alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

**World Omni Financial Corp.**

**Servicer Compliance Statement**

**Pursuant to Item 1123**

**of Regulation AB**

I, Victor A. De Jesus, do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of World Omni Financial Corp., a Florida corporation, and further certify on behalf of World Omni Financial Corp. inits capacity as servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement 2011-A to the Closed-End Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 5, 2011 (the “Exchange Note Servicing Supplement”), among AL Holding Corp.as Closed-End Collateral Agent, World Omni LT as Titling Trust, and the Servicer, as follows: 

(i)        A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period covered by theExchange Note Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance under theExchange Note Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement), has been made under my supervision. 

(ii)        To the best of my knowledge, based on the review described above, the Servicerhas fulfilled all of its obligations under the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement) in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand as of March 15, 2012.
#### Phillips *v.*Elliott et al.

[No. 19,229.

Filed May 12, 1959.]

*Floyd P. Newsom,*of Terre Haute, for appellant.

*James F. Harper,*of Terre Haute, and *Hyman A. Pierce,*of Chicago, Illinois, for appellee.

Cooper, C. J.

In this matter which we have before us now is not an appeal, but an informative verified application showing the impossibility of an appeal by reason of the inability of the trial court to prepare and certify a full, true and complete Bill of Excep*499tions containing the evidence, etc., given in the trial of this cause. There is a showing that the Official Court Reporter died on February 24, 1959, and that her successor has examined the shorthand notes made at the trial, but can only read, or interpret, a part of the original shorthand notes made by the Official Court Reporter and that, by reason thereof, the present Reporter could not certify that a transcript of the evidence prepared from the notes of the decedent was accurate or that such transcript contained all of the evidence given in said cause.

The petition before us, among other things, prays this court to grant a new trial of said cause in the trial court. This we cannot do under our authority at this time.

We believe, under the facts averred in the petition now before us, and under the law applicable thereto, that the trial court has ample authority under such cilrcumstanees as we have outlined above to grant the petitioner herein the equitable relief that is necessary to afford the petitioner the constitutional rights guaranteed him by Article I of §12 of the Constitution of Indiana. See *Indianapolis Life Ins. Co.*v. *Lundquist*(1944), 222 Ind. 359, 52 N. E. 2d 335, and authorities cited; *Cook*v. *State*(1951), 231 Ind. 695, 110 N. E. 2d 749, and authorities cited.

We, therefore, must deny the petitioner’s petition with the recommendation that he proceed in the trial court in the event the parties hereto cannot agree upon the Bill of Exceptions.

In the event the parties are able to agree upon the Bill of Exceptions, the petitioner herein, Robert Phillips, is given ninety (90) days from the 5th day of April, 1959, in which to file said Bill of Exceptions. A certified copy of this opinion and the order this day *500entered is ordered served forthwith upon the interested parties and the Superior Court of Vigo County, Room No. 2.

Note. — Reported in 158 N. E. 2d 295.
Exhibit 32.2

                            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  Trans  Energy,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  September  30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, William F. Woodburn , Principal  Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Sec.  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of operations of the
     Company.


/s/   WILLIAM F. WOODBURN
------------------------------
William F. Woodburn
Principal Accounting Officer
November 15, 2004

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
News United States Air Force
 BLUE:  Human PerformancePublished May 29, 2015
                        
                        By Air Force News Service
                
                
**FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --** Air Force TV here released the latest episode of the Air Force's flagship television program, BLUE.
This edition features Senior Master Sgt. Kenneth Huhman, who feared that multiple injuries sustained over his career of deployments, firefights and rucking hundreds of miles with heavy equipment strapped to his back would end the combat operator’s military career before he was ready to give it up. After going through the U.S. Special Operations Command’s Human Performance Program, which is designed to rebuild operators’ bodies and teach them preventative training methods, he has made a full recovery and resumed his military duties.Human Performance 



AFBS 



AFNS 



BLUE
#### Joseph Franklin v. Henry Hurlburt.

(No. 1281, R. Book No. 4, p. 30.)

Appeal from Galveston County.

May 31, 1882.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 203. *After adjournment of court; motion for rehearing filed.*Rule 67a is as follows: When the supreme court (court of appeals), at any one of the places where it sits for the transaction of business, adjourns for the term within less than fifteen days after the rendition of judgment, the issuance of the mandate shall, unless otherwise ordered, be withheld until the expiration of said period; and if, within that period, an application for rehearing shall be presented to the clerk of the court at that place, having indorsed thereon the order of any member of the court that it be filed, the issuance of mandate shall be further withheld to await the action of the court on said application. The clerk, in addition to the steps required of him in other rehearing cases, shall forward the papers and application to the clerk of the court at the place of its session next succeeding that at which the judgment was rendered.

Where a motion for rehearing was not filed within the time prescribed, and did not have indorsed thereon the order of any member of this court, as prescrbed by rule 67a, the motion was dismissed.

