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



                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(b)


                       AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION
                          ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE



         I, John Weisickle, do hereby certify that I am the Vice
President/Finance of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California
corporation (the "Company"), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its
capacity as servicer (the "Servicer") under the Sale and Servicing Agreement
(the "Agreement") dated as of July 1, 2001 among the Servicer, American Honda
Receivables Corp., as Seller, Bankers Trust (Delaware), as Owner Trustee of
Honda Auto Receivables 2001-2 Owner Trust and Chase Manhattan Bank as Indenture
Trustee as follows:

                  (i) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the nine
         month period ended March 31, 2002, and of its performance under the
         Agreement has been made under my supervision;

                  (ii) To the best of my knowledge and information, based upon
         such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the
         Agreement throughout such period; and

                  (iii) To the best of my knowledge and information, no Event of
         Default nor any event which with the giving of notice or lapse of time,
         or both, would become an Event of Default under the Agreement, has
         occurred or is continuing.

         This certificate is being delivered to the Trustee pursuant to Section
3.11 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement effective July 1, 2001, which terms and
conditions are incorporated in the Agreement.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 3rd day of June,
2002.



/s/ John I. Weisickle
---------------------
Name:    J. I. Weisickle
Title:   Vice President/Finance
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00670-CV

Rosalva Ruiz

v.

CBL & Associates Properties, Inc.

On Appeal from the

445th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2010-DCL-8555-I

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 21, 2014
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 Annual Report of International Card Establishment,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William Lopshire, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


Dated: March 31, 2009                     By: /s/ WILLIAM LOPSHIRE
                                              __________________________________
                                                  William Lopshire
                                                  President
                                                  (Principal Executive Officer)
# C_2017129EN.01002601.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/26

---

Action brought on 20 February 2017 — Alba Aguilera and Others v EEAS

(Case T-119/17)

(2017/C 129/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Ruben Alba Aguilera and 28 other applicants (Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

Declare and rule that:

| — | The contested decision is annulled, insofar as it reduces, with effect from 1 January 2016, the amount of the allowance for living conditions for staff posted to Ethiopia from 30 % to 25 %; |
| --- | --- |

—

The contested decision is annulled, insofar as it reduces, with effect from 1 January 2016, the amount of the allowance for living conditions for staff posted to Ethiopia from 30 % to 25 %;

| — | The EEAS is ordered to make a lump-sum payment to the applicants, the amount of which shall be determined ex aequo et bono by the General Court, in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

The EEAS is ordered to make a lump-sum payment to the applicants, the amount of which shall be determined ex aequo et bono by the General Court, in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered;

ex aequo et bono

| — | The EEAS is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EEAS is ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns the lawfulness of the EEAS’s decision to reduce the allowance for living conditions (ALC) granted to members of the temporary staff of the EU in the Ethiopia delegation from 30 % to 25 %.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | The first plea in law alleges infringement of the obligation to adopt the GIP of Annex X to the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law alleges infringement of the obligation to adopt the GIP of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

| 2. | The second plea in law alleges infringement of Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, insofar as the method used by the EEAS to set the amount of the ALC in a particular place of employment takes account of the principle of ‘regional coherence’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law alleges infringement of Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, insofar as the method used by the EEAS to set the amount of the ALC in a particular place of employment takes account of the principle of ‘regional coherence’.

| 3. | The third plea in law alleges the multiple manifest errors of assessment which therefore render the contested decision unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third plea in law alleges the multiple manifest errors of assessment which therefore render the contested decision unlawful.

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 27701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12537]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (01-061)]


NASA Advisory Council, Biological and Physical Research Advisory 
Committee, Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 
Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, 
Biological and Physical Research Advisory Committee.

DATES: Thursday, June 14, 2001, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Friday, June 15, 
2001, 8 a.m. to 12 Noon.

