alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 4.31  


 
 

ABBOTT LABORATORIES
  
    OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
  
    and
  
    COMPANY ORDER
  
    March 18, 2004    



        With
respect to the issuance by Abbott Laboratories (the "Company") of $500,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of 3.75% Notes due 2011 (the "Notes due 2011") and of $500,000,000 in
aggregate principal amount of 4.35% Notes due 2014 (the "Notes due 2014" and, together with the Notes due 2011, the "Notes"), Jose M. de Lasa and Terrence C. Kearney, officers of the Company, certify
pursuant to Sections 3.1 and 3.3 of the Indenture, dated as of February 9, 2001 (the "Indenture"), between the Company and J. P. Morgan Trust Company, N.A., successor in interest to Bank One
Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee (the "Trustee"), as follows: 



	1.
	We
have read Sections 2.1, 3.1 and 3.3 of the Indenture and the definitions therein relating hereto, reviewed the resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Company adopted on
September 12, 2003 (attached as Exhibit B to the Secretary's Certificate of even date herewith), the Actions of the Authorized Officers of March 11, 2004 (attached as
Exhibit C to the Secretary's Certificate of even date herewith), conferred with executive officers of the Company and, in our opinion, made such other examinations and investigations as are
necessary to enable us to express an informed opinion as to whether Sections 2.1, 3.1 and 3.3 of the Indenture have been complied with.



	2.
	Based
on the above-described examinations and investigations, in our opinion, all conditions precedent relating to the authentication and delivery of the Notes, including those
conditions under Sections 2.1, 3.1 and 3.3 of the Indenture, have been complied with.



	3.
	The
terms of the Notes are set forth in the Actions of the Authorized Officers, dated March 11, 2004 (attached as Exhibit C to the Secretary's Certificate of even date
herewith).



	4.
	In
accordance with the provisions of Section 3.3 of the Indenture, the Trustee is hereby authorized and requested to authenticate the Notes and to deliver such Notes to or at
the direction of Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, as representative of the several underwriters. 




        Capitalized
terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings assigned thereto in the Indenture. 








        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Officers' Certificate as of the date first above written. 



	

 	
 	
ABBOTT LABORATORIES
	

 	
 	

By:	

    

	 	 	Name: Jose M. de Lasa

Title: Executive Vice President and

General Counsel
	

 	
 	

By:	

    

	 	 	Name: Terrence C. Kearney

Title: Vice President and Treasurer













QuickLinks


ABBOTT LABORATORIES OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE and COMPANY ORDER March 18, 2004
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 6, 2014

NO. 03-13-00450-CR

Christine Danielle Baker, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 8 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, ROSE, AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the 

court below.
Filed pursuant to
                                                                Rule 424(b)(2)
                                                     Registration No. 33-59791

                                 $500,000,000
                                   CITICORP
                      Medium-Term Senior Notes, Series E
                   Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E
               Due From 9 Months to 50 Years From Date of Issue

Pricing  Supplement,  dated February 13, 1996
     (To Prospectus Supplement, dated August 7, 1995,
     to Prospectus, dated August 7, 1995).

                             DESCRIPTION OF NOTES

      The terms of the Notes set forth in this Pricing Supplement supplement and
modify,  to  the  extent  applicable,  the  description  of  general  terms  and
provisions of Citicorp's  Medium-Term  Subordinated Notes, Series E set forth in
the accompanying  Prospectus and Prospectus  Supplement.  Capitalized  terms not
defined  herein  shall  have  the  meanings   assigned  to  such  terms  in  the
accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement.

SUMMARY OF TERMS:

Title of Notes:               6.75% Subordinated Notes Due February 15, 2008
                              (the "Notes").

Aggregate
  Principal Amount:           $14,771,000.00.

Price to Public:              100%.

Issue Date:                   February 16, 1996.

Stated Maturity Date:         February 15, 2008.

Interest Rate:                6.75%.

Interest Payment Dates:       Monthly on the 15th day of each month, commencing
                              on March 15, 1996, and at Stated Maturity.

Regular Record Dates:         The first day of the month in which each Interest
                              Payment Date occurs.

Sinking Fund:                 None.

Redemption:                   The Notes are subject to redemption,  in whole but
                              not in part,  at the  option of  Citicorp,  on not
                              more than 60 or less than 30 days' notice,  on any
                              Interest  Payment Date,  on or after  February 15,
                              1999,  at a  redemption  price  of 100%  of  their
                              principal  amount plus accrued and unpaid interest
                              to the redemption date.

Selling Agent:                J.W. Korth & Co.

Agent's Commission:           2.00%.

Minimum Denomination:         $1,000.