Motion dismissed.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Reoptimizing for Great Power CompetitionPublished Feb. 16, 2024
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Eric Mann
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                This week's look Around the Air Force highlights the announcement of sweeping changes in the Department of the Air Force to reshape, refocus and reoptimize the Air Force and Space Force to ensure continued supremacy in those domains while also better posturing the services to deter and, if necessary, prevail in an era of Great Power Competition. (Hosted by Tech. Sgt. Britt Crolley)



02:00


**Watch on DVIDS | Watch on YouTube**
For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.Featured Video 



AF 



Air Force 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



AFTV 



SecAF 



CSAF 



CSO 



space force 



great power competition 



AFA Related Links
        DAF leaders lock arms, present plan to reoptimize Air Force, Space Force
News United States Air Force
 Civilian retiree identification card to be replacedPublished Oct. 11, 2013
                        
                        By Debbie Gildea
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Retired Air Force civilians who use the Air Force Form 354, Civilian Identification Card, to access Air Force installations have until early 2014 -- when the AF354 will be rescinded -- to get a Department of Defense Civilian Retiree ID Card or other access credentials, Air Force Personnel Center officials said.
The AF354 was a card-stock product that allowed civilian retirees and their eligible dependents to enter an Air Force installation, with installation commander approval, but only for access to limited Morale, Welfare, and Recreation facilities (access which also applies to current Air Force employees and their dependents). 
The card was not issued from the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System / Real-time Automated Personnel Identification System, and is not recognized by the Department of Defense under the Personnel Identity Protection Program for DEERS or by other services for installation access, said Ed Yoder, Air Force DEERS/RAPIDS project office.
"The card doesn't meet the stringent security requirements established by the Department of Homeland Security," Yoder said. "Installation access requires a secure card with identity vetting and online capabilities, such as bar code scanning."
Although retired civilians can get a DOD identification card, there isn't an equivalent for eligible dependents. 
"On installations where the commander has approved civilian retiree and dependent access, they can contact the civilian personnel office as a starting point for determining eligibility and for getting a secure access card for their family members," Yoder said.
Many bases use Defense Biometric Identification System cards for all installation access. With a commander approval letter from the force support squadron and a DBIDS card, retired Air Force civilian employees and their dependents will be able to access an installation.
"Like the 354, the DBIDS card and letter will only be good for the one installation," Yoder said. "You won't be able to use it to get on other Air Force or DOD installations." 
Once the AF354 is officially rescinded, which is tentatively slated for January, installation security will confiscate AF354 cards presented for access, so civilians should not wait to replace their access cards, he said.
For more information about access credentials and other personnel issues, visit myPers and enter "AF 354" in the search window.retirees 



ID cards 



personnel 



retirement
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5587]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FROM THURSDAY, MAY 25, 1995, TO TUESDAY, JUNE 
6, 1995, OR UNTIL NOON ON THE SECOND DAY AFTER MEMBERS ARE NOTIFIED TO 
 REASSEMBLE, AND RECESS OR ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE ON THURSDAY, MAY 
 25, 1995, FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1995, OR SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1995, TO MONDAY, 
    JUNE 5, 1995, OR UNTIL NOON ON THE SECOND DAY AFTER MEMBERS ARE 
                         NOTIFIED TO REASSEMBLE

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 72) and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 72

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative 
     day of Thursday, May 25, 1995, it stand adjourned until noon 
     on Tuesday, June 6, 1995, or until noon on the second day 
     after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 
     2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and 
     that when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of 
     business on Thursday, May 25, 1995, Friday, May 26, 1995, or 
     Saturday, May 27, 1995, pursuant to a motion made by the 
     Majority Leader or his designee, in accordance with this 
     resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until 10 a.m. on 
     Monday, June 5, 1995, or until noon on the second day after 
     Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of 
     this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
       Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of 
     the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the 
     Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and Senate, 
     respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the 
     public interest shall warrant it.

