alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 13 of 24
**Exhibit 99(e)**
**KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2000-A**
**OFFICERS’ CERTIFICATE**   Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, IT KeyBank National Association60 Wall Street, 26th Floor – MS NYC60-2606 800 Superior Avenue, 4th FloorNew York, NY 10005 Cleveland, Ohio 44114Attn: Corporate Trust & Agency Group ATTN: President, KERStructured Finance Phone: (216) 828-4293Phone: (212) 250-8522 Fax: (216) 828-9301Fax: (212) 797-8606     MBIA Insurance Corporation  113 King Street  Armonk, NY 10504  ATTN: Data Administration  Phone: (914) 765-3772  Fax: (914) 765-3810  
Pursuant to Section 3.09 of the Indenture between KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2000-A, as Issuer, andDeutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, successor in interest to Bankers Trust Company, as IndentureTrustee, dated June 1, 2000, the undersigned hereby certifies that (i) a review of the activitiesof the Issuer from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and of its performance under theIndenture has been made, and (ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Issuer hasfulfilled all its obligations under the Indenture throughout such period.       KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2000-A,      By: KeyBank National Association, successor ininterest to Key Bank USA, NationalAssociation, as Administrator     Date: March 14, 2005 By: /S/ DANIEL G. SMITH     Name:
IB 

Union Calendar No. 169 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2604 

[Report No. 114–224] 

To improve and reauthorize provisions relating to the application of the 

antitrust laws to the award of need-based educational aid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 2, 2015 

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JULY 23, 2015 

Additional sponsor: Mr. CICILLINE

JULY 23, 2015 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2604 RH

A BILL 

To improve and reauthorize provisions relating to the application of the antitrust laws to the award of need-based 

educational aid. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2604 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Need-Based Edu5 cational Aid Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF 

7 THE ANTRITRUST LAWS TO THE AWARD OF 

8 NEED-BASED EDUCATIONAL AID. 

9 Section 568 of the Improving America’s Schools Act 

10 of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is amended— 

11 (1) in subsection (a)— 

12 (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or’’ 

13 after the semicolon; 

14 (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘; or’’ 

15 and inserting a period at the end; and 

16 (C) by striking paragraph (4); and 

17 (2) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘2015’’ and 

18 inserting ‘‘2022’’. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 169 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2604 

[Report No. 114–224] 

A BILL 

To improve and reauthorize provisions relating to 

of need-based educational aid. the application of the antitrust laws to the award 

JULY 23, 2015 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Terri Patterson, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

[946 NYS2d 472]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered April 11, 2011, in this proceeding brought pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a and CPLR article 75, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granting the petition to vacate an arbitration award to the extent of vacating the penalty of termination, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed.

For three years, petitioner, while residing in Brooklyn, provided an Albany home address to respondent Department of Education, and used the W-2 wage statements issued by respondent with the false address to evade paying New York City income taxes. The penalty of termination does not shock the conscience *(see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 234-235 [1974]; *Cipollaro v New*
      *566
      *York City Dept. of Educ.,*83 AD3d 543 [2011]; *Green v New York City Dept. of Educ.,*17 AD3d 265 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 711 [2005]). Our conclusion is not altered by petitioner’s 10-year record of employment with no disciplinary history *(see Matter of Douglas v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ.,*87 AD3d 856 [2011]; *Matter of Chaplin v New York City Dept. of Educ.,*48 AD3d 226 [2008]) or the relatively small sum of money involved *(see Matter of Pell,*34 NY2d at 235, 238-239). The hearing officer properly considered petitioner’s lack of remorse in imposing the penalty *(see Cipollaro,*83 AD3d at 544). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 30870(U).]
GEORGE MANUEL EDDINS, JR.

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1453

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. J. Scott Duncan , Judge

.