ADDRESSES: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters, 
300 E Street, SW., MIC-7, Room 7H46, Washington, DC 20546.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Bradley M. Carpenter, Code UG, 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 
202/358-0826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to 
the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as 
follows:

--OBPR Personnel & Organization Status
--ISS Status
--OBPR Performance Targets
--Division Director's Reports--Status
--Interim Mission Status Report
--Subcommittee Reports
--Discussion of Committee Findings and Recommendations

    It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors 
will be requested to sign a visitor's register.

    Dated: May 15, 2001.
Beth M. McCormick,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-12537 Filed 5-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
#### HENDARSIN JAHJA; Thio Pie Tjiauw, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-70439.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2013.*

Filed May 22, 2013.

Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioners.

Eric Warren Marsteller, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Hendarsin Jahja and Thio Pie Tjiauw, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived, any challenge to the BIA’s order denying their motion to reconsider. *See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,*706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.2013). Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision dismissing petitioners’ appeal. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); *Socop-Gonzalez v. INS,*272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge to the BIA’s prior order dismissing petitioners’ appeal because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); *Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-605
In Re: CLAUDE RAYMOND CURRY, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-91-262) Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 1, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claude Raymond Curry, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Claude Raymond Curry filed a petition for a writ of mandamusfrom this court seeking an order compelling enforcement of his constitutional rights. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, see In Re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re Catawba Indian Tribe of S.C. , 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, although we grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny mandamus relief. 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.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 10.14





EXTENSION
AGREEMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


between John O. McCoy, Jr. (Executive) and


Pogo Producing Company, a Delaware corporation (Company),


dated effective February 1, 2002





WHEREAS, Executive and Company are parties to an Executive Employment Agreement bearing an original Effective Date of
February 1, 1996; and





WHEREAS, February 1, 2002, (even date herewith) is hereby deemed to be the Renewal
Date in that Executive Employment Agreement; and





WHEREAS, Executive and Company each wish to extend said
Executive Employment Agreement for an additional one-year period so as to terminate (unless further extended) two years thereafter, (to-wit January 31, 2004); and





WHEREAS, Company desires to retain the services of Executive for the benefit of Company and its shareholders, and desires to induce Executive to remain in its employ for that
extended time period; and





WHEREAS, Executive has agreed to continue to serve as an employee of Company for the period
specified herein from and after the date of this Extension Agreement; and





WHEREAS, Company and Executive desire to
enter into this Extension Agreement in order to formally secure for Company the benefit of the experience and abilities of Executive, and to set forth the agreements and understandings of Company and Executive; and





WHEREAS, Company has advised Executive that execution and performance of this Extension Agreement by Company has been duly authorized and
approved by all requisite corporate action on the part of the Company.






---




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises and agreements
herein contained, and in consideration of the sum of $10 paid by Company to Executive, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by Executive, Executive and Company do hereby agree as follows:





1.    The Executive Employment Agreement between Executive and Company bearing an Effective Date of February 1, 1996 and a Renewal Date which
is deemed herein to be February 1, 2002, is hereby extended for an additional one-year period commencing February 1, 2003 and ending January 31, 2004, unless such employment period is hereafter further extended for an additional period by both
Executive and Company.





2.    All provisions of the Executive Employment Agreement between Executive and
Company dated as of February 1, 1996, and as it is herein amended, are continued in full force and effect without change as if the Employment Agreement had been initially effective as of February 1, 2002.





POGO PRODUCING COMPANYBy:

/s/    PAUL G. VAN
WAGENENPaul G. Van Wagenen Chairman, President and
CEO





ATTEST:/s/    JOEANN KINGDONAssistant Corporate Secretary





EMPLOYEE:/s/    JOHN O. MCCOY, JR.John O. McCoy, Jr. Senior Vice President
and Chief Administrative Officer
EXHIBIT 21.0



SUBSIDIARIES



Name
        
        Jurisdiction of FormationCyberOptics UK, Ltd.
        
        United KingdomCyberOptics Holdings UK, Ltd.
        
        United KingdomCyberOptics (Singapore) Pte. Ltd
        
        SingaporeCyberOptics Semiconductor, Inc.
        