CUSIP Number:                 17303 MES 4.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6668 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6668

To prohibit Members of Congress from receiving a financial benefit from 
              certain student loan cancellation programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 2022

  Mr. Cole (for himself, Mr. Womack, Mr. Babin, Mr. Burgess, Ms. Van 
  Duyne, Mrs. Hinson, Mr. Bost, Mr. Carey, Mrs. Bice of Oklahoma, Mr. 
Guthrie, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Loudermilk, Mr. Gohmert, Ms. 
   Letlow, and Mr. Calvert) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit Members of Congress from receiving a financial benefit from 
              certain student loan cancellation programs.

    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 ``Can't Cancel Your Own Debt Act of 
2022''.

SEC. 2. NO STUDENT LOAN CANCELLATION FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an 
individual who serves as a Member of Congress shall not be eligible, 
during or after such service--
            (1) for any service- or employment-based student loan 
        cancellation for any time served as a Member of Congress; or
            (2) for student loan cancellation from any Federal program 
        that is established or amended by an Act of Congress, or 
        established or set forth by an Executive order or agency 
        action, during the period in which the individual is serving as 
        a Member.
    (b) Definitions.--For the purposes of this Act--
            (1) Agency action.--The term ``agency action'' has the 
        meaning given such term in section 551 of title 5, United 
        States Code.
            (2) Cancellation.--The term ``cancellation'' means 
        cancellation, forgiveness, or assumption of the obligation to 
        repay the student loan debt of an individual by the Federal 
        Government.
            (3) Student loan.--The term ``student loan'' means any loan 
        made to an individual (including a loan made to a parent on 
        behalf of a dependent student) for expenses related to 
        attendance or enrollment at an institution of higher education.
    (c) Application.--This Act shall apply to any individual who serves 
as a Member of Congress on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

July 3, 2024

No. 04

- 23

- 00439

- CR

EX PARTE Julio GONZALEZ

- RAMIREZ

From the County Court
, Kinney County, Texas Trial Court No. 13223CR Honorable Susan D. Reed , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS Julio Gonzalez

Ramirez’s appeal of the denial of his application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction. We further consider Gonzalez

- Ramirez’s appeal as a petition for w rit of mandamus and DENY his request for mandamus relief WITHOUT PREJUDICE

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on July 3, 2024

.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez

, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 3rd day of July, 2024

.

_____________________________ Luz Estrada , Chief Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Thomas W. Powell, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Powell Industries, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13-15(f) and 15d-15(f))that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting, and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.    Date: June 8, 2005          /s/ THOMAS W. POWELL   Thomas W. Powell President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
22
#### Moses Botfeld, Appellant, v. Brooklyn, Queens County and Suburban Railroad Company, Respondent.

Order of the Municipal Court affirmed, without costs, because we are without power to reverse it. (See *Wendin*v. *Brooklyn Heights R. R Co.,*111 App. Div. 390.) Woodward, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
#### HOWARD et ux. v. ROBERTS.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.

July 17, 1936.

See, also 116 Fla. 381, 156 So. 438.

Joe Hill Williams, of Lake Butler, for appellants.

Knight & Knight, of Starke, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit in equity to foreclose a mortgage on real estate. As a defense to. the foreclosure an answer to the bill was-filed interposing an alleged parol agreement between the mortgagor and the mortgagee to the effect that at the time the mortgage was executed the mortgagee agreed with the mortgagor that he might work the turpentine timber on the lands described in the mortgage when it became sufficiently mature, but that notwithstanding said agreement the mortgagee refused to permit the mortgagor to work said timber or any part of it, and that by reason of such refusal the mortgagee made it impossible for the mortgagor to perform his contract. Based on this refusal on the part of the mortgagee, the mortgagor set up a counterclaim in his answer and prayed that a master be appointed to take testimony to ascertain the amount of damages the mortgagor sustained by reason of the breach of said contract on the part of the mortgagee. A motion to, strike paragraph 3 of the answer imposing such defense to the foreclosure was granted, and this appeal is from that decree.

In Jones on Mortgages (7th Ed.) vol. 3, § 1513, it is said.that a parol agreement between the mortgagor and the mortgagee providing that the latter take possession and receive the rents and profits from the property until the debt is paid, and then restore it to the mortgagor, cannot be specifically enforced, on account of the statute of frauds, but it may be ground for an equitable estoppel to prevent the mortgagee from claiming title by foreclosure in violation of the agreement. This court approved a similar rule in Moses v. Woodward, 109 Fla. 348, 140 So. 651, 141 So. 117, 147 So. 690.

