alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NTL (Triangle) LLC
(the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (as amended hereby, the Report), Barclay
Knapp, as Director of NTL Group Limited, the sole managing member of the
Company, and Scott E. Schubert, as Director of NTL Group Limited, the sole
managing member of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:



|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                   
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

/s/ Barclay Knapp

---

Name: Barclay Knapp


Director of NTL Group Limited,
Title: the sole managing member of NTL (Triangle) LLC*

Date:   May 22, 2003

/s/
Scott E. Schubert

---

Name: Scott E. Schubert


Director of NTL Group Limited,
Title: the sole managing member of NTL (Triangle) LLC*

Date:   May 21, 2003

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.



| 
|-
|*
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Fred BALLARD.

No. 2011-K-0036.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Ballard, Fred; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 148586; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-486.

Denied.
#### G., C. & S. F. R’y Co. v. J. H. R. Adams.

(No. 2830.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

*(Transferred from Austin.J*

Shepard & Miller, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 422. *Special damage must be alleged, or proof thereof is not admissible; case staled.*Appellee sued appellant to recover $1,000 damages because of an alleged assault and battery committed upon him by appellant’s conductor, and because of said conductor ejecting him from a train. He recovered judgment for $50 and costs. On the trial, over objection of appellant, appellee was permitted to prove that, subsequent to said alleged assault and battery and ejection from the train, he was arrested by an officer without warrant, at the instance of said conductor, and placed in jail. *Held:*This evidence was not admissible, because said arrest and imprisonment was not alleged by appellee in his pleadings as a ground for damages. The general allegation of damage will suffice to let in proof and warrant recovery of all damages naturally and necessarily resulting from the wrongful act complained of; the law implies such damages. But where damages do not necessarily result from the act complained of, and consequently are not implied by law, the plaintiff must state in his petition the particular damage sustained in order to introduce testimony in regard to it. [R’y Co. v. Curry, 64 Tex. 85.] In this case there is no allegation in the petition relating to said arrest and imprisonment, and it does not appear from the *494petition that they were the natural and necessary result of the wrongful acts complained of; that is, the assault and battery and ejectment from the cars.

December 12, 1888.

§ 423. *Duty of conductor to protect passengers; verdict and judgment not warranted by the evidence and thejaw.*The verdict and judgment are not warranted by the evidence and the law. Appellee entered the passenger cars intoxicated and armed with a pistol. His conduct and language on the cars were disorderly and threatening and justified his ejectment. A railway corporation is under obligation to its passengers to protect them from insult and danger, and has the right to use such means as may he necessary under the circumstances to discharge this obligation.

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Aug. 12Published Aug. 12, 2016
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Traci Keller
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                
FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) -- On this look around the Air Force, the secretary of the Air Force and chief of staff of the Air Force discuss the budget and operations during the State of the Air Force; the B-1B Lancer, B-2 Spirit and B-52 Straotofortress make history in Guam; and U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa gets a new commander. Hosted by Staff Sgt Traci Keller.
For previous episodes, click here.
Related links:
- AF leaders discuss budget, operations during State of the Air Force
- All global strike bombers deploy to Andersen, maintain stability in PACOM theaterATAF 



USAFE 



AFAFRICA 



state of the air force 



SecAF 



CSAF 



B-1 



B-2 



B-52 



Andersen AFB 



Guam 



Ramstein AB 



Germany
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CVF TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR 
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AS INCLUDED IN PART II ITEM 7 OF THIS 10-KSB FILING.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,467,122
<SECURITIES>                                   101,522
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,206,914
<ALLOWANCES>                                    77,052
<INVENTORY>                                    790,467
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,820,985
<PP&E>                                       1,105,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                 588,549
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,355,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,325,684
<BONDS>                                        662,928
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          456,250
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,155
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,531,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,355,396
<SALES>                                      7,357,996
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,357,996
<CGS>                                        5,053,194
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,053,194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,755,708)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,095,003)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,660,705)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,660,705)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.75)
        

</TABLE>
#### Wm. McHan v. George T. Connell.

(No. 2955.)

Appeal from Brown County.

*{Transferred, from Austin.) ■*

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 202. *Election to determine whether hogs, etc., may he permitted to run at large; requisites of; case stated.*Appellee, Connell, sued McHan in justice’s court for damages done by certain sheep belonging to the latter, and for fees for impounding the sheep. The suit is based upon the provisions of chapter 5, title 93, Revised Statutes. If the election to determine whether hogs, *303slieep and goats should be permitted to run at large in a certain subdivision of Brown county — that is; the subdivision in which appellee lived at the time the sheep were impounded-— was void, then this .action cannot be maintained. A petition, signed by at leas-t twenty persons,— and we will presume that they were freeholders,— was presented to the county commissioners’ court, praying for such election.. At a term of the commissioners’ court held on the second Monday of June, the court being convened as a board of equalization of taxes, as required by chapter 47 of acts of 1879, an order was made directing an election to be held in the particular subdivision described in the petition; and the county judge issued an order for the election, and it was held in pursuance of such order.