        MinnesotaCyberOptics (China) Co., Ltd.
        
        Peoples Republic of China








55

---
Case 1:07-cv-05317-AKH Document 20 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05317-AKH Document 20 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05317-AKH Document 20 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1972 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 299
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1972

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 17, 2019

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                            November 7, 2019

               Reported by Mr. Johnson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1100 West Kent Avenue in Missoula, Montana, as the ``Jeannette 
                     Rankin Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JEANNETTE RANKIN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1100 West Kent Avenue in Missoula, Montana, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Jeannette Rankin Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Jeannette 
Rankin Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 299

116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1972

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1100 West Kent Avenue in Missoula, Montana, as the ``Jeannette 
                     Rankin Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 7, 2019

                       Reported without amendment
```
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
ELIZABETH SHAPIRO, Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent

- Appellee.

______________________

2012

- 5152

______________________
Appeal from the United State s Court of Federal Claims in No. 99

- VV

- 0552, Judge Francis M. Allegra.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

C LIFFORD J. S HOEMAKER , Shoemaker, Gentry & Knickelbein, of Vienna, Virginia, argued for petitioner

appellant.

L YNN E. R ICCIARDELLA , Trial Attorney, Torts Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent

- appellee. On the brief were S TUART F. D ELERY , Principal Deputy AssistantAttorney General, R UPA B HATTACHARYYA , Director, V INCENT J. M ATNAOSKI , Deputy Director, and G ABRIELLE M. F IELDING , Assistant Director.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (O’M ALLEY
, S CHALL
, and W ALLACH
, Circuit Judge s ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

May 8, 2013 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 23 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CESAR SANTOS

- GARCIA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 3

- 00 324

- C R

Appeal from the

120 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2012 0D0 4146 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State ’ s third motion for extension of time within which to file

the brief until September 4 , 2014

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO F ILE THE STATE ’ S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime E. Esparza

, the State ’s attorney, prepare the

State ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before September 4

, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23 rd day of Ju ly , 20 1 4

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez , JJ.
IIB 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1844 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 18, 2019 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 66 Grove Court in Elgin, Illinois, as the ‘‘Corporal Alex Martinez Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1844 RFS

1 SECTION 1. CORPORAL ALEX MARTINEZ MEMORIAL POST 

2 OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 66 Grove Court in Elgin, Illinois, 

5 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Corporal Alex Mar6 tinez Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Corporal Alex Mar11 tinez Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 17, 2019. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                    OF AMBER RESOURCES COMPANY OF COLORADO
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form
10-K of Amber Resources Company of Colorado for the period ending June 30,
2004:

     (1) complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Amber
Resources Company of Colorado.






/s/ Kevin K. Nanke
Kevin K. Nanke
Chief Financial Officer

September 22, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Amber Resources Company of
Colorado and will be retained by Amber Resources Company of Colorado and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12772]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Southwest Washington Provincial Advisory Committee Meeting Notice

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Southwest Washington Provincial Advisory Committee will 
meet on Wednesday, May 30, 2001, at the Wind River Training Center, 
located at 1262 Hemlock Road, Carson, Washington. The meeting will 
begin at 10 a.m. and continue until 4 p.m. The purpose of the meeting 
is to: (1) Discuss fish passage and habitat restoration at Hemlock Dam, 
and (2) Provide for a Public Open Forum. All Southwest Washington 
Provincial Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. 
Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. The ``open forum'' 
provides opportunity for the public to bring issues, concerns, and 
discussion topics to the Advisory Committee. The ``open forum'' is 
scheduled as part of agenda item (2) for this meeting. Interested 
speakers will need to register prior to the open forum period. The 
committee welcomes the public's written comments on committee business 
at any time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
meeting to Linda Turner, Public Affairs Specialist, at (360) 891-5195, 
or write Forest Headquarters Office, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, 
10600 NE. 51st Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682.

    Dated: May 14, 2001.
Lynn Burditt,
Deputy Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 01-12772 Filed 5-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M