alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.45  Annex 3  To the Cash Pooling Agreement  Act of accession  Polca,5 Place du Champ de Mars, 1050 Brussels, Belgium,  To the attention of the Director,  Re: Accession to the Polca Cash Pooling Agreement (the Agreement) of Cnova N.V. (the participating Company)  1.All terms used herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the Agreement.  2.Cnova N.V. confirms having received and read all the provisions of the Agreement as well as any other information, document considered useful and necessary for the Agreement and its implementation.  3.Cnova N.V. states to be controlled directly or indirectly by Casino Guichard Perrachon within the meaning of the definition of the term Casino Group found in Article 1 of the Agreement.  4.Cnova N.V. confirms having provided Polca with its latest financial accounts, including financial information on its equity and its financial debts, in accordance with Article 6.2 of the Agreement, on the basis of which the Maximum Amount of Advances is set to 70 million (Seventy million)euros.  5.Cnova N.V. hereby agrees to be a Participating Company within the meaning of the Agreement, endorses each of the representations provided for in Article 9 of the Agreement, agrees to be bound without reservation by the terms and conditions of the Agreement, to benefit from all the rights it creates and engages to perform all the obligations imposed upon it.  6.For the purpose of participating to the cash pooling transactions provided for in the Agreement, Cnova N.V. states that the account No. NL43 SOGE 0270 2335 39 opened with the Bank should be considered as its Secondary Account for the purposes of the Agreement.  7.We confirm having the authority and capacity to sign the Act of accession to the Agreement.  8.Please note that all correspondences relating to the Agreement will be sent by postal letter, fax, e-mail, telephone at :  ·David Mossê ·Mail : david.mosse@cnovagroup.com ·Professor Dr Dorgelolaan 30-D  5613 AM  EINDHOVEN


For the purposes of articles 3 and 4 of the Agreement, only the person bellow or substituted will have exclusively the capacity and the authority to represent us:  ·German Quiroga Professor Dr Dorgelolaan 30-