January 17, 1891.

Appellant contends that the order directing an election to be held was void, because not made by the commissioners’ court at a regular term. Article 4594, Revised Statutes, requires the commissioners’ court to pass the order directing an election at a regular term of the court; and hence the question, what is a regular term of that court ? In plain and simple language the statute answers this question, and we are surprised that there should be any mistake or doubt regarding this matter. The regular terms of the commissioners’ court are those which are held on the second Mondays in February, May, August and November. [R. S., art. 1525.] This being so, the order directing the election must be made at one of these terms, and it must be made at the term next after the filing of the petition for the election. [Id., art. 4594.] We are of the opinion that the election was void, and hence appellee cannot maintain this action.

Reversed and suit ordered to be dismissed. •
583 A.2d 341

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GREGORY TUCKER.

March 20, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
News United States Air Force
 Academy first responders save lightning strike victim at county fairPublished July 27, 2016
                        
                        By Master Sgt. Heather Stanton
                        
                        
                        U.S. Air Force Academy Public Affairs
                **U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. (AFNS) --**
                Two first responders stationed here saved the life of a lightning strike victim at the El Paso County fair July 19.Andrea Caraway and Tommy Disario, both fire inspectors for the 10th Civil Engineer Squadron Fire and Emergency Services flight, volunteered to work at the fair’s medical tent as part of a mutual aid agreement with the Calhan Fire Department.“We were staffing the medical tent when we heard a loud boom, and then heard a lot of commotion,” Caraway said. “We got on a response vehicle and responded as fair personnel were calling for medics to respond to a patient struck by lightning.”Upon arrival to the scene, both first responders found the woman lying on her back in the dirt.“The patient was bluish-purple and not breathing,” Disario said. “A bystander explained he attempted compressions. I immediately opened the airway, set up a bag valve mask connected to oxygen and started ventilating the victim.”Once the victim began breathing on her own, the Calhan FD arrived and assisted with transporting the patient via medical helicopter to a facility for additional care.“I don’t believe that my actions alone saved the patient but I believe the actions of everyone involved helped save the patient,” Caraway said. “An emergency of that nature is complicated and requires everyone to play a part. If anyone had delayed in their actions from calling 911, starting patient care, patient transport and then the receiving medical facility, the outcome could have been very different.”Though both Disario and Caraway had never responded to a lightning strike emergency before, they were prepared due to their training.“I have responded to a vast amount of medical emergencies in over 16 years of being a firefighter, but I have never responded to an emergency of this nature,” Caraway said. “However, I have had training on responding to lightning emergencies. We never know ahead of time what we will be responding to, so we train for a multitude of scenarios to provide the best possible care to the public.”The 10th CES Fire and Emergency Services flight trains daily for all phases of emergencies, including mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery, according to Disario.“The incident is another example of (the U.S. Air Force Academy’s) dedication to providing exceptional fire and emergency services,” Disario said. “It is what we train for each and every day. I feel great knowing my leadership has given me the necessary tools and training to confidently perform my job.”training 



U.S. Air Force Academy 



medical
Exhibit 34.5



LOGO



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors

Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Managements Report on Assessment of 2013 Compliance by Pentalpha
Surveillance, LLC With Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (Managements Assertion), that Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commissions Regulation AB for services by the Company that are encompassed by contractual obligations to perform Regulation AB reporting (the Platform), including only those asset-backed securities transactions defined below, as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2013, excluding the following criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(1)(i-iv), 1122(d)(2)(i-vii), 1122(d)(3)(ii-iv), 1122(d)(4)(i-vi) and 1122(d)(4)(viii-xv), which management has
determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The Exhibit to managements assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions defined by management as
constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the Companys compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period and
performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not
have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have
affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on
the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013 for the Platform, is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ McGladrey LLP

Irvine, CA

March 4, 2014



LOGO
#### St. L., A. & T. R’y Co. v. G. C. Ovenbaum.

(No. 6546.)

Appeal from Hill County.

McKinnon & Carlton, counsel for appellant.

Alexander & Winter, counsel for appellee.

