alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,839
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        2
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,857
<PP&E>                                             573
<DEPRECIATION>                                     445
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,427
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              135
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           848
<OTHER-SE>                                         563
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,427
<SALES>                                             30
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    58
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (79)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (79)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Order filed December 20, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00823-CV

____________

IN RE EXPUNCTION

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-41949

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due October 29, 2018. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. On September 24, 2018, the court reporter notified this court that no record 

was taken. On December 17, 2018, this court was informed that a record was taken. 

The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The record 

has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed 

timely, we issue the following order.

We order Gina Jackson, the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal 

within 15 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

** **

**RESTATED OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of theperiod covered by this report on Form 10–K of Washington Mutual Asset-Backed Certificates, WMABS Series 2006-HE2 Trust (the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);

 

2.         Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement ofa  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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.         Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB,and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  LaSalle BankNational Association.

 

Date:  As of March 15,2007

|   |   | /s/Thomas G. Lehmann                                                                         |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  ThomasG. Lehmann                                                                 |
|   |   | Title:   President and Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001029715
<NAME> ACCOUNT PORTFOLIOS G.P. INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          30,168
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                       996
<INVENTORY>                                     48,690
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,168
<PP&E>                                          89,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 348,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,249
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   348,816
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,126
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,829)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,279)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,279)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0)
        
<PAGE>

</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6567 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to modify certain regulations relating to the requirements for commercial driver’s license testing and commercial learner’s permit holders, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2022 

Mr. LAHOOD (for himself, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. BALDERSON, and Mr. HARDER

of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to modify certain 

regulations relating to the requirements for commercial 

driver’s license testing and commercial learner’s permit 

holders, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Licensing Individual 

5 Commercial Exam-takers Now Safely and Efficiently Act 

6 of 2022’’ or the ‘‘LICENSE Act of 2022’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6567 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO CERTAIN COMMERCIAL DRIV2 ER’S LICENSE REGULATIONS. 

3 Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 

4 of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, acting 

5 through the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier 

6 Safety Administration, shall— 

7 (1) revise section 384.228 of title 49, Code of 

8 Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation), to 

9 allow a State or third-party examiner to administer 

10 the commercial driver’s license knowledge test only 

11 if the examiner— 

12 (A) maintains a valid commercial driver’s 

13 license test examiner certification; 

14 (B) completes a commercial driver’s license 

15 skills test examiner training course that meets 

16 the requirements of subsection (d) of such sec17 tion; and 

18 (C) completes 1 unit of instruction de19 scribed in subsection (c)(3) of such section; 

20 (2) revise section 383.25(a)(1) of title 49, Code 

21 of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation), 

22 to allow a commercial driver’s license holder accom23 panying a commercial learner’s permit holder to be 

24 present anywhere in the cab of the vehicle being op25 erated by the commercial learner’s permit holder; 

26 and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6567 IH

1 (3) revise section 383.79 of title 49, Code of 

2 Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation), to 

3 allow a State to administer a driving skills tests to 

4 any commercial driver’s license applicant, regardless 

5 of the State of domicile of the applicant or where the 

6 applicant received driver training. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10(a)

 

[SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP]

 

ELISABETH M. BENTZINGER

DIRECT LINE: 202.383.0717

E-mail: elisabeth.bentzinger@sutherland.com

 

	
 
    	
April 25, 2014
    


 

VIA EDGAR

 

Board of Directors

Protective Life Insurance Company

2801 Highway 280 South

Birmingham, Alabama 35223

 

	
Re:
    	
ProtectiveValues Advantage Variable Annuity
    
	
 
    	
Post-Effective Amendment No. 22
    


 

Directors:

 

We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption “Legal Matters” in the Statement of Additional Information filed as part of Post-Effective Amendment No. 22 to the Registration Statement on Form N-4 (File No. 333-113070) by Protective Life Insurance Company and Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.

 

	
 
    	
Very truly yours,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By: 
    	
/s/ Elisabeth M. Bentzinger
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Elisabeth M. Bentzinger
10Q 3.31.14 Exhibit 10.1






EXHIBIT 10.1






SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE
APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
(Post-2004 Terms)
WHEREAS, the Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee directors (formerly known as the Bearings, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors and hereinafter referred to as the “Plan”) was established effective as of July 1, 1991, by Bearings, Inc., the predecessor to Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”) to provide non-employee members of the Board of Directors of the Company with a means to defer receipt of all or a portion of the compensation payable to them for their services as Directors; and
WHEREAS, the Plan was restated as of September 2003; and
WHEREAS, in order to comply with the provisions of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (hereinafter referred to as “Section 409A”), the Plan was bifurcated into two parts; with the non-grandfathered part being referred to as the “Post-2004 Terms”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a First Amendment the Company revised the Post-2004 Terms effective as of January 1, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to further amend the Post-2004 Terms to revise, effective January 1, 2015, the deferral provisions thereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Post-2004 Terms are hereby amended, effective as of January 1, 2015, to provide as follows:


1.    Section 2.1 of the Post-2004 Terms is revised by the addition of the following sentence at the end thereof:


“Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Director shall not be eligible to participate in the Plan under the Post-2004 Terms for services performed after December 31, 2014.”
2.    Section 2.2 of the Post-2004 Terms is revised by the addition of the following sentence at the end thereof:


“Notwithstanding the foregoing, elections of Directors, pursuant to Election Forms, to defer receipt of all or a portion of Compensation earned after December 31, 2014, are not permitted.”