This rule applies in cases where the mortgagee is out of technical or actual possession but goes into possession when the agreement is made and makes expenditures on the lands or performs some other act amounting to consideration by agreement of *487the parties. The case at bar does not meet this rule. The mortgage being foreclosed has no provision or showing on its face whatever to indicate that the mortgagor was entitled to work the turpentine timber. The answer to the bill of complaint is not sufficient in allegation to bring it within the fule approved in Moses v. Woodward, supra. Under the facts revealed the parol agreement relied on is within the prohibition of the statute of frauds, it seeks to vary, contradict, and alter the. terms of a written contract, the allegations as ,t° the parol agreement are not sufficient as to content, definiteness, and certainty, and the counterclaim is not shown to be cognizable in a court of equity.

For these reasons the judgment below must be, and is hereby, affirmed.

Affirmed.

ELLIS, P. J., and TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and BROWN and DAVIS, JJ., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Exhibit 99.01


             TRAVELERS PROPERTY CAUALTY TO PURCHASE SURETY BUSINESS
                           OF RELIANCE GROUP HOLDINGS


      HARTFORD, Conn. (February 29, 2000) -- Travelers Property Casualty
announced today that it has signed a letter of intent to acquire the surety
business of Reliance Group Holdings for $580 million. Reliance Surety recorded
net written premiums of $213 million in 1999, and at year end, had statutory
surplus of approximately $105 million and a GAAP net worth of $162 million.

      "The combination of the surety operations of Reliance and Travelers will
create a premier competitor in one of the most attractive segments of the
property and casualty industry," said Jay S. Fishman, President and Chief
Executive officer of Travelers Property Casualty. "The professionals of Reliance
Surety have an excellent reputation and have built one of the industry's best
organizations, a business that shares our strong commitment to quality
underwriting and long-term relationships and has a geographic scope that
complements our own. While augmenting our U.S. capabilities, Reliance Surety
brings to Travelers a team of international surety underwriters whose expertise
can be leveraged through the global network of Citigroup."

      "This transaction is a merger of two compatible organizations, and we are
excited about bringing together our two teams," said Joseph P. Kiernan,
President and CEO of Travelers Bond. "Reliance Surety has an excellent
management group headed by Brian Schmalz. By combining our two teams, we will be
able to deliver to agents and customers an even higher level of product
capability and services than they have come to expect, as well as the strength
and stability we possess as a member of the Citigroup organization."

      The purchase is subject to execution of definitive agreements and to
various approvals including those of the Boards of Directors of Reliance,
Travelers, and Travelers' major shareholder, Citigroup, as well as various
regulatory authorities. The transaction is expected to close by the end of May
2000 and to be modestly accretive to earnings in the first year.


                                               Travelers Property Caualty [LOGO]
                                                    A member of citigroup

One Tower Square
Hartford, CT 06183
www.travelers.com
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0000856 31-MAR-2015 10:24 AM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jervis Cunningham, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered June 18, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Initially, we note that the defendant’s claim that the Grand Jury proceedings resulting in his indictment were defective is not reviewable on this appeal from the ensuing judgment of conviction, which, contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find, as hereinafter explained, to be supported by legally sufficient evidence *(see,*CPL 210.30 [6]; *People v Hall,*143 AD2d 937; *cf., People v Pelchat,*62 NY2d 97; *People v Alexander,*136 AD2d 332, 334-335). In any event, the allegedly false testimony given before the Grand Jury related only to the burglary charge, a charge of which the defendant was acquitted.

The defendant’s contention that the hearing court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence recovered from the basement of his house is without merit. The record supports the hearing court’s determination that the defendant’s brother, who lived with the defendant, was authorized to and did consent to the entry of the police officers into the house *413and the basement *(see, People v Cosme,*48 NY2d 286, 290), and that the evidence at issue was in plain view in the basement *(see, People v Jackson,*41 NY2d 146, 150).

Also without merit is the defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove that he knowingly possessed the property recovered from the basement of his house. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant was in constructive possession of the stolen items found in the basement of his house *(see, People v Torres,*68 NY2d 677, 679), and that his possession was knowing *(see, People v Reisman,*29 NY2d 278, 285-286, *cert denied*405 US 1041). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245, 248-251). Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Hooper and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Certification
         I, Susan Mills, 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 the
period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup HELOC
Trust 2006-NCB1 Notes, Series 2006-NCB1 (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
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, all of the distribution,
servicing and other information required to be provided under
Form 10-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
statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation
AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic
reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the
servicing agreement; and

          5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance
with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their
related attestation 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 an exhibit 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: National City Bank and Citibank, N.A..




                                   Date March 30, 2007
                                   CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN
                                   TRUST INC.

                                   By: /s/ Susan Mills
                                   ------------------------
                                   Name: Susan Mills
                                   Title: Vice President
                                   Date: March 30, 2007