alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                        Washington, D.C. 20549

                      ___________________________

                               FORM 10-Q

              Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15(d)

                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                   ________________________________

 For the Quarter ended  March 31, 2000 Commission File Number  1-5447


                  PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD

    Pennsylvania                             25-6002536
 (State of Organization)            (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

                       Telephone -(304)926-1124*

 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
 required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
 Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
 that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
 subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

     Yes   X        No

 Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's
 classes of common stock, as of the close of the period covered by this
 report.

          1,510,000 shares of beneficial interest, without par value.


                      ___________________________

 * Notices and communications from the Securities and Exchange Commission
 for the registrant may be sent to Robert A. Hamstead, Secretary and
 Treasurer, #2 Port Amherst Drive, Charleston, WV 25306.
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

March 1, 2007

To:   Citibank, N.A.
      Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc.

      Re:  Servicing Agreement ("Agreement") dated as of May 23, 2006, by and
           among Citigroup HELOC Trust Series 2006-NCB1, Citibank, N.A., U.S.
           Bank National Association and National City Bank.


I, Russell A. Cronin, Jr., Senior Vice President of National City Bank (the
"Servicer"), and, in such capacity, the officer in charge of the Servicer's
responsibility under the Agreement, hereby certify to Citibank, N.A. and
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. in accordance with Item 1123 of Regulation
AB that:

(i) a review of the Servicer's activities for the period commencing May 23,
2006 and ending December 31, 2006 and of the Servicer's performance under the
Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and;

(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such period.


                                    National City Bank, as Servicer


                                     /s/ Russell A. Cronin, Jr.
                                    ----------------------------------------
                                 By: Russell A. Cronin, Jr.
                                     Senior Vice President
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 EMILY PATTERSON, 2 Petitioner-Appellee, 3 v. No. 28,848 4 LEN LOPRESTO, 5 Respondent-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Mike Murphy, District Judge 8 Francisco Mario Ortiz 9 Las Cruces, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bates Law Firm 12 Lloyd O. Bates, Jr. 13 Las Cruces, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 KENNEDY, Judge. 17 Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 18 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has 19 been filed and the time for doing so has expired. 20 AFFIRMED. 212 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

__________________________________ 2 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 3

WE CONCUR: 4

_____________________________ 5 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 6

_____________________________ 7 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 8
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    Form 13F

                               Form 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended:  June 30, 1999

Check here if Amendment [    ]; Amendment Number: ____
    This Amendment (Check only one.): [    ] is a restatement.
                                      [    ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:      Citicorp Trust, National Association
Address:   787 W. Fifth Street
           Los Angeles, California 90071

Form 13F File Number:              28-1777

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom
it is signed hereby represent that the person signing the report is authorized
to submit it, that all information contained herein is true, correct and
complete, and that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of this form.

Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name:      George Malinasky
Title:     Vice President
Phone:     (213) 239-1528

Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:

/s/ George Malinasky       Los Angeles, California       August 16, 1999
--------------------

Report Type (Check only one.):

[   ] 13F  HOLDINGS  REPORT.   (Check  here  if  all  holdings  of  this
      reporting manager are reported in this report.)

[ X ] 13F NOTICE. (Check here if no holdings reported are in this report,
      and all holdings are reported by other reporting manager(s).)

[   ] 13F COMBINATION REPORT. (Check here if a portion of the holdings for
      this reporting manager are reported in this report and a portion are
      reported by other reporting manager(s).)

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

Form 13F File Number 28-2427
Name:  Citigroup Inc.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6590 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in 

gross income of Social Security benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2022 

Mr. MASSIE (for himself, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. BURCHETT, Mr. CLINE, Mr. GAETZ, 

Mr. GOHMERT, Mrs. GREENE of Georgia, Mr. GRIFFITH, Mrs. 

HARSHBARGER, Mr. LAMBORN, Mrs. LESKO, Mr. MOONEY, Mr. NORMAN, 

Mr. PERRY, Mr. POSEY, Mr. ROY, and Mr. WEBSTER of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits. 

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 ‘‘Senior Citizens Tax 

5 Elimination Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6590 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCLUSION IN GROSS INCOME OF SO2 CIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 86 of the Internal Rev4 enue Code of 1986 (relating to social security benefits) 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 section: 

7 ‘‘(g) TERMINATION.—This section shall not apply to 

8 any taxable year beginning after the date of the enactment 

9 of this subsection.’’. 

10 (b) SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS HELD HARM11 LESS.— 

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—There are hereby appro13 priated (out of any money in the Treasury not other14 wise appropriated) for each fiscal year to each fund 

15 under the Social Security Act or the Railroad Re16 tirement Act of 1974 an amount equal to the reduc17 tion in the transfers to such fund for such fiscal 

18 year by reason of section 86(g) of the Internal Rev19 enue Code of 1986. 

