alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            THE PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY


                            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 Quarterly Report of The Penn Traffic Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 3, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
V. Fisher, President & 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 results of operations of the Company.



   /s/ Joseph V. Fisher
-------------------------------
Joseph V. Fisher
President & Chief Executive Officer

September 18, 2002
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 11078 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. DANTANA TANKSLEY,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
B efore REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges

. REAVLEY, Circuit Judge : The government has filed a petition for en banc rehearing. The en banc petition remains pending. This court supplements its opinion entered on petition for panel rehearing to reaffirm that, under Texas law, section 481.112(a) of the Texas Health and Safety Code is indivisible and “establishes alternative means of punis hing an offense in the continuum of drug
distribution.” Weinn v. State , 326 S.W.3d 189, 19 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) ; see United States v. Tanksley , 848 F.3d 347, 352 (5th Cir. 2017)

. We reached this
conclusion based on Lopez v. State , 108 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). In United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 13, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-11078 Document: 00513952560 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2017No. 15

- 11078

2 urging the en banc court to rehear the case, the government argues our holding “is clearly inconsistent with Guerrero v. State , 305 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009), which controls the issue and holds that manufa cturing and possessing with intent to deliver a controlled substance are separate offenses.” The government’s argument is misguided because it is drawn from a plurality opinion. Weinn makes clear that Guerrero never upset Lopez. Weinn , 326 S.W.3d at 193 (footnotes omitted) (explaining that, in Guerrero , the “majority, comprised of two concurring judges and three dissenting judges, noted that the legislature did not intend multiple punishments for manufacture and simultaneous possession with intent to de liver with respect to a single quantity of controlled substances.”). Without a doubt, Weinn “definitively” establishes
that Section 481.112 is an indivisible statute. See Mathis v. United States , 136 S.Ct. 2243, 2256 (2016). 1

1 We note a typographi cal error in the original Opinion, which wrongly referenced

“ Hinkle’s holding that Section 481.112 is divisible .” Hinkle , of course, found Section 481.112 to be in divisible. To avoid any future confusion, we also note that our harmless error analysis reli ed exclusively on the test set forth in United States v. Ibarra

- Luna , 628 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 2010), because the district court did not consider the correct guidelines range. See United States v. Richardson , 676 F.3d 491, 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (“[A] guidelines calculation error is harmless where the district court has considered the correct guidelines range and has stated that it would impose the same sentence even if that range applied.”). Case: 15-11078 Document: 00513952560 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2017
**Exhibit 21.0**

 

**Subsidiaries**

 
| ** **                          | ** ** | **Percentage** | ** ** | **Jurisdiction  or**       |
|-------------------------------------|------------|----------------|------------|----------------------------|
| ** **                          | ** ** | **Ownership**  | ** ** | **State of Incorporation** |
| **Registrant**                      |       |           |       |                       |
| ** **                          |       |           |       |                       |
| Fox Chase  Bancorp, Inc.       |       |           |       |                       |
|                                |       |           |       |                       |
| **Subsidiaries**                    |       |           |       |                       |
|                                |       |           |       |                       |
| Fox Chase Bank                      |       | 100            | %          |                       | United States |
|                                |       |           |       |                       |   |
| Fox Chase  Financial, Inc. (1) |       | 100            | %          |                       | Delaware |
|                                |       |           |       |                       |   |
| Fox Chase Service  Corporation (1)  |       | 100            | %          |                       | Pennsylvania |

 

----

(1)     Wholly owned subsidiary of Fox Chase Bank.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1997
<CASH>                                          12,582
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    246,642
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               275,992
<PP&E>                                         315,330
<DEPRECIATION>                                 145,611
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 448,351
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          115,030
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           697
<OTHER-SE>                                     258,661
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   448,351
<SALES>                                        550,177
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               550,177
<CGS>                                          315,212
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  315,212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               198,346
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,512
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,107
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,692
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,415
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,415
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133065 & (16) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133065 

 COA: 274182 

Calhoun CC: 05-001959-FC 

MICHAEL A. AMOS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of June 20, 2007, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the December 14, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, 

we VACATE the judgment of sentence and REMAND this case to the Calhoun Circuit 

Court for the resentencing of the defendant on all of his criminal sexual conduct 

convictions. The circuit court erred by assessing the defendant 50 points under Offense 

Variable 11 for penetrations that did not arise out of the particular sentencing offenses. 