June 4, 1890.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 120. *Condemnation proceedings; right to open and conclude; erroneous ruling as to, immaterial when; charge of court.*This is a proceeding brought by appellant to condemn rights of way for its railway over appellee’s land. Appellee was awarded $1,235 damages. It appears from a bill of exception that on the trial the court ruled that appellee was entitled to open and conclude the argument in the cause. It does not appear, however, from said bill or otherwise, that appellee availed himself of the privilege awarded him by said ruling, and hence, even if said ruling was erroneous, the error was immaterial, because no injury could have resulted to appellant from the mere granting of said privilege, and we cannot assume that the privilege granted was exercised, when to so assume would be to impugn the correctness of the judgment. As to the charge of the court, as far as it goes it is substantially correct. If appellant was not satisfied with it, additional instructions should have been requested. If any additional instructions were requested by appellant and refused, the record fails to show that fact.

Affirmed.
News United States Air Force
 ANG Airman awarded Silver StarPublished July 3, 2014
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Matt Hecht
                        
                        
                        177th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **ATLANTIC CITY AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE, N.J. (AFNS) --**
                An Air National Guard explosive ordnance disposal technician with the 177th Fighter Wing was awarded the Silver Star here June 28 for valor in combat while deployed to Afghanistan in 2012.
Master Sgt. Michael F. Sears, the leader of a small team of explosive ordnance disposal airmen, is credited with saving the life of a fellow International Security Assistance Force soldier in the midst of an ambush by enemy forces on Sept. 29, 2012, in Ghazni province, Afghanistan.
On that day, a three-man Air Force explosive ordnance disposal team led by Sears found itself in the middle of a complex ambush in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan. During the course of a two-hour firefight, Sears provided life-saving aid to a fallen coalition soldier from Poland; ran five times through a 150-yard open area riddled with enemy machine gun fire to direct his team in returning fire; and continued on with the fight after being knocked temporarily unconscious by a rocket-propelled grenade blast. Sears joins a group of 58 Airmen who have been awarded the Silver Star since the Global War on Terrorism began.
"What a great American and he really personifies, truly, what we as a Guard are," said Army Gen. Frank J. Grass, chief of the National Guard Bureau. "It is just phenomenal how he just stepped out away from safety to save others. We talk about the Silver Star being awarded for him saving the life of a Polish soldier, but he saved the lives of many soldiers that day."
"It wouldn't be me getting the Silver Star; it would be my wife, if it weren't for Tech. Sgt. Jay Hurley," said Sears.
Sears praised both of his teammates, Hurley and Staff Sgt. Josh Jerden, with courage under fire.
"Hurley, on that day, without hesitation, used his vehicle to cover me," said Sears. "Josh Jerden dismounted his vehicle on the side of enemy fire and engaged the enemy on foot.Their actions showed what kind of team I had."Silver Star 



EOD 



Air National Guard
Exhibit 10.4


 


MIVA, INC.


 


AMENDMENT I


 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


WHEREAS, MIVA, Inc. (“Employer”) and
Subhransu “Brian” Mukherjee (“Executive”) entered into an Executive Employment
Agreement, effective July 13, 2006 (“Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, was enacted in 2004, and places strict rules on
the time and form of certain payments provided under the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, the Employer and Executive may, by
written consent of both parties, amend the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, the Employer and Executive desire to
amend the Agreement to bring it into compliance with Code Section 409A so
as to avoid the imposition on Executive of excise taxes.


 


NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed, for good and
valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, that, January 1,
2009, that the Agreement is amended as follows:


 


1.                                     The
last sentence in Section 6(a) is deleted and replaced with the
following:


 


For purposes of this Section 6, ‘Termination Date’ shall mean the
date on which a ‘separation from service’ occurs, as defined in Treasury
Regulation Section 1.409A-1(h).


 


2.                                     The
following Section 6(k) is added to the Agreement:


 


Notwithstanding any provision in this Section 6 to the contrary,
if Executive is a “specified employee” as defined in Section 409A of the
Code and the Company determines that any amounts to be paid to Executive under
this Section 6 are subject to Section 409A of the Code, then the
Company shall not commence payment of such amounts until the earlier of (a) the
date that is six months after the Executive’s Termination Date or (b) the
date of the Executive’s death.  Any
amount that otherwise would have been payable but for the delay described above
shall be aggregated and paid with the first payment under this Section 6(k).


 


3.                                     The
following clause is deleted in its entirety from the second to last sentence of
the first paragraph of Section 8(a):


 


Unless an alternative method of reduction is elected by Executive.


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Executive has hereunto set
his hand, and Employer has caused this Amendment I to be executed in its name
and on its behalf, as of the 23rd day of December 2008.


 


 


	
   

  	
  MIVA Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Peter A. Corrao

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
  President and CEO

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Executive

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Subhransu “Brian” Mukherjee

  
	
   

  	
  Subhransu “Brian” Mukherjee