20 (2) NO TAX INCREASES.—It is the sense of the 

21 Congress that tax increases will not be used to pro22 vide the revenue necessary to carry out paragraph 

23 (1). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, PAUL J. EVANSON, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY.



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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrant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 registrant 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 registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures 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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth 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 over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                       |  |                            
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|                       |  | /s/ Paul J. Evanson        
|                       |  | Paul J. Evanson            
|Date: November 4, 2005 |  | Principal Executive Officer
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-12-00460-CR

____________________

MAURICE A. WILLIAMS A/K/A MAURICE ANTONIO WILLIAMS,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court 

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 10-09440 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Maurice A. Williams a/k/a Maurice 

Antonio Williams pleaded guilty to robbery. The trial court found the evidence 

sufficient to find Williams guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed 

Williams on community supervision for seven years. The State subsequently filed 

a motion to revoke Williams’s unadjudicated community supervision. Williams 

pleaded “true” to violating one condition of his community supervision. The trial 
2

court found that Williams violated his community supervision, found Williams 

guilty of robbery, and sentenced Williams to twelve years in prison. 

Williams’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s 

professional evaluation of the record and concludes Williams’s appeal is frivolous. 

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On November 8, 2012, we 

granted an extension of time for Williams to file a pro se brief. We received no 

response from Williams. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous.

We have independently examined the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and 

we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. We find it unnecessary to order 

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

 ________________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on February 6, 2013

Opinion Delivered February 20, 2013

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

 1

Williams may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary 

review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                     FORM 15

             Certification and Notice of Termination of Registration
    under 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Suspension of Duty
               to File Reports Under Sections 13 and 15(d) of the
                        Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                        Commission File Number 333-72459

                       CITICORP MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.
           (Issuer in respect of the REMIC Pass-Through Certificates)
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                         12855 North Outer Forty Drive
                           St. Louis, Missouri 63141
                                 (314) 851-6305
          (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including
            area code, of registrant's principal executive offices)

                     REMIC Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1999-3
            (Title of each class of securities covered by this Form)

                                 Not Applicable
   (Titles of all other classes of securities for which a duty to file reports
                      under Section 13(a) or 15(d)remains)

         Please place an X in the box(es) to designate the appropriate rule
provision(s) relied upon to terminate or suspend the duty to file reports:

      Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(i)       [ ]        Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(ii)      [ ]
      Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(ii)      [ ]        Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(i)       [ ]
      Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(i)       [ ]        Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(ii)      [ ]
      Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(ii)      [ ]        Rule 15d-6                [x]
      Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(i)       [ ]

Approximate number of holders of record as of the certification or
notice date: 42

      Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Citicorp Mortgage Securities, Inc. has caused this certification/notice to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned duly authorized person.


Dated as of: January 28, 2000                BY:   /s/ Michael J. Tarpley
                                                   --------------------------
                                                       Michael J. Tarpley
                                                       Assistant Secretary
J-S73006-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

EMRU KEBEDE,

Appellant No. 1228 MDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order June 27, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003556-2007

BEFORE: BOWES, WECHT, and MUSMANNO, JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED MARCH 16, 2016

This matter is before the panel a second time. On May 2, 2007, 

Appellant Emru Kebede, who was then sixteen years old, participated in 

events that led to the murder of Ray Diener by another actor. On 

September 10, 2010, Appellant was found guilty of second-degree murder 

and was sentenced to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without 

parole. Appellant filed a timely PCRA petition invoking Miller v. Alabama,

132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), which held that it was unconstitutional to sentence a 

juvenile homicide offender to an automatic sentence of life without parole. 

Counsel was appointed and argued that Miller applied retroactively. The 

PCRA court denied relief on June 27, 2014, and this appeal was filed. PCRA 

counsel petitioned to withdraw, noting that Miller has been denied 

retroactive application in Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1 (Pa. 
J-S73006-14

- 2 -

2013). We permitted counsel to withdraw in a decision filed on February 20, 

2015. 

On January 25, 2016, the United States Supreme Court overruled 

Cunningham, holding that Miller was to be given retroactive effect. 

Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016). On February 17, 2016, 

Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal was granted as to the Miller

question and the case was remanded to this Court for further proceedings 

consistent with Montgomery. 

Shortly after Montgomery's issuance, this Court entered a published 

opinion in Commonwealth v. Secreti, 578 WDA 2015 (Pa.Super. 2/9/16). 

Therein, Secreti was sentenced to automatic life imprisonment without 

possibility of parole for committing first degree murder as a juvenile, and 

filed a PCRA petition seeking relief under Miller. Relief was denied, and 

Secreti was on appeal when Montgomery was decided. On February 9, 

2016, following issuance of Montgomery, this Court in Secreti held that 

(1) Miller applied retroactively to Secreti's sentence under the PCRA's 

retroactivity provision, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii); (2) Secreti's sentence 

was unconstitutional under Miller, and (3) Secreti was entitled to a new 

sentencing hearing in accordance with the dictates of our Supreme Court’s 

decision in Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013). 

