alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 33.4**[****JPMORGAN CHASE LOGO****]****Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria**     JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessingcompliance as of October 1, 2006 and for the period from October 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006(the “Reporting Period”), with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122 (d)of the Code of Federal Regulations (the “CFR”), “), to the extent required by the relatedtransaction agreements excluding the criteria set forth in 17 CFR 229.1122(d) (1)(i)-(iv),(2)(i)-(vi), (3)(i)-(iv), and (4)(i)-(xv), which the Asserting Party has concluded are notapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securitizationtransactions covered by this report (such criteria, after giving effect to the exclusionsidentified above, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”). This report covers the asset-backedsecurities transactions backed by residential mortgages and home equity loans, auto loans, creditcards, dealer floor plans, retail installment contracts and manufactured housing contracts forwhich transactions the Asserting Party performs the applicable servicing criteria, that wereregistered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, asamended, where the related asset-backed securities were either (1) issued during the calendar yearending December 31, 2006 or (2) issued prior to the calendar year ending December 31, 2006 andremain subject to the reporting requirements under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (the “Platform”), as listed in Appendix A.     The Asserting Party has (i) used the criteria set forth in 17 CFR 229.1122(d) to assess thecompliance by the Asserting Party with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Periodand (ii) concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with theApplicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period with respect tothe Platform, taken as a whole.     PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued anattestation report for the Platform, on our assessment of compliance with the Applicable ServicingCriteria as of December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this report.JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association   /s/ Brian Goldman     Brian Goldman, Senior Vice President  Date: March 12, 2007  
 

 
**Appendix A**BA Master Credit Card Trust II
EXHIBIT 4.1

                     [Letterhead of McClain & Company, L.C.]

                                  March 2, 2005


Office of the Chief Accountant
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC



Dear Sir/Madam:

We have read the second and third paragraphs of Item 4.01 included in the
Form 8-K dated March 2, 2005 of Netfran Development Corp. to be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and are in agreement with the statements
contained therein.

Very truly yours,

/s/ McClain & Company, L.C.
---------------------------
    McClain & Company, L.C.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         326,521
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,448,489
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,281,881
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,192,382
<PP&E>                                       7,458,569
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,147,609
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,014,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,898,063
<BONDS>                                        495,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,333
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,954,978
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,014,505
<SALES>                                      3,876,768
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,876,768
<CGS>                                        3,087,490
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,087,490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               962,123
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,418
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (195,263)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (195,263)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (195,263)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1424

In Re: DEREK MARQUIS FLEMING,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:91-cr-00179-NCT)

Submitted: June 3, 2010 Decided: June 14, 2010

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Marquis Fleming, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derek Marquis Fleming petitions for a writ of 

mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting 

on his motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior order 

denying his motion to correct judgment. He seeks an order from 

this court directing the district court to act. Although we 

find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is 

not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without 

prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the 

district court does not act expeditiously. We grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. We deny Fleming’s motion to expedite 

as moot and 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 32.2

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 Middle Kingdom Alliance Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bernard J. Tanenbaum III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The 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 for the period certified.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Fred A. Brasch     
|Fred A. Brasch         
|Chief Financial Officer

May 14, 2009
IIB 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6201 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 27, 2022 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To extend the authority for the establishment of a commemorative work to honor enslaved and free Black persons 

who served in the American Revolution, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6201 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Liberty Me3 morial Preservation Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR ESTABLISHMENT 

5 OF COMMEMORATIVE WORK. 

6 Notwithstanding section 8903(e) of title 40, United 

7 States Code, the authority provided by section 2860 of the 

8 Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

9 2013 (division B of Public Law 112–239; 126 Stat. 2164; 

10 40 U.S.C. 8903 note) shall continue to apply through Sep11 tember 30, 2027. 

12 SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

13 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

14 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

15 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

16 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

17 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

18 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro19 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

20 vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 2022. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 661 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 661

  To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require Members of 
Congress to disclose business ties with foreign entities, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2021

  Mr. Posey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require Members of 
Congress to disclose business ties with foreign entities, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Congressional Foreign Entanglement 
Disclosure and Reduction Act''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OF BUSINESS TIES WITH FOREIGN 
              ENTITIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 102 of the Ethics in Government Act of 
1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 102) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(j) Any report filed pursuant to section 101(d) by a Member of 
Congress shall include the disclosure of any business ties the Member 
or any member of the Member's immediate family has (if any) with a 
foreign entity. If a Member of Congress makes an affirmative disclosure 
of any such ties, the Member shall include information detailing the 
nature of the business tie and foreign entity.''.
    (b) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to any report filed pursuant to section 101(d) of the Ethics in 
Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 101(d)) after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
First Amendment to Master Product Development and Clinical Supply Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.25 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

MASTER PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND CLINICAL SUPPLY AGREEMENT 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO MASTER PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND CLINICAL SUPPLY AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into effective as of
March 15, 2013 (the “Effective Date”) between Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with its principal offices at 11804 North Creek Parkway South, Bothell, WA 98011 (“Client”) and Althea
Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with its principal offices at 11040 Roselle Street, San Diego, CA 92121 (“Althea”), in order to amend that certain Master Product Development and Clinical Supply Agreement between Client and
Althea dated March 21, 2011 (the “Agreement”). The parties agree as follows: 
 1. The first sentence in Section 3.1 (Term) in the
Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: “This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and will continue until the later of (a) July 31, 2013, and (b) the date on which the Production services, as
described in the last outstanding PWA, have been completed, unless sooner terminated pursuant to Section 3.2 herein (the “Term”). 