  The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________
```
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

March 28, 2008

Mr. J. Bruce Bennett

Cardwell, Hart & Bennett, L.L.P.

807 Brazos, Suite 1001

Austin, TX 78701

Mr. Don E. Weiss

Stevens & Weiss, P.C.

14310 Northbrook #200

San Antonio, TX 78232

RE:Case Number:  06-1044

Court of Appeals Number:  04-05-00846-CV

Trial Court Number:  9932

Style:GENEVIA BUSHNELL AND DEWARD RAYMOND (D.R.) BUSHNELL

v.

JANET MOTT

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 06-1044Page 1**
News United States Air Force
 DAF COVID-19 Statistics - Nov. 1, 2022Published Nov. 1, 2022
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Below are current **coronavirus disease 2019** statistics for Department of the Air Force personnel.

**DAF TOTAL STATS****CASES***
   **HOSPITALIZED**
   **RECOVERED***
   **DEATHS***Military**
   113,018
   1
   112,324
   16Civilian
   24,782
   0
   24,570
   115Dependents
   19,408
   0
   19,376
   8Contractors
   6,427
   1
   6,380
   32**Total**
   163,635
   **2**
   162,650
   **166***These numbers include all cases reported since the last update Oct. 19.
**Military includes Active and Reserve components.

**DAF TOTAL VACCINATED****ACTIVE DUTY**
   **GUARD**
   **RESERVE**
   **TOTAL FORCE**% Fully Vaccinated
   99%
   94.5%
   95.9%
   97.6%

**DAF APPROVED EXEMPTIONS****ACTIVE DUTY**
   **GUARD**
   **RESERVE**
   **TOTAL FORCE**Medical
   180
   142
   76
   398Administrative
   18
   577
   21
   616*Civilian statistics are unaccounted for.
**These numbers are subject to change.

The Department of the Air Force is complying with the court order to pause all disciplinary and adverse actions for those refusing the COVID-19 vaccine who submitted a timely religious accommodation request. This includes the Air Force Reserve Command processing Airmen to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).

**Medical:**Medical exemptions are determined individually by the member’s medical provider.

**Administrative:** Administrative exemptions are determined individually. For example, if a member obtained a commander-approved submission for separation or retirement by Nov. 1, they are administratively exempt.

**Religious Accommodation:**Religious accommodations are a subset of administrative exemptions and are determined by the MAJCOM/FLDCOM commanders. The DAF has 30 business days (active component in CONUS) to process requests. Members who receive a denial of the accommodation request have five calendar days from the denial to 1) begin a COVID-19 vaccination regimen, 2) submit an appeal to the final appeal authority, or 3) request to separate or retire. Appeals are determined by the DAF’s Surgeon General with inputs from the chaplain and staff judge advocate. Individuals do not have to get immunized as long as their request is in the process of being decided.

Members who continue refusing to obey a lawful order to receive the COVID-19 vaccine after their accommodation request has been denied or retirement/separation has not been approved will be subject to initiation of administrative discharge proceedings.

**Personnel Numbers (approximates):**

323,000 Active Component (U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force)
 103,000 Air National Guard
 64,000 Air Force Reserve
 490,000 Total Force (Active Duty, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve)COVID 



update 



COVID-19 



numbers 



metrics 



statistics
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 14, 2015

No. 04-14-00606-CV

ARGO GROUP US, INC., Colony Management Services, Inc., Colony Insurance Company, 

Colony National Insurance Company, Colony Specialty Insurance Company, Colony Agency 

Services, Inc., and Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.,

Appellants

v.

Louis D. LEVINSON, International Financial Group, Inc., Guilford Specialty Group, Inc., 

Guilford Insurance Company, and The Burlington Insurance Company,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-09550

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 

It is ORDERED that appellees recover their costs of appeal from appellants.

It is so ORDERED on January 14, 2015.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of January, 2015.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# Statement from Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III on the passage of a continuing resolution

              - Published  Oct. 2, 2023

**WASHINGTON (AFNS) --  **
I welcome congressional action tonight to avert an unnecessary and destructive government shutdown that would have had a profound impact on the lives our troops and civilians who work and sacrifice to defend this country every day. But I also urge Congress to live up to America's commitment to provide urgently-needed assistance to the people of Ukraine as they fight to defend their own country against the forces of tyranny. America must live up to its word and continue to lead.  Finally, I urge Congress to get back to regular order on appropriations. We need on-time appropriations in order to advance our National Defense strategy and position our military to meet the complex challenges of this century. I will continue to work with members of Congress to do what is necessary to defend this nation, our values and our interests.U.S. Air Force Logo

SecDEFSecDef Lloyd Austingovernment shutdownCongresscontinuing resolutionUkraine
#### G. H. & S. A. R. R. Co. v. Jeremiah Buckley.

(No. 336, Tex. L. J., vol. 1, p. 283.)

Appeal from Fort Bend County.

March 13, 1878.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 687. *Judgment must conform to the evidence; market value is the test of value.*Suit was brought against the railroad *for*the value of a mule killed by its train. The plaintiff recovered judgment, both in the justice’s and county courts, for $200, the amount claimed. The evidence shows that Buckley considered his mule worth $200, yet admits he could not have gotten $100 for it. Two other witnesses who knew the mule testify that it was not worth over $75. The true test of the value of anything is what it will bring in the market. The railroad is clearly responsible for the fair value of the animal, but, from the evidence, we do believe that the judgment is for more than the mule is worth.

Reversed and remanded.
EXHIBIT 32.1

March 10, 2014

Via EDGAR

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the Annual Report of Enduro Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(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 Trust.

The above certification is furnished
solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.



The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company,
N.A., Trustee for Enduro Royalty TrustBy:

/s/ MIKE ULRICHMike UlrichVice President and Trust Officer
#### MARGARET E. CASEY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY.

March 27, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.