The June 27, 2014 order denying PCRA relief and the judgment of 

sentence entered on September 18, 2009, in this matter are vacated and 
J-S73006-14

- 3 -

the case is remanded for resentencing. The trial court is directed to appoint 

new counsel for Appellant. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judge Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

case.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/16/2016
Limited Waiver of Executive Agreement Provisions



 Exhibit 10(z) 
  
 

 
 190 Carondelet Plaza 
 Suite 1530 
 Clayton, MO 63105-3443 
  
 February 17, 2005 
  

George H. Pain 
 c/o Olin Corporation 
 190 Carondelet Plaza 
 Clayton, MO 63105 
  

	 	RE:	Limited Waiver of Executive Agreement Provisions  

  
 Dear George: 
  
 Reference is hereby made to the Executive Agreement between Olin Corporation (“Olin”) and you, dated as of November 1, 2002 (the “Executive Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but not defined
herein shall have the meanings given such terms in the Executive Agreement. 
  
 As you know, the Executive Agreement provides that, under certain circumstances described in Section 1(f)(ii) of the Executive Agreement (a “Termination”), you may voluntarily terminate your employment and
receive the Executive Severance and other payments and benefits described in the Executive Agreement. 
  
 You and Olin acknowledge that Olin has expanded your current duties and responsibilities to include responsibility for oversight of Olin’s
Environmental Remediation Program (the “Additional Responsibilities”). You and Olin agree that such expansion of, or the subsequent removal of such Additional Responsibilities from, your duties and responsibilities with Olin shall not be
considered an event that could give rise to a Termination, and therefore you shall not be entitled to receive the Executive Severance or any other payments or benefits under the Executive Agreement if you voluntarily terminate your employment on the
basis of the removal of such Additional Responsibilities from your duties and responsibilities with Olin; provided, however, that if such Additional Responsibilities are removed in anticipation of or after a Change in Control, such removal shall be
deemed an event that shall be considered to be a Termination at your election. 
  
 Except as otherwise specifically provided above, the Executive Agreement shall continue unaffected and remain in full force and effect. For the avoidance of doubt, your letter agreement with Olin Corporation, dated as
of January 29, 2004, relating to certain VSP and relocation matters, shall continue unaffected and remain in full force and effect. The validity, interpretation, construction and performance of this letter agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the Commonwealth of Virginia (without giving effect to its principles of conflicts of law). This letter agreement may not be modified, waived or discharged unless such modification, waiver or discharge is agreed to in writing signed by you and Olin.
No agreements or representations, oral or otherwise, express or implied, with respect to the subject matter hereof have been made by either party which are not set forth expressly in this letter agreement. 
  

	
	OLIN CORPORATION
	
	/s/ JOSEPH D. RUPP
	Joseph D. Rupp
	President & C.E.O.


  

	
	Accepted and agreed:
	
	/s/ GEORGE H. PAIN
	George H. Pain
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-84,836-01

EX PARTE BENITO DAVILA, JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 15143C-A IN THE 29 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM PALO PINTO COUNTY

ALCALA, J., filed a concurring opinion in which JOHNSON, J., joined.

CONCURRING OPINION

I respectfully concur in the Court’s order that remands this pro se habeas application

to the convicting court for further development of the record. I, however, do not join the

Court’s order because it fails to accurately track the statutory language in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, in that it improperly limits an indigent pro se habeas applicant’s

entitlement to the assistance of appointed post-conviction counsel to situations involving a

hearing on remand. As I previously explained in my concurring opinion in Ex parte Pointer,

in order to comply with the statutory requirements in the Code, this Court’s order should
Davila - 2

instead more broadly require a habeas court to appoint counsel for an indigent pro se habeas

applicant whenever the court determines that the interests of justice require it. See Ex parte

Pointer, Nos. WR-84,786-01 & WR-84,786-02, 2016 WL 3193254 (Tex. Crim. App. June

8, 2016) (Alcala, J., concurring) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.051(d)(3) (providing

that an indigent habeas applicant “is entitled to have the trial court appoint an attorney to

represent him in . . . a habeas corpus proceeding if the court concludes that the interests of

justice require representation”)). Because the Court’s order fails to track the statutory

language in the Code of Criminal Procedure by incorrectly suggesting that the habeas court’s

authority to appoint post-conviction counsel is limited to situations involving a hearing on

remand, I cannot join the Court’s order. Aside from my disagreement with the language in

this Court’s order, I otherwise respectfully concur.

Filed: June 29, 2016

Do not publish