alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT OF
 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP
 
 I, Kee Chan Sin, certify that:
 
 (a)  A review
        of Cellco Partnership’s activities and of its performance under the Transfer and Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 13, 2019 (the “Transfer and Servicing Agreement”), among Verizon ABS LLC, as depositor, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
        Wireless, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”), marketing agent and custodian, and Verizon Owner Trust 2019-A, as issuer, during the period from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 has been made under my supervision.
 
 (b)  To the
        best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Transfer and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the period from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021.
 
  By:   /s/ Kee Chan Sin
 Kee Chan Sin
 Vice President and Assistant Treasurer
 Cellco Partnership, as Servicer of Verizon Owner Trust 2019-A
EXHIBIT 32.2

CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Jarett A. Misch, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the quarter ended April 29, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 12, 2006



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jarett A. Misch                                    
|Jarett A. Misch                                        
|Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer



33
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2109

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource

study of Virginia Key Beach, Florida, for possible inclusion in the National Park System.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 7, 2001

Mrs. MEEK of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a

special resource study of Virginia Key Beach, Florida,

for possible inclusion in the National Park System.

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

3 SECTION 1. STUDY AND REPORT.

4 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Interior (in this

5 Act referred to as ‘‘the Secretary’’) shall conduct a study

6 of Virginia Key Beach in Biscayne Bay, Florida, which

7 was used for recreation by African Americans at a time

8 when public beaches were racially segregated by law. The

9 study shall evaluate the national significance of the site
2

•HR 2109 IH

1 and the suitability and feasibility of establishing the site

2 as a unit of the National Park System.

3 (b) CRITERIA.—In conducting the study required by

4 subsection (a), the Secretary shall use the criteria for the

5 study of areas for potential inclusion in the National Park

6 System contained in section 8 of Public Law 91–383 (16

7 U.S.C. 1a–5; popularly known as the National Park Sys8 tem General Authorities Act).

9 (c) REPORT.—Upon completion of the study, the Sec10 retary shall transmit to the Congress a report on the find11 ings of the study and the conclusions and recommenda12 tions of the Secretary.

Æ
#### Emile THIBODAUX v. Harry BOURG.

No. 2393.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 30, 1942.

C. A. Blanchard, of Donaldsonville, for appellant.

Robt. B. Butler, Jr., of Houma, for appellee.

LeBLANC, Judge.

For the reasons stated in the opinion this day handed down in the companion case of Esse Blanchard v. Harry Bourg, 8 So.2d 807, the judgment appealed from in this case is hereby affirmed at the costs of the appellant herein.

DORE and OTT, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01761-RPM

CARLOS BASSATT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER and

PATRICK SANCHEZ,

Defendants.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16, it is

ORDERED that a scheduling conference will be held on January 27, 2012, at 11:00 a.m.

in the Conference Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout

Street, Denver, Colorado. Counsel are directed to comply with the Instructions for Preparation of

Scheduling Order which may be found at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges/judges.aspx

(Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch Procedures) and use the format provided with those instructions

(Rev. 1/08). The proposed order (original only) on paper, shall be submitted directly to chambers

by 4:00 p.m. on January 19, 2012.

 The conference is conducted with lead counsel present in person. No parties or

representatives of parties will be permitted to attend.

Dated: December 14th, 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01761-RPM Document 23 Filed 12/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### McKibbin, Appellant, *v.*Hulton Dyeing & Finishing Company.

*Corporation*— Contract—President—Ratification—Lease.

A contract in writing for the purchase of real estate made by the president of a corporation in the company’s name, without authority, and contrary to the by-laws, and without the knowledge of the directors or other officers, is invalid; and no ratification of the contract can be inferred from the fact that the company entered into possession of the real estate under a lease which had no connection with the contract, and paid rent therefor, although the lease was for a year, and the contract to purchase provided for a settlement in a year.

Argued Jan. 7, 1910.

Appeal, No. 321,

Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1906, No. 2,329, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of David McKibbin v. Hulton Dyeing *&*Finishing Company.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit to recover the purchase money of real estate. Before Moschzisker, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

Verdict for plaintiff for $6,900. The court subsequently entered judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.

*Error assigned*was in entering judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.

*Charles H.*Pile, with him *William J. Geggis,*for appellant.

*Charles L. Lockwood,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

February 14, 1910:

This action was to recover the price of real estate which the president of the corporation defendant agreed in writing in its name to purchase from the plaintiff. It is undisputed that the president was without authority to bind the corpo*154ration by such a contract and was forbidden by the by-laws to do so, and that no action was taken by the board of directors in relation to it. There was no evidence that any of the directors or any of the officers of the company except the president had knowledge of it. By the terms of the contract one year was allowed for settlement, and the defendant went into possession under a lease for one year, collected rent from the subtenants and paid rent to the plaintiff. The collection and payment of these rents was relied on by the plaintiff as a ratification by the corporation of the contract of sale. The lease was not a part of the contract of sale. It was a separate and distinct contract in writing, complete in itself, and there was nothing on its face to show that it had any connection with the contract of sale. No ratification of it could be considered as a ratification of the unauthorized contract of sale, of which the directors had no knowledge.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 192 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23164]

