alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|    |                                                                                   |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A of Public Service Company of Colorado; |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   | /s/ DAVID L. EVES |
|   | David L. Eves |
|   | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1608

To amend title 18 of the United States Code to prohibit human cloning.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 26, 2001

Mr. EHLERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18 of the United States Code to prohibit

human cloning.

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 ‘‘Human Cloning Prohi5 bition Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds the following:

8 (1) Genetic science, including cloning tech9 nology and stem cell research, holds great promise

10 for medical breakthroughs, including cures and

11 treatments for diseases.
2

•HR 1608 IH

1 (2) Scientists should be encouraged to use

2 cloning technologies with plants and animals in

3 order to discover agricultural benefits for mankind.

4 (3) Scientists should continue to pursue re5 search that uses cloning technologies to clone tis6 sues, molecules, cells, and DNA.

7 (4) However, while the possibilities of scientific

8 experimentation normally are beneficial and limit9 less, there are times when society—through the gov10 ernmental process—can and should place limits on

11 scientific experimentation. Such is the case with

12 human cloning.

13 (5) Human cloning raises serious moral, ethical,

14 societal, and safety concerns that necessitate a legis15 lative ban.

16 SEC. 3. HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITED.

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 89 of title 18, United

18 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol19 lowing new section:

20 ‘‘§ 1822. Human cloning

21 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever, in or affecting inter22 state or foreign commerce, knowingly replaces the nucleus

23 of an oocyte with the nucleus of a human somatic cell shall

24 be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2

25 years, or both.
3

•HR 1608 IH

1 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply if,

2 prior to replacement of the nucleus of the oocyte, the nu3 cleus of the human somatic cell has been modified so that

4 the cell cannot develop to completion.

5 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—

6 ‘‘(1) the term ‘somatic cell’ means any cell

7 other than a sperm or oocyte; and

8 ‘‘(2) the term ‘oocyte’ means an egg cell.’’.

9 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

10 at the beginning of chapter 89 of title 18, United States

11 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new

12 item:

‘‘§ 1822. Human cloning’’.

Æ
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1589

To amend the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act to provide trade

benefits for socks and hosiery.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 25, 2001

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act to

provide trade benefits for socks and hosiery.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY OF TRADE BENEFITS FOR CER4 TAIN TEXTILE AND APPAREL ARTICLES.

5 Section 213(b)(2)(A) of the Carribean Basin Eco6 nomic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(2)(A)) is amend7 ed as follows:

8 (1) Clause (i) is amended by striking the mat9 ter preceding subclause (I) and inserting the fol10 lowing:
2

•HR 1589 IH

1 ‘‘(i) APPAREL ARTICLES ASSEMBLED

2 IN ONE OR MORE CBTPA BENEFICIARY

3 COUNTRIES.—Apparel articles sewn or as4 sembled in one or more CBTPA bene5 ficiary countries from fabrics wholly

6 formed and cut, or from components knit

7 to shape, in the United States from yarns

8 wholly formed in the United States, (in9 cluding fabrics not formed from yarns, if

10 such fabrics are classifiable under heading

11 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are wholly

12 formed and cut in the United States) that

13 are—’’.

14 (2) Clause (ii) is amended to read as follows:

15 ‘‘(ii) APPAREL ARTICLES CUT AND AS16 SEMBLED IN ONE OR MORE CBTPA BENE17 FICIARY COUNTRIES.—Apparel articles cut

18 in one or more CBTPA beneficiary coun19 tries from fabric wholly formed in the

20 United States, including from components

21 knit to shape in the United States, from

22 yarns wholly formed in the United States

23 (including fabrics not formed from yarns,

24 if such fabrics are classifiable under head25 ing 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are
3

•HR 1589 IH

1 wholly formed in the United States), if

2 such articles are assembled in one or more

3 such countries with thread formed in the

4 United States.’’.

5 (3) Clause (iii) is amended—

6 (A) by striking ‘‘(other than socks provided

7 for in heading 6115 of the HTS)’’;

8 (B) in division (aa), by striking ‘‘; and’’

9 and inserting ‘‘, and’’;

10 (C) in division (bb), by striking the period

11 at the end and inserting a comma; and

12 (D) by adding at the end the following

13 flush phrase:

14 ‘‘except that knit-to-shape socks and ho15 siery provided for in heading 6115 of the

16 HTS are not subject to the amount set

17 forth in this subclause.’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1606 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                     November 20, 2002.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
1606) entitled ``An Act to amend section 507 of the Omnibus Parks and 
Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to authorize additional 
appropriations for historically black colleges and universities, to 
decrease the matching requirement related to such appropriations, and 
for other purposes.'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

    Page 3, line 14, strike out [such sums as may be necessary] and 
insert: a total of $10,000,000 for fiscal years 2003 and 2004

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
107th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1606

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
185 La. 159

#### STATE v. CAMPBELL.

No. 33644.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1936.

Ponder & Ponder, of Amite, for appellant.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., Robert S. Ellis, Jr., Dist. Atty., of Amite, and Less-ley P. Gardiner, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., for the State.

