alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Brian J. Roney, certify that:1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of North Pointe Holdings Corporation;2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:  a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;   b)     evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.    Date:  March 30, 2007         /s/ Brian J. Roney   Brian J. Roney,
#### Gentle Lawrence McCOY, Appellant, v. HOWARD’S FURNITURE COMPANY, Inc., Appellee.

No. 20464.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 1963.

Robert Leroy Chipley, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge and JONES and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the judgment of the District Court sustaining an order of the Referee in Bankruptcy granting a reclamation petition under which possession of household furniture was sought. The title to the furniture was vested in the creditor under conditional sales contracts.

The errors asserted had the full attention of the District Court. The opinion of that court, reported under the name and style of McCoy v. Howard’s Furniture Company, 1963, 222 F.Supp. 974, is full in all respects, and is adopted as the opinion of this court. It follows that there is no merit in the appeal, and that the judgment must be and is Affirmed.
#### Stanley SHOCKLEY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 2, 1973.

B. C. Morton, Titus Lyle, Keen & Lyle, Scottsville, for appellant.

Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Mary Ann Delaney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court by

Justice STEINFELD,

Affirming.*
#### Alexander CADENA et ux., Petitioners, v. James W. KNIGHT, County Clerk, Respondent.

No. B-2840.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 6, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 3, 1971.

Evans & Marshall, Louis E. Marshall, San Antonio, for petitioners.

Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Antonio G. Cantu, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This suit was brought by the appellee in an appeal from a justice court to the county court to compel the county clerk to file and docket the appeal where the appellant has not paid the statutory fee as required under Article 3930(b), Vernon’s Annotated Texas Civil Statutes. The Court of Civil Appeals held that Article 3930(b) required the clerk to collect the fee from the appellant at the time the suit was filed, and that the statute was applicable to the appeal of a forcible entry and detainer suit as such statute was cumulative of the procedure required under Rules 749-751, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 467 S.W.2d 692.

We refuse the application for writ of error, no reversible error. In so doing, we are not to be understood to hold that an appellee in an appeal from a justice court to the county court may not pay the fee required under Article 3930(b).
#### John C. CENTANNI, d/b/a Linesman Service Company, et al., Appellants, v. T. SMITH *&*SON, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 20224.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 18, 1963.

Amos L. Ponder, Jr., George M. Ponder, New Orleans, La., for appellants.

Charles Kohlmeyer, Jr., New Orleans, La. (Lemle & Kelleher, New Orleans, La., on the brief), for appellees.

Before RIVES and JONES, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, Jr., District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The Court has carefully reviewed the record and briefs and concludes that substantial evidence supports the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, reported at 216 F.Supp. 330 (D.C. 1963). The judgment is not clearly erroneous and, therefore, is affirmed.
#### Charles TRAD, Petitioner, v. GENERAL CRUDE OIL COMPANY et al., Respondents.

No. B-2899.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 1, 1971.

J. Paul Fly, Corpus Christi, for petitioner.

Homer Dean, Jr., Alice, Andrews, Kurth, Campbell & Jones, J. W. Keerans, Arthur Moers, Jr., Houston, Lloyd, Lloyd, Ellzey & Lloyd, Alice, for respondents.

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit to remove the cloud of an oil, gas and other mineral lease from plaintiff’s title. Plaintiff contends that the lease terminated as to his interest in the land because neither delay rentals nor shut-in gas royalties were paid to him in accordance with its terms. Several defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was sustained by the trial court on the ground that the lease is still in full force and effect. Instead of rendering judgment on the merits that plaintiff take nothing, however, the trial court ordered the cause dismissed as to all defendants.

Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, where a majority of the Justices concluded that plaintiff’s share of the shut-in gas royalties had been timely paid to him and that there had been a substantial and sufficient compliance with the terms of the lease relating to delay rentals. They further concluded that the trial court’s judgment of dismissal was improper because: (1) the defendants who urged the motion for summary judgment were entitled, at best, to a judgment that plaintiff take nothing; and (2) plaintiff is entitled to an accounting for such royalties on production as may be due and owing to him under the lease. The judgment of the trial court was accordingly reversed and the cause was remanded to the district court for a new trial. Tex.Civ.App., 468 S.W.2d 612. One Justice expressed the opinion that the delay rentals had not been timely paid to plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the lease.