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

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE

Notice of Meeting

    Agency: United States Institute of Peace.
    Date/Time: Thursday, October 16, 2008, 9:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.
    Location: 1200 17th Street, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036-
3011.
    Status: Open Session--Portions may be closed pursuant to Subsection 
(c) of Section 552(b) of Title 5, United States Code, as provided in 
subsection 1706(h)(3) of the United States Institute of Peace Act, 
Public Law 98-525.
    Agenda: October 16, 2008 Board Meeting; Approval of Minutes of the 
One Hundred Thirtieth Meeting (June 6, 2008) of the Board of Directors; 
Chairman's Report; Presidents Report; Election of Officers; Selection 
of National Peace Essay contest topics; Fellow's Report; Other General 
Issues.
    Contact: Tessie F. Higgs, Executive Office, Telephone: (202) 429-
3836.

    Dated: September 26, 2008.
Michael Graham,
Acting Executive Vice President, United States Institute of Peace.
 [FR Doc. E8-23164 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-AR-M
```
**Exhibit 99.32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of BCE Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that: 

the annual report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 of the Company (the “Form 40-F”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 40-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Date: March 11, 2015 | *(signed) George A. Cope* |
|----------------------|---------------------------|
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frederick J. Mercier, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[744 NYS2d 776]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 5, 2001, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant left his employment as a clerk/receptionist after being reprimanded by his supervisor for speaking discourteously to a fellow employee. Claimant testified that an additional reason for his resignation was the stress engendered by his heavy workload and his concern that work-related stress might exacerbate his heart condition. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he voluntarily left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons at a time when work was still available. We affirm.

A supervisor’s criticism does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment *(see, Matter of Parisi [Commissioner of Labor],*284 AD2d 881; *Matter of Shabbir [Sweeney],*242 AD2d 820), nor may an allegedly work-related physical or mental disorder constitute good cause unless evidence is submitted showing that the claimant’s resignation was medically necessary or was undertaken upon the advice of a physician *(see, Matter of Levinn [Commissioner of Labor],*249 AD2d 856, 857; *Matter of Robinson [Sweeney],*245 AD2d 939, 940). As no proof of claimant’s medical condition was submitted other than his own unsupported assertions, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision finding that claimant left his employment under disqualifying circumstances.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### Harry Kopman, Appellant, v Blue Ridge Insurance Company et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 472]

In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendants are obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an underlying action entitled *Paula v William Dye Realty Corp.,*in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 24041/98, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), entered July 31, 2001, which denied his motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff provided the defendants with notice of the underlying action within a reasonable time under the circumstances, and a new determination on the motion and the cross motion.

This action arose out of an underlying action to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained by reason of the presence of lead paint at premises owned by the plaintiff, Harry Kopman, and insured by the defendants Republic Insurance Company and Blue Ridge Insurance Company (hereinafter col*480lectively referred to as Republic). The affidavit of service with respect to that action indicates that Kopman was served with the summons and complaint in August 1998 by so-called “substituted service” pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). In August 1999, Kopman received a copy of a motion for leave to enter a default judgment in the underlying action and informed Republic of that action for the first time. After conducting an investigation, Republic disclaimed coverage because of Kopman’s unreasonable delay in notifying it of the occurrence and the lawsuit.

In response to the disclaimer, Kopman brought the instant action for a judgment declaring that Republic was obligated to defend and indemnify him in the underlying action. Kopman moved for summary judgment and Republic cross-moved for the same relief. The Supreme Court denied Kopman’s motion and granted Republic’s cross motion dismissing the complaint. We disagree.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, Republic submitted the affidavit of service in the underlying action, which established, prima facie, that a copy of the summons and complaint was mailed to Kopman in August 1998. However, any presumption of service raised by the affidavit of service was overcome by Kopman’s sworn testimony of significant discrepancies between his wife’s physical characteristics and the description of the person allegedly served with process in August 1998 *(see Holtzer v Stepper,*268 AD2d 372; *Rox Riv 83 Partners v Ettinger,*276 AD2d 782). In light of the foregoing, we find Kopman’s denial of receipt of the summons and complaint to be more than a mere conclusory denial and he is entitled to a hearing on this issue *(see Frankel v Schilling,*149 AD2d 657; *cf. Boutin v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,*264 AD2d 434). Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 08-62]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-62 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: September 25, 2008.

Patricia L. Toppings,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 58175)          ( print page 58176)          ( print page 58177)          ( print page 58178)          ( print page 58179)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

 [FR Doc. E8-23348 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE INTERIM
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,613
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,579
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,105
<PP&E>                                           4,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (886)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  69,806
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,229
<BONDS>                                         56,391
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,375
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            90
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,721
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    69,806
<SALES>                                          1,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,610)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,610)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,610)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.63)
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:05-cv-00188-JD Document 5 Filed 07/13/05 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit
      31.2**





**CERTIFICATIONS**





I,
      Michael S. Shore, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SMF Energy
      Corporation:





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 the period covered
      by
      this report based on such evaluation; and





(c)
      Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controls over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s first fiscal quarter
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
      the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





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 weakness 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.





Date:
      November 14, 2007





/s/
      Michael S. Shore





Michael
      S. Shore


Chief
      Financial Officer and Senior Vice President