George Manuel Eddins, Jr., pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Ap pellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE 

Written By Unknown Author

Proof of Knowledge/Notice. In most of the cases the Hearing Office 

decides, there is an alleged violation of a statute or regulation of 

which all persons subject to our jurisdiction are deemed to have 

knowledge. This presumed knowledge is referred to as ―constructive 

notice.‖ Because the applicable statutes and regulations are matters 

of public record, as a matter of law, persons are deemed to have 

knowledge of them, whether or not they actually possess such 

knowledge. There are some regulations and orders that the Coast 

Guard enforces which are not considered matters of public record 

because they are triggered by an exercise of judgment or discretion of 

a Coast Guard officer in a particular situation. When ―constructive 

notice‖ is not available to establish knowledge of the law or an-other 

required fact, the Coast Guard must provide evidence of actual 

knowledge of the law or fact. The best evidence of actual knowledge 

is direct evidence such as an admission from the charged party that 

he or she had knowledge of the order to be enforced, or a statement 

that the order was physically delivered to the charged party in 

person, either orally or in writing. However, circumstantial evidence 

might also be sufficient to prove actual knowledge. Further 

discussion of the difference between direct and circumstantial 

evidence is beyond the scope of this ―KNOT,‖ but if you have 

questions about it in a particular case, you should seek legal ad-vice.
May 9, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DAVID EARL STANLEY, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00909-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in judgment. 

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED, and that this decision be certified 

below for observance.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6943

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JACKIE MCKUBBIN, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-5-V, CA-96-129-3-B) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jackie McKubbin, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jackie McKubbin appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which the court properly construed as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). See United States v. Rich , 141 F.3d 550, 551-52 (5th Cir. 1998). Because this court has not granted McKubbin authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001), the district court properly dismissed his Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion. Rich , 141 F.3d at 553. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
ex10_11.htm


Exhibit 10.11




 


 


Approved December 17, 2009


Effective January 1, 2010







Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka


Board of Directors


Compensation Policy







This policy governs the compensation of individuals serving as directors of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka (Bank).  Directors shall be compensated through board meeting attendance fees.  Differentials in meeting attendance fees for the chair, vice chair and the various committee chairs shall reflect the additional responsibility assumed by these directors.








	
1.

	
Compensation.  Individuals serving as directors of the Bank shall be paid a meeting fee for each day in attendance at a regular or special meeting of the board of directors and shall receive no other compensation from the Bank other than reimbursement of expenses.  The following table illustrates the maximum annual compensation to be paid to various board member positions. The daily meeting fee shall be the maximum in the table below divided by six.








	
Position

	
Maximum Annual Compensation


	
Director

	
$ 45,000


	
Vice Chair of Board

	
$ 55,000


	
Chair of Board

	
$ 60,000


	
Audit Committee Chair

	
$ 55,000


	
Compensation Committee Chair

	
$55,000


	
Operations Committee Chair

	
$55,000


	
Housing and Governance Committee Chair

	
$55,000


	
Finance Chair

	
$55,000















	
2.

	
Number of Meetings.  The board ofdirectors shall hold at least six regular board meetings per year.  Special meetings of the board of directors may be held as provided in the Bank's bylaws.









 



	
3.

	
Reimbursement of Expenses.  Directors shall be entitled to reimbursement for all necessary and reasonable travel, subsistence and other related expenses incurred in connection with the performance of their official duties as provided in the Directors and Executive Officers Travel Policy, except that directors may not be paid for gift or entertainment expenses.
Exhibit 32.2

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

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Yilun Jin, the Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer of AMERICAN LORAIN CORPORATION (the Company), DO HEREBY CERTIFY
that:

|1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
      year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report), fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
      the Company.                                                             

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has
executed this statement this 13th day of April 2009.

/s/ Yilun JinYilun Jin Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to American Lorain Corporation and will be retained by
American Lorain Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to §18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
#### Jo-Ona Danois, Respondent, v Sixto Danois, Jr., Appellant.

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berkowitz, J.), dated January 2, 1986, which, *inter alia,*denied his motion to vacate a judgment of divorce that had been entered against him on default.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

*289The affidavits submitted by the parties on the motion to vacate the judgment of divorce, entered on default, raise a factual dispute regarding the service of the summons and complaint upon the defendant in the divorce action. The matter must therefore be remitted for a hearing to determine whether the defendant was properly served with process with respect to this action *(see, Green Point Sav. Bank v Taylor,*92 AD2d 910; *Halvorsen v Halvorsen,*88 AD2d 581), and, hence, whether the court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to grant leave to the plaintiff to enter a default judgment against the defendant *(see,*CPLR 5015 [a] [4]; *see also, Shaw v Shaw,*97 AD2d 403, 404). Accordingly, we do not reach the remaining issues raised by the parties. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD.