2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the Agreement and this
Amendment, this Amendment will control. 
 3. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and
all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Amendment shall be effective upon full execution, and a facsimile or other electronic signature shall be deemed to be and shall be as effective as an original signature. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the Effective Date.

  

									
	ALDER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	 		 	ALTHEA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Mark J. Litton, Ph.D.
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Martha J. Demski

					
	Name:	 	Mark J. Litton, Ph.D.	 		 	Name:	 	Martha J. Demski
					
	Title:	 	Chief Business Officer	 		 	Title:	 	SVP and CFO
					
	Date:	 	 March 15, 2013
	 		 	Date:	 	 2013.03.19         10:25:10-07’00’


 Althea & Alder Confidential
#### In the Matter of Estate of Barnett Kadin, Deceased, Appellant, v Roger Bennett et al., Constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, Respondents.

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and in an action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, the petitioner appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated November 9, 1987, as, in effect, dismissed its second cause of action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In the petition’s second cause of action, it was alleged, pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, that the petitioner was deprived of procedural due process by the refusal of the respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York to hear its appeal seeking review of a determination by the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Buildings which revoked a building permit previously granted to it and issued a stop-work order. However, CPLR article 78, which allows for judicial review and correction of the actions of the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, provides whatever process the petitioner was due as a matter of Federal law. Since the petitioner has not alleged any basis for finding the State procedural remedy inadequate, the dismissal, in effect, of its 42 USC § 1983 claim was proper *(see, Narumanchi v Board of Trustees,*850 F2d 70 [2d Cir]; *Tarry Corp. v Friedlander,*650 F Supp 1544, 1551-1552 [SD NY], *affd*826 *311F2d 210 [2d Cir]; *Marino v Ameruso,*837 F2d 45 [2d Cir]; *cf., Scott v Greenville County,*716 F2d 1409 [4th Cir]). Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Colonial Penn Insurance Company, Appellant, v Francois Michel, Respondent, and State Farm Insurance Company et al., Additional Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered March 20, 1989, which, after a hearing, denied its application for a permanent stay of arbitration and directed it and the respondent Francois Michel to proceed to arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents Michel and State Farm Insurance Company appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The petitioner Colonial Penn Insurance Company issued an automobile liability insurance policy to the respondent Francois Michel which was in effect on May 7, 1988, the date upon which he was involved in a motor vehicle accident with an allegedly uninsured motorist. Pursuant to this policy, Michel thereafter served upon the petitioner a demand for arbitration. The petitioner subsequently requested a stay of arbitration claiming, *inter alia,*that there was a question of whether or not the offending vehicle was insured by State Farm Insurance Company on the date of the accident.

At the hearing, the evidence submitted included the police report and a DP37 form from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles which indicated that the allegedly offending *308vehicle identified in the police report was insured by State Farm Insurance Company. The insured Francois Michel testified with respect to the happening of the accident but was unable to state the license plate number of the offending vehicle. The hearing court found that the petitioner failed to prove that the offending vehicle was insured at the time of the accident and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

The basis for the identification of the subject vehicle insured by State Farm Insurance Company as the one involved in the accident in question, which is contained in the police report, is not set forth. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, no testimony or other evidence was offered that the information in the police report identifying the allegedly offending vehicle was based on the reporting officer’s observations at the scene. In addition to the fact that the reporting officer did not testify, the petitioner’s insured described the offending vehicle as a "total loss” and he could not recall if it had license plates.

Without the benefit of any such testimony, the DP37 report was insufficient to establish that the offending vehicle was insured *(see. Matter of Peerless Ins. Co. v Milloul,*140 AD2d 346; *Murray v Donlan,*77 AD2d 337, 342-347). Therefore, under the circumstances, the application for a stay of arbitration was properly denied. Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 172 (Thursday, September 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20327]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; A Cooperative Research Partnerships 
for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases SEP 3.
    Date: September 22, 2008.
    Time: 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 
3257, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Michelle M Timmerman, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, NIH/NIAID/DHHS, Room 3147, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive, MSC-7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-451-4573, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dfabb6b2b2baadb2beb1b29fb1b6beb6bbf1b1b6b7f1b8b0a9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="43372a2e2e26312e222d2e032d2a222a276d2d2a2b6d242c35">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 26, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-20327 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001029390
<NAME> PROFESSIONAL RECOVERIES INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          35,110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,028
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,186
<INVENTORY>                                     68,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,105
<PP&E>                                          87,561
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 351,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,519
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,249
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   351,654
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,842
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,277)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,496)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,781)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,781)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        
<PAGE>

</TABLE>