Plaintiff has filed an application for writ of error in which he attacks the majority holdings of the Court of Civil Appeals concerning payment of delay rentals and shut-in gas royalties. He prays that the cause be remanded to the trial court for trial on its merits. That is all the re*184lief plaintiff could expect to obtain on appeal, since he did not file a motion for summary judgment. As we construe the opinion and judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, a general remand was ordered by that court. Having thus received all of the relief to which he is entitled, plaintiff is not in position to invoke our jurisdiction. The application for writ of error is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction. City of San Antonio v. Munoz, 159 Tex. 436, 321 S.W.2d 573. We are not to be understood as either approving or disapproving the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals that there was substantial and sufficient compliance with the terms of the lease relating to delay rentals. That question will now be decided after all the relevant facts have been developed.
,J

2 74-If_rc.741--7 and leave[ ] nothing for the future consideration of the court, except for post-judgment issues such as attorney's fees and costs"), this appeal is premature and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider it. Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

cc: Hon. Abbi Silver, District Judge Kevin Drummond Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A NiEMESIMENIBIEBEEMMINEI
,,,,State and,
,Total,Households,Business,,Federal
,,,,local govts.,
1998,6.7,7.8,11.8,6.3,-1.4
1999,6.3,8.4,10.5,3.4,-1.9
2000,4.9,9.1,9,1.3,-8
2001,6.3,9.6,5.7,8.8,-0.2
2002,7.3,10.8,2.4,11,7.6

2003,8.1,11.5,2.4,8.3,10.9
2004,8.8,11.2,5.8,7.4,9
2005,9.2,11.2,7.7,10.2,7
2006,8.8,10.2,9.7,8.2,3.9
2007,8.2,6.8,11.7,9.2,4.9

2007:Q1,8,7,9.4,11.2,6.7
Q2,7.1,7.2,11,10.3,-1.4
Q3,9.1,6.4,13.8,6.5,8.8
Q4,7.5,6.1,10.8,7.7,5.1

2008:Q1,6.5,3.5,9.2,6.4,9.5
Exhibit 99.1

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 Lancer Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George F. Schroeder, 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, as amended; and

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

|November 12, 2002 |  | By: | /s/GEORGE F. SCHROEDERGeorge F. Schroeder, Chief Executive Officer
|----------------- |  | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
#### Stewart *v.*Caryl, Pros. Atty., et al.

(No. 25792

Decided January 29, 1936.)

*Mr. B. F. Hughes,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Hoopes $ Sanders*and *Messrs. Cameron & Cameron,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Mattijias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur,

Jones, J., not participating.
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73 
          - [DA 08-127; MB Docket No. 04-134; RM-10948] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; dismissal. 

# SUMMARY:

The Audio Division dismisses a Petition for Rule Making filed by Calvary Chapel of St. George requesting the reservation of vacant Channel 280C at Toquerville, Utah for noncommercial educational use. 

# ADDRESSES:

Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 04-134, adopted January 16, 2008, and released January 18, 2008. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or                     *http://www.BCPIWEB.com*. (The Commission will not send a copy of this Report and Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the proposal was dismissed.)                 

# List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

      - Radio
      - Radio broadcasting

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

 [FR Doc. E8-2462 Filed 2-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
EXHIBIT 33.1 

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA**

**PURSUANT TO ITEM 1122 OF REGULATION AB**

**FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA**

Date: March 30, 2017 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized representative of First National Bank of Omaha (the “Servicer”), hereby certifies as follows: 

(1)The Servicer is responsible for assessing its compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in 17 C.F.R. § 229.1122(d) (“Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB”), except for servicing criteria specified in (1)(iii) and (v);(2)(iii) and (vi); 3(iii) and (iv); and 4(x) of Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB, which the Servicer has determined are inapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the credit card asset backed securities transactions issued byFirst National Master Note Trust (the “Platform”) being serviced (such applicable criteria, after giving effect to the exceptions identified above, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”), as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2016 relating to the servicing of the Platform; 

(2) The Servicer used the servicing criteria in Item 1122(d) ofRegulation AB to assess compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria; 

(3) The Servicer is in compliance with the ApplicableServicing Criteria relating to the Platform as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 in all material respects; and 

(4)Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report for the Platform on the Servicer’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year endingDecember 31, 2016. 

