alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

Officers Certificate

February 23, 2015

MERRILL LYNCH DEPOSITOR, INC. 
  One Bryant Park 
4th Floor  Structured Credit Trading

    New York, New York
10036

PREFERREDPLUS, PPLUS
TRUST AND INDEXPLUS CERTIFICATE

The undersigned, James W. P. Hall,
Vice President of The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly The Bank of New York), a New York corporation (the Trustee), hereby
certifies in such capacity that, based on his knowledge, the Trustee has complied, in all
material respects, with all conditions and covenants applicable to the Trustee under the
Standard Terms for Trust Agreements dated February 20, 1998 between Merrill Lynch
Depositor, Inc. as depositor (the Depositor) and the Trustee, as successor to United
States Trust Company of New York, as trustee and securities intermediary (the Securities
Intermediary), in each case as amended by a series supplement between the Depositor, the
Trustee and the Securities Intermediary for each trust series listed in the attached
schedule.

| | Very truly yours,                                                               
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                                 
| | The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly

        The Bank of New York), as Trustee
| |                                                                                 
| | By: /s/ James W. P. Hall                                                        
| | Name: James W. P. Hall
      Title: Vice President                              



| |  | 
| |  | 

---







SCHEDULE

INDEXPLUS Trust Series 2003-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series GSC-2 
  PPLUS Trust Series GSG-2 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series CZN-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series FAR-1

| |  | 
| |  | 

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40795 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus FREDERICK JOSEPH KING, a/k/a Freddie King, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-95-CR-6-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 10, 1997 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Frederick King has moved for leave to supplement the record with a copy of the transcript of his detention hearing and with copies of the transcripts of sentencing hearings in other criminal cases. The motion is GRANTED as to the detention hearing transcript and is otherwise DENIED. The Government appeals the district court’s decision to apply the “safety-valve” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3663(f) in sentencing King. The Government argues that King was notNo. 96-40795 - 2 - entitled to relief because he had failed to disclose the last name of his drug supplier, or state that he did not know the name. The district court found that King disclosed what he knew. This finding was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Edwards , 65 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir. 1995). The judgment is AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-278-000]

Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Technical 
Conference

May 31, 2001.

    On March 22, 2001, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) 
filed in Docket No. RP01-278-000 a proposal to change its Cash-out 
mechanism. Several parties have protested various aspects of Texas Gas 
filing.
    Take notice that a technical conference to discuss the vari8ous 
issues raised by Texas Gas' filing will be held on Tuesday, June 12, 
2001, beginning at 10 a.m. in a room to be designated at the offices of 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.
    Persons protesting aspects of Texas Gas's filing should be prepared 
to answer questions and discuss alternatives. Issues pertaining to 
Texas Gas' filing with respect to historical under recovered costs will 
not be discussed.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14203 Filed 6-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### Blasius Mvo KUM, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-2117.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 31, 2008.

Decided: Sept. 2, 2008.

Albert Isiaka Usumanu, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Blasius Mvo Kum, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration appeals (Board) denying his untimely motions to recalendar removal proceedings and reissue its order of October 1, 2004.* Kum asserts that the Board erred in refusing to reopen his proceedings on account of ineffective assistance of counsel that violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We find that such a claim is not cognizable in immigration proceedings. *See Afanwi v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 788, 798 (4th Cir.2008) (holding that retained counsel’s ineffective assistance in a removal proceeding cannot deprive an alien of his Fifth Amendment right to a fundamentally fair hearing).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. 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.*

*

 The Board analyzed Kum’s motions to recal-endar and reissue as motions to reopen, and Kum does not contest this on appeal. Neither does he dispute the Board’s finding that the motions were untimely.
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 HL Ventures Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Deniz Hassan, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.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 the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
12th day of June, 2009.


/s/ Deniz Hassan
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
NORRIS NELSON

,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ 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 14

- 2318

Opinion filed October 14, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

.

Norris Nelson, pro se , Petitioner.

Pam ela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Eric Gonzalez, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Respondent

.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

WETHERELL, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
No. 73.

#### John T. Riddell, Inc. *v.*Athletic Shoe Co.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. Wm. R. Rummler*for petitioner.

*Messrs. Cyril A. Soans*and *Frank H. Marks*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
# Delegation of Responsibilities Related to the Latin American Development Act of 1960

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                    By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the functions conferred upon the President by the Latin American Development Act of 1960, 22 U.S.C. 1942*et seq*.                

The functions delegated by this memorandum may be redelegated as appropriate. 