Executed at Cleveland, Ohio, this 11th of February, 2014.




APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




By:    /s/ Neil A. Schrimsher    


Title:     President & Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6458

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CALVIN LAVAN CLARK,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:08-cr-00100-F-1; 5:11-cv-00558-F)

Submitted: April 17, 2013 Decided: April 30, 2013

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Lavan Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Thomas B. Murphy, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Lavan Clark seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Clark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EX-35 (a)
(logo) Bank of America

Bank of America
475 CrossPoint Parkway
PO Box 9000
Getzville, NY 14068-9000

Annual Statement as to Compliance
BAFC 2006-D

I, H. Randall Chestnut, Senior Vice President of Bank of America, N.A., (the
"Servicer"), hereby certify as pursuant to section 2.17 of the Servicing
Agreement between Banc of America Funding Corporation (together with its
permitted successors and assigns, the "Depositor") and Bank of America National
Association, as Servicer (together with its permitted successors and assigns,
the "Servicer") that: (i) a review has been made under my supervision of the
Servicer's activities under this agreement during the 2006 calendar year and
(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under this agreement in all material respects
throughout the calendar year 2006.


March 1, 2007


Bank of America, N.A.
as Servicer

By: /s/ H. Randall Chestnut
Name:  H. Randall Chestnut
Title: Senior Vice President
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ITN FLIX, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability

company, 

Petitioner,

 and

GIL MEDINA, an individual, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

DANNY TREJO, an individual, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 20-56187

D.C. No. 

2:20-cv-01978-ODW-AGR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 17, 2021 ** 

San Francisco, California

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JUN 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Gil Medina appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment confirming an

award in an arbitration brought by Danny Trejo against Medina and his company,

ITN Flix, LLC (ITN). The district court denied Medina’s petition to vacate the

award, and granted Trejo’s request to confirm it. We affirm. 

We agree with the district court that Medina’s petition to vacate the

arbitration award was untimely because Medina failed to serve Trejo or his counsel

with notice of the petition within three months after the final arbitration award was

delivered. See 9 U.S.C. § 12; see also Stevens v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 911 F.3d

1249, 1251–52 (9th Cir. 2018). In light of that untimeliness, we decline to review

Medina’s other challenges

1

 to the district court’s confirmation of the award. See

Brotherhood of Teamsters Loc. No. 70 v. Celotex Corp., 708 F.2d 488, 490 (9th

Cir. 1983); see also Lafarge Conseils Et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum

Corp., 791 F.2d 1334, 1338–39 (9th Cir. 1986).

AFFIRMED. 

1

See 9 U.S.C. §§ 10–11; Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs.,

Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 997 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Lagstein v. Certain

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 607 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2010). 

2
EX-35 (f)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Corporate Trust Services
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000


March 21, 2007


Banc of America Funding Corporation
214 North Tyron Street
Charlotte, NC 28255


RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Banc of America Funding 2006-D Trust


Per Section 3.20 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 4/28/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities Administrator),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

     (a)   a review of the activities of such party during the preceding
           calendar year or portion thereof and of performance of such party
           under this Agreement has been made under such officers' supervision
           and

     (b)   to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such
           party has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in
           all material respects throughout such year, or, if there has been a
           failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect,
           specifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature
           and status thereof.


Certified By:
/s/ Christopher C. Regnier
Christopher C. Regnier, Vice President


Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1286

CHESTER SANDERLIN,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle,

Chief District Judge. (CA-02-62-2-1BO)

Submitted: November 3, 2004 Decided: January 18, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Frank D. Whitney,

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, Thomas M. Bondy,

Teal Luthy Miller, Attorneys, Appellate Staff, Civil Division,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Appellant. Mason Hogan, KATHLEEN SHANNON GLANCY, P.A., Wilmington,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration (“Commissioner”), appeals the district court’s order

remanding the case to the administrative law judge for further

development of the record. We affirm. 

Our review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited to

an inquiry into whether there is substantial evidence to support

the findings of the Commissioner, and whether the correct legal

standards were applied. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Hays v.

Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). When there are

conflicting physician opinions, as in this case, we have required

explicit indications as to the weight given to all the evidence.

See Gordon v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984) (citing

cases); see also Murphy v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 433, 437 (4th Cir.

1987). 

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

order and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Sanderlin v. Barnhart, No. CA-02-62-2-1BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 29, 2003).

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