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA, as ServicerBy /s/ Timothy D. Hart Timothy D. Hart Senior Vice President
[Signature page to Report on Assessment of Compliance 

of First National Bank of Omaha]
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 8, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00026-CR

CARY EUGENE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1276467

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to burglary of a habitation. On January 10, 

2012, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 60 years in the Institutional 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely notice of 

appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation 
2

of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of 

the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 

813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than forty-five days 

has passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. 

We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se 

response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H. R. Brown,President and 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 Sections 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. 

Date: August 9, 2007 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NorthPittsburgh Systems, Inc. and will be retained by North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Paul Mitrokostas, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
         Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, DaimlerChrysler Debenture-Backed
         Series 2002-4 Trust (the "Trust") and all reports on Form 8-K
         containing distribution or servicing reports of the Trust filed in
         respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report
         of the Trust;

2.       Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
         whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this
         annual report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
         pooling and servicing or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
         reports is included in these reports; and

4.       I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
         Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar
         agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
         review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
         reports, the Depositor and Trustee have each fulfilled its
         obligations under that agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 29, 2004


         /s/ PAUL MITROKOSTAS
---------------------------------------
Paul Mitrokostas, Senior Vice President



                                      7

<PAGE>
#### The Midland Steel Products Co. *v.*Allen.

(No. 25251

Decided November 20, 1935.)

*Messrs. Tolies, Hogsett é Ginn*and *Mr. Thomas M. Harman,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Harrison & Marshman*and *Miss Lillian M. Grau,*for defendant in error.

Ón June 19, 1929, Norman Allen suffered an injury to his knee while employed at Cleveland by The Midland Steel Products Company, a self-insurer which had elected to pay compensation direct to its injured employees. The employer paid temporary total disability, and upon refusal to make further payments *219the injured employee filed with the Industrial Commission an application for adjustment of claim, requesting a determination of compensation payable for his disability. After a hearing upon that application the Industrial Commission ordered that a permanent partial award be granted equal to thirty-five per cent, loss of function of left leg, with deduction of temporary partial disability for payments already made. Subsequently the employee filed an application for modification of award, asking for compensation for wage impairment, which application for modification was dismissed. Later an application for modification was filed by the employee, and the commission found “from the proof of record claimant has been adequately compensated for any disability he may have suffered as a result of injury sustained.” Thereafter an application for rehearing was filed, a motion to dismiss was overruled, a rehearing, granted, and a referee ordered to take testimony. After a hearing on the rehearing transcript the Industrial Commission disallowed the application for modification of award, appeal was prosecuted to the Court of Common Pleas, where a jury was waived and the cause submitted to the trial court, which found that the employee was entitled to participate in the Workmen’s Compensation Fund.

The Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, affirmed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.

On consideration whereof this court finds from the record that the Industrial Commission had assumed jurisdiction of the claim and determined the amount of the employee’s disability.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the Court of Appeals be, and the same hereby is, reversed, and this court proceeding to render the judgment which the Court of • Appeals should have rendered, it is ordered and adjudged that judgment be rendered for plaintiff in error. *State, ex*
      *220
      *rel. Depalo,*v. *Industrial Commission,*128 Ohio St., 410, 191 N. E., 691; Metal *Specialty Co.*v. *Gregory et al., Industrial Commission,*128 Ohio St., 452, 191 N. E., 701; *Noggle*v. *Industrial Commission,*129 Ohio St., 495, 196 N. E., 377.

*Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Williams, J., concurs in reversal-and entering of final judgment.