People v Johnson, 474 Mich 96 (2006). If the defendant is scored points for OV 11, the 

trial court must indicate that the acts of sexual penetration “arose out of” the sentencing 

offenses. MCL 777.41(2)(a). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because 

we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this 

Court. 

p0830 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Max A. Coon, certify that:
1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Maxco, Inc.;
2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b)    [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]
c)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosures controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
d)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a)    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting.   Date:   August 14,2003            /s/ Max A. Coon
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David A. Searor, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s claim regarding jail-time credit is not properly before this court on direct appeal from the judgment of conviction (CPL 450.10 *et seq; People v Curtis,*143 AD2d 1030, *lv denied*73 NY2d 890; *People v Leonard,*133 AD2d 938). Defendant’s proper remedy is by way of a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the prison authorities’ calculation of the jail-time credit to which he claims entitlement *(People v Curtis, supra,*at 1030; *People v Vivenzio,*103 AD2d 1044, 1045; *People v Blake,*39 AD2d 587). (Appeal from judgment of Oswego County Court, Auser, J.—sexual abuse, first degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
                                                                      Exhibit 27
        THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
        STATEMENTS OF INCOME, CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, AND CONSOLIDATED
        STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS, AND QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
        SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000077385
<NAME> PEOPLES ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                            PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   1,576,928
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                   156,202
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                        703,313
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       33,954
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 60,668
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              2,531,065
<COMMON>                                      294,471
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                           0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                           523,835
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                818,306
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                          319,734
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                  0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                           0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                253,665
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                 377,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                           0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                         0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                    0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                762,360
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               2,531,065
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                     937,146
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                    781,218
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                    781,218
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                       155,928
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              7,593
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                163,521
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       25,078
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           51,444
<NET-INCOME>                                   86,999
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  86,999
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       34,771
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      17,875
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         72,287
<EPS-BASIC>                                    2.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2.45



</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.436


 


ASSIGNMENT OF REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT


 


For good and
valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the undersigned, INLAND REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC., an
Illinois corporation, (“Assignor”) hereby assigns to INLAND WESTERN PLACENTIA,
L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, (“Assignee”) all of its right,
title and interest in that certain Agreement of Purchase and Sale by and
between INLAND REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC., as Purchaser, and DONAHUE
SCHRIBER REALTY GROUP, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, as Seller, dated
October 11, 2004, as amended, for purchase and sale of certain real property
commonly known as Placentia Town Center, 104-198 Yorba Linda Blvd., Placentia,
California (the “Property”).


 


By execution
hereof by Assignee, Assignee hereby accepts the assignment and assumes all of
the obligations of Assignor under the Purchase Agreement.


 


This
Assignment is effective as of the 29th day of November, 2004.


 


	
  ASSIGNOR: 

  	
   

  	
  INLAND REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC.,

  an Illinois corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  /s/ G. Joseph Cosenza

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  G. Joseph Cosenza

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
  President

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ASSIGNEE:

  	
   

  	
  INLAND WESTERN PLACENTIA, L.L.C., a 

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Delaware limited liability company

  By: Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc., its

  sole member

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Its: Assistant Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20607]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK


Notice of Open Special Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the 
Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank)

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee was established by Pub. L. 98-181, 
November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and 
to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import 
Bank of the United States to Congress.
    Time and Place: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 from 9:30 a.m. to 12 
p.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 
1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
    Agenda: Agenda items include a discussion of the Bank's recent 
activities, as well as the effects of the ``credit crunch'' upon U.S. 
business and exporting.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public 
participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral 
questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written 
statement(s) before or after the meeting. If you plan to attend, a 
photo ID must be presented at the guard's desk as part of the clearance 
process into the building, and you may contact Susan Houser to be 
placed on an attendee list. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such 
as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please 
contact, prior to September 10, 2008, Susan Houser, Room 1273, 811 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565-3232 or TDD 
(202) 565-3377.
    Further Information: For further information, contact Susan Houser, 
Room 1273, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3232.

Howard A. Schweitzer,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E8-20607 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with Wdesk from Workiva-->
<!--Copyright 2022 Workiva-->
<!--r:9d2d3fa3-6663-4141-92c4-9b38e8625679,g:627d2178-4b5e-49ef-8b24-44ca9f9301e7-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:cinf="http://www.cinfin.com/20220215" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.cinfin.com/20220215">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2021" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2021/dei-2021.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20220215_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20220215_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="CoverPageCoverPage" roleURI="http://www.cinfin.com/role/CoverPageCoverPage">
        <link:definition>0001001 - Document - Cover Page Cover Page</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Gross, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant waived prosecution *by*indictment, consented to be prosecuted by a superior court information charging him with burglary in the second degree, and pleaded guilty to that charge. The court subsequently granted defendant’s application to withdraw his plea, but denied his request to withdraw the waiver of indictment. Defendant, after further plea negotiations, again pleaded *887guilty. On this appeal, he contends that he was denied due process by the court’s refusal to permit withdrawal of the waiver of indictment. Defendant, by pleading guilty, forfeited appellate review of that issue *(see, People v Stewart,*122 AD2d 236; *People v Ferrara,*99 AD2d 257, 259). (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming County Court, Dadd, J.—burglary, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.