                    You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

[FR Doc. 01-14518

Billing code 4710-10-M
```

[Federal Register: May 22, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 28370]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22my98-63]


[[Page 28370]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 12, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-13867 Filed 5-20-98; 12:54 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Malave, Appellant.

[873 NYS2d 636]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered November 21, 2006, as amended December 4, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of menacing in the first degree and six counts of criminal contempt in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of the facts underlying two of the prior orders of protection that had been issued to the victim. This evidence was relevant to elements of the crimes charged, and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect, which was minimized by the court’s thorough limiting instructions. One of the trial issues was whether defendant’s possession and display of a hammer, which remained in his waistband during the incident in question, was with criminal or innocuous intent. Accordingly, his prior use of household items against the same victim tended to show his intent rather than mere propensity, and it was also highly probative of the “reasonable fear of physical injury” element of Penal Law § 215.51 (b) (i) *(see e.g. People v Palladino,*
      *41147 AD3d 491 [2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 843 [2008]; *People v Garvin,*37 AD3d 372 [2007], *lv denied*8 NY3d 984 [2007]). The prosecutor’s summation comments properly referred to the prior incidents, not to show propensity, but rather to establish the elements of the charged crimes. Furthermore, these remarks could not have caused any prejudice, particularly in light of the court’s final instructions to the jury.

Defendant’s specific appellate arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and the court’s refusal to submit a lesser included offense are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.
```

[Federal Register: September 7, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 48608]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07se99-39]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 2 p.m., Wednesday, September 29, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW, Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Enforcement matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-23270 Filed 9-2-99; 10:14 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
exv10w2w1



 






Exhibit 10.2.1




AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE

TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC.

DIRECTORS’ RETIREMENT PLAN




     Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 thereof, the Trinity Industries, Inc.
Director’s Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended effective as of August 9, 2005
in the following respects only:



     FIRST: The first sentence of Section 1 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding
the following to the end thereof:





; provided, however, directors elected to the Board of Directors after August 8,
2005 shall not be eligible to participate in the Plan.



     SECOND: In all other respects, the terms of the Plan are ratified and confirmed.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed this 9th day of
August, 2005.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC.
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By
	 	/s/ Michael G. Fortado
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Vice President and Corporate Secretary
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We  consent to the use of our report dated April 8, 1996 with respect to the
financial statement and schedule of RSA Data Security, Inc. as of and for the
periods indicated therein, not presented separately in the Annual Report (Form
10K) of Security  Dynamics Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
1996.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos.  33-87916, 33-88506, 33-88508, 33-88510, and  333-08939)
pertaining to the 1986 Stock Option Plan, the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the 1994
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1994 Director Stock Option Plan, and the
Amended 1994 Stock Option Plan of Security Dynamics Technologies, Inc. of our
report dated April 8, 1996 referred to in the preceding paragraph.


                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 27, 1997
```

[Federal Register: December 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 74779]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16de05-38]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 am, Friday, January 13, 2006.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-24182 Filed 12-14-05; 11:09 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arlo Whiteoak ROMANO, a/k/a Lo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-4259.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 15, 2010.

Decided: May 10, 2010.

Lance E. Rollo, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Betsy C. Jividen, Acting United States Attorney, Andrew R. Cogar, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Arlo Whiteoak Romano appeals the district court’s decision to assess a two-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to *U.S. Sentencing Gtddelines Manual*§ 3Bl.l(c) (2009), based on Romano’s status as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of a drug conspiracy. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence of Romano’s role in the conspiracy, including supplying drugs to street level dealers, recruiting at least one person into the conspiracy, and managing a substantial amount of drags and money, supported application of the enhancement. USSG § 3Bl.l(c) *&*comment, (nn.2, 4). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Pedro Martinez GUTIERREZ; Teresita de Jesus Alfaro Cadena, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70715.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 10, 2010.

Elsa I. Martinez, Esquire, Martinez Goldsby & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los An-geles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Martinez Gutierrez and Teresita De Jesus Alfaro Cadena, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) or*610der denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Perez v. Mukasey,*516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely petitioners’ motion to reopen because the motion was filed almost ten months after the BIA’s October 5, 2006, order dismissing the underlying appeal. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2; *see also Dela Cruz v. Mukasey,*532 F.3d 946, 949 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (“[T]he pen-dency of a petition for review of an order of removal does not toll the statutory time limit for the filing of a motion to reopen with the BIA.”).

To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings, we lack jurisdiction. *See Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

Because the untimeliness of the motion is dispositive, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Federal Register: March 26, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 58)]
[Notices]
[Page 14708]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26mr99-81]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, April 30, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington D.C., 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-7593 Filed 2-24-99; 12:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
EXHIBIT
31.1





CERTIFICATION





I, Scott
Mitchell Rosenberg, certify that:





1.       I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Platinum Studios, Inc., Inc.
for the quarter ended March 31, 2008;





2.       Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;





3.       Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.       The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:





(a)      designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer is made known to us by others,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;





(b)      evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer's  disclosure controls
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and





(c)      disclosed
in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent
fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial
reporting; and





5.      The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions);





(a)      all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and





(b)      any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.





May 15,
2008





/s/ Scott Mitchell
Rosenberg


Scott
Mitchell Rosenberg


Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman
#### Elliot Markowitz, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 105735.)

[874 NYS2d 857] —

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Philip J. Patti, J.), entered August 31, 2007 in a negligence action. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of claimant to vacate the note of issue and denied defendant’s motion for a protective order.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.