FOURNET, Justice.

The defendant, Willie Campbell, was indicted for murder, tried and convicted of manslaughter, and was sentenced to not less than two nor more than five years in the state penitentiary. The defendant has appealed from the conviction and sentence.

The appeal is predicated on two bills of exception taken to the ruling of the court sustaining the objections of the district attorney to two questions propounded by defendant’s counsel to the defendant while on the stand, as follows: “Why did you shoot Bennie Harrington?” And: “From the appearances, what did you suspect?” These bills of exception were signed by the district judge and were incorporated in a motion for a new trial, which was denied and a bill reserved to the court’s ruling.

The record does not disclose in what manner the defendant’s rights have been prejudiced by the ruling of the court, and counsel for defendant apparently concedes that there is no merit in his appeal, for he has not appeared either in person or by brief to enlighten us on that subject. It would be pure conjecture on our part to attempt to visualize what took place from the scant record.

The verdict of the jury and sentence are, therefore, affirmed.

O’NIELL, C. J., absent.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Markem Corporation

v. Case No. 07-cv-06-SM

Zipher Ltd, et al.

O R D E R

 On March 26, 2007, case number 07-cv-85-PB, which has since been consolidated with

the above-captioned case, was transferred to this district from the Western District of Wisconsin. 

By order dated March 28, 2007, attorney James R. Cole was informed that a motion pro hac vice

must be filed on his behalf within thirty (30) days or the matter would be referred to a judicial

office for appropriate action. By notice issued the same date, Attorney Cole was informed that

electronic filing was mandatory in this district and instructed that he was required to register to

receive a login and password to our Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system within thirty (30) days. 

As of this date, no pro hac vice motion has been filed on Attorney Cole’s behalf and he has not

registered for ECF. 

Attorney Cole shall have a pro hac vice motion filed on his behalf, and shall register for

ECF, on or before June 12, 2007. If Attorney Cole fails to comply with both of these

requirements within this time frame, the court will immediately remove him as counsel of record

in the case without further order of the court.

SO ORDERED.

Date: May 30, 2007 ______________________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:07-cv-00006-PB Document 29 Filed 05/30/07 Page 1 of 1
January 4, 1952 

Hon. J. A. PhIllips, Chairman 

Texas State Board of Public Accou&ancy 

The Steck Building 

Austin, Texas Opinion Ho. V-1384 

C 

C 

Re: Legality of a licensed 

public accountant using 

Dear Sir: the designation “P.A.’ 

YOUP request for OUP opinion reads In part 

as followsi \ 

*The Texas State Board of Public 

Accountancy desires an opinion from your 

office in respect of whether or not a public accountaM (one other than a Certified 

Public Accountant, but holding a permit to 

practice public accountancy) may use the 

designation, or rather the initials ‘P.A.’ 

. 

“Our ‘Board is having difficulty in 

satisfactorily lnterpieting the appropriate 

provisions of the Act. Section 16 deals 

with the desigimtion lCertifled Public Accountant’ and provides that such ,a person 

nay use the abbreviation ‘C.P.A.’ Section 

18 deals with the use of the designation ‘Public Aocountant’ but contains no provision for using the abbreviation ‘P.A. ’ 

(Similar to the use o;,~;;~;A;~ prr;id;fth 

for in Section 16). 

prohibited abbreviations and the first 

sentence prohibiting abbreviations closes 

with the following words% “Ior other such abbreviations by a 

public accountant or by any other person 

is prohibited. Ia 

Section 16 of Article 41a, V.C.S., dealiaq 

with the initials authorized to be used by a certl-’ 

fied public accountant, provides: 
Hon. J. A. Phillips, page 2~: (Vi13841 

*Any person who has received from 

the Board a~ Csrtificate of Certified Pub- ’ 

lit Accountant and holds a valid permit 

to practice, shall be styled and known 

as a ‘Certified Public Accountant* and 

may also use the abbreviation ‘C.P.A. I. 

No other person except partnerships registered under this Act, shall assume or 

use that title or abbrevia~tlon or any 

other title; sign, card or device tending 

to imply that the person using the same is 

a certified public accountant.* 

Section 18 of Artlcle~ 41a, V.C.S., relating 

to public accountants, provides: 
Hon. J. A. Phill.ips, page 3 (v-1384) 

In Board of Insurance Commissioners of 

Texas v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Texas, 142 Tex. 

0, MO s . w . 2 d 906, 909 (1944) It is stated: 

'Where the language of a statute is 

unambiguous, and its meaning is clear, the 

statute must be given effect according to 

its terms, and, 'we are not at liberty to 

speculate'upon the intention of the LegIslature in its enactment.'" 

We believe the language of the above quoted provision is plain, clear, and unambiguous. Therefore, it is our opinion that the abbreviation 'P.A." 

comes within the prohibited designations and may not 

be used~ by a public accountant. 

SUMMARY 

A public accountant is not authorized 

to use the designation "P.A.' after his name, 

such use,belng prohibited by Section 20, Art. 

