Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Systems, Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Sentsu, Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Business Net, inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Technology, Inc.
    
    JapanNTT DoCoMo Hokkaido, Inc.
    
    JapanNTT DoCoMo Tohoku, Inc.
    
    JapanNTT DoCoMo Tokai, Inc.
    
    JapanNTT DoCoMo Hokuriku, Inc.
    
    JapanNTT DoCoMo Kansai, Inc.
    
    JapanNTT DoCoMo Chugoku, Inc.
    
    JapanNTT DoCoMo Shikoku, Inc.
    
    JapanNTT DoCoMo Kyushu, Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Service Hokkaido Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Service Tohoku Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Service Tokai Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Service Hokuriku Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Service Kansai Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Service Chugoku Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Service Shikoku Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Service Kyushu Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Engineering Hokkaido Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Engineering Tohoku Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Engineering Tokai Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Engineering Hokuriku Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Engineering Kansai, Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Engineering Chugoku, Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Engineering Shikoku Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Engineering Kyushu Inc.
    
    Japan




---



##### 



Name
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationDoCoMo Mobile Tokai Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Mobilemedia Kansai, Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Mobile Chugoku, Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo i Kyushu Inc.
    
    JapanBusiness Expert Inc.
    
    JapanBusiness Expert Tokai, Inc.
    
    JapanBusiness Expert Kansai, Inc.
    
    JapanBusiness Expert Kyushu, Inc.
    
    JapanD2 Communications Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo Capital, Inc.
    
    United States of AmericaDoCoMo.com, Inc
    
    JapanDoCoMo Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH
    
    GermanyDoCoMo Communications Laboratories USA, Inc.
    
    United States of AmericaDoCoMo Beijing Communications Laboratories Co., Ltd.
    
    ChinaDoCoMo Europe Limited
    
    United KingdomDoCoMo Europe(France)S.A.S.
    
    FranceDoCoMo i-mode Europe B.V.
    
    The NetherlandsDoCoMo  Tametan, Inc.
    
    JapanDouble Square Inc.
    
    JapanDynastep , inc.
    
    Japane Engineering Inc.
    
    Japane Engineering Tokai, Inc.
    
    Japane Engineering Kansai, Inc.
    
    Japane Engineering Kyushu Inc.
    
    JapanGuam Cellular & Paging
    
    United States of AmericaHIVE Inc.
    
    JapanDoCoMo interTouch Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeNIPPON DATA COM Co., Ltd.
    
    JapanNTT DoCoMo USA, Inc.
    
    United States of AmericaSEIBU DENSAN Co., Ltd.
    
    JapanAnd 59 other subsidiaries
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-74,642-09
IN RE MIK

E MENDOZA , JR., Relat or
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 952290-E IN THE 262ND DIST RICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus under this Court’s orig inal jurisdiction. He contends that he filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in the 262 District Court of Har ris County , the District Court enter ed a timely order desig nating issues n d

on May 22, 2019, more than 180 day s have passed since the date the State rec eived the application, and the application has not been proper ly forwa rded to this Court as mandated by Texa s Rule of Appellate Proc edure 73.4(b)( 5). Respondent, the District Clerk of Har ris County , is order ed to file a response , which may be made b y submitt ing the rec ord on such habeas corpus application, subm itting proof of t he date of
rec eipt by the State showing 180 day s has n ot y et elapse d, or stating that Relator has not filed an2

application for a writ of habea s corpus in Har ris County
. This motion for leave to file will be held. Respondent shall comply with this order within thirty day s from the da te of this order
.
Filed: Apr il 15, 2020 Do not publish
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-2364

___________________________ LaRonda Phox Petitioner v. Secretary, Department of Labor

Respondent The Savoy at 21C

Intervenor

____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Labor (except OSHA)

____________ Submitted: February 7, 2023 Filed: February 10, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, MELLOY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.LaRonda Phox petitions for review following a final order of the United States

Department of Labor Administrative Review Board dismissing as untimely her petition for administrative review. After careful review, we find no basis for relief. See 21 U.S.C. § 399d(b)(5)(A) (judicial review of administrative decision on complaint under FDA Food Safety Modernization Act shall conform to Administrative Procedure Act). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-