Complainant,

vs

RYAN SCOTT FITZGERALD.

Respondent.

Docket Number 2021-0168

CG Enforcement Activity Number 7646220

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: June 13. 2023

By: Honorable Walter J. Brudzin Chief Ad m inistrative Law Judse

Appearances:

CWO GREGORY STEIGER

USCG Marine Safety Detachment Coram

For the Coast Guard

RYAN SCOTT FITZGERALD, Pra se

For the Respondent
CONSENI| ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On June 6, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of Settlement

Agreement and Entry oIConsent Order, to be approved as a settlement ofthe case under 33

c.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms ofthe Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. S 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full arrd incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and completl adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated June 13,2023

New York, NY

uh/t ,S-..4;.<

HON. WALTER J. BRUDZINSKI

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

2
Order entered November 10, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01030-CV

RESIDENCES AT RIVERDALE, L.P., ET AL., Appellants

V.

DIXIE CARPET INSTALLATIONS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-04903-2012

ORDER

We GRANT the November 3, 2015 motion of court reporter LaTresta Ginyard for an 

extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record shall be filed WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### Long v. Jones.

Appeal from Bridgeport City Court.

Tried before the Hon. S. W. Tate.

L. C. Coulson, for appellant.

No counsel marked as appearing for appellee.

*660Opinion by

Tyson, J.

*659The appeal in this case is from a judgment of the trial court overruling a motion for a new trial made by the appellant, who was the claimant in a statutory trial of the right of property. It is held by the court that the evidence offered in support of the motion for a new trial does not come up to the requirement of the rule as to the diligence required of the claimant in making her defense to the claim suit, and on the authority of *Waddill v.*Weaver, 53 Ala. 58, and *National Fertilizer Co.*
      *660
      *v. Hinson,*103 Ala. 536, and authorities therein cited, the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial is affirmed.
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 Emeritus Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), I, Raymond R. Brandstrom, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 
 1. The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 
 2. The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/    Raymond R. Brandstrom
 Raymond R. Brandstrom
 Chief Financial Officer
 August 12, 2004
#### Arturo P. Batac, Appellant, v Capital One Bank, Respondent. (And Five Other Actions.)

Submitted January 8, 2007;

decided March 22, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain this motion for leave to appeal from the order of the Appellate Division entered in these actions commenced in the Civil Court of the City of New York *(see*NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b] [7]; CPLR 5602 [a]).
**EXHIBIT32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in his capacity as an officer of SPACEHAB,Incorporated (“SPACEHAB”), that, to the best of his knowledge, the QuarterlyReport of SPACEHAB on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31,2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operation of SPACEHAB.

 
| Date: February 11,  2009 |                                                           |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |                                                           |
|                          |                                                           |
|                          |   /s/Thomas  B. Pickens, III                    |
|                          |   Thomas  B. Pickens, III                       |
|                          |   Chief  Executive Officer                           |
|                          |                                                           |
|                          |                                                           |
|                          |   /s/Brian K.  Harrington                            |
|                          |   Brian K.  Harrington                               |
|                          |   Senior Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to SPACEHAB and will be retained bySPACEHAB and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2240 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2240

 To amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 relative to the powers of 
              the Department of Justice Inspector General.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2015

    Mr. Richmond (for himself, Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia, and Mr. 
  Labrador) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 relative to the powers of 
              the Department of Justice Inspector General.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Inspector General Access Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. INVESTIGATIONS OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PERSONNEL.

    Section 8E of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and paragraph 
                (3)'';
                    (B) by striking paragraph (3);
                    (C) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as 
                paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and
                    (D) in paragraph (4), as redesignated, by striking 
                ``paragraph (4)'' and inserting ``paragraph (3)''; and
            (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``, except with respect 
        to allegations described in subsection (b)(3),''.
                                 <all>
```