41a, V.C.S. A certified public akountant 

may use the designation "C.P.A." as specifl-~ 

tally provided InSection 16 of the same Act. 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED; PRICE DARIEL 

Attorney General 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Division 

E. Jacobson 

Reviewing Assistant 

BY 

Charles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

BA:lllh
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3965

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Adrian Carillo-Guzman, also known * [UNPUBLISHED] as Wesley Unknown, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 15, 2000 Filed: December 20, 2000

___________ Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Inthis direct criminal appeal, Adrian Carillo-Guzman seeks to withdraw his guilty plea to a drug conspiracy charge, arguing the district court did not inquire expressl y whether he understood the Spanish translation of his change-of-plea proceeding. Given Carillo-Guzman's answers to the questions contained in his petition to plead guilty and posed at the change-of-plea hearing, as well as the availability of a Spanish interpreter before the hearing and the presence of two interpreters at the-2-

hearing, we are confidant Carillo-Guzman understood the proceeding. See United States v. Martinez-Cruz , 186 F.3d 1102, 1104-05 (8th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




June 2019


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: November 20, 2019
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 10.87  AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE
  AUTOBYTEL.COM INC. 2000 STOCK OPTION PLAN
 
 This Amendment No. 3 (“Amendment No. 3”), dated as of May 1, 2009, to the autobytel.com inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), is adopted by the Board of Directors (the “Board”)
of Autobytel Inc., a Delaware corporation, pursuant to Section 8.1 of the Plan.
 
 Effective as of the date hereof, the Plan is hereby amended by deleting Section 6.6(b) in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
  “(b) Options shall be exercisable in full or in such equal or unequal installments as the Administrator (or the Special Committee) shall determine; provided that if an Optionee does not purchase all of the Shares which the Optionee is entitled to purchase on a certain date or within an established installment period, the Optionee’s
right to purchase any unpurchased Shares shall continue during the Option Term (taking into account any early termination of such Option Term which may be provided for under the Plan).”
 
 Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as in existence on the date hereof, and any reference to the Plan shall mean the Plan as amended hereby.
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board has caused this Amendment No. 3 to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.
  AUTOBYTEL INC.
 
 
 By: /s/ Glenn E.Fuller
 Glenn E. Fuller
 Its: Executive Vice President, Chief Legal
 and Administrative Officer and Secretary
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 July 1, 2020

a0624

Order 

Clerk

July 1, 2020

161008

RYAN MENARD, by his conservator, 

SHELLY MENARD,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161008

COA: 336220

Macomb CC: 2014-003145-NI

TERRY R. IMIG and SHARRYL ANN

EVERSON,

Defendants,

and

MACOMB COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

ROADS and COUNTY OF MACOMB,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 14, 2020 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-5 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and
represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of
October 24, 2018, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-5 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the
Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | 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 the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By:

/s/ Sandra M. BroderickName:

Sandra M. BroderickTitle:

EVP Head of OperationsDate:

March 29, 2019By:

/s/ Andrew KangName:

Andrew KangTitle:

TreasurerDate:

March 29, 2019
#### FLORIDA NAT. BANK OF JACKSONVILLE et al. v. JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 5, 1936.

For original opinion, see 167 So. 378.

J. W. Harrell and W. P. Dineen, both of Jacksonville, for appellants.

Rogers, Hazard & Thames, of Jackson-' ville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case was decided adverse to appel-lee by an opinion hied March 30, 1936. An original petition, for rehearing was denied. After that an "extraordinary petition for rehearing was denied. So this case is now before us on an extraordinary petition for rehearing upon which this court, by special permission and order, allowed full oral argument before the court sitting en banc, in view of the importance of the legal propositions insisted upon in support of the petition.

The gist of this court’s decision already rendered is that, in view of the special covenants of the mortgage deed of trust heretofore discussed in this court’s opinion, no suit to foreclose the mortgage can be maintained by minority bond or coupon holders, absent compliance with the special terms and conditions of the mortgage vesting the right to foreclose the mortgage solely in the trustee, except on the specific Conditions to the contrary giving that right to bondholders in certain contingencies.

The covenants of the mortgage involved in this case limit the right of foreclosure only — not the right of a bond or coupon holder to seek any other appropriate legal or equitable relief that the holder of even a single bond or coupon of the whole issue may require for his protection, or be entitled to pursue for the realization of his claim.

The validity of reasonable provisions in mortgage trust deeds limiting the right of foreclosure by bondholders by placing the right of action solely in a designated trustee to enforce the security for the benefit of all holders, except upon stated conditions operating otherwise, is generally acknowledged. 2 Jones on Bonds and Bond Securities, par. 816, p. 289 et seq.; par. 923, p. 394 et seq.

A thorough re-study of the authorities cited to the court at the oral argument, and in the briefs submitted in support of the present extraordinary petition for a rehearing, has failed to convince us that we *730have done other than follow the prevailing law on the subject discussed in our opinion of March 30, 1936. Therefore that opinion is now adhered to and the extraordinary-petition for rehearing again denied.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and ELLIS, TERRELL, BUFORD, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

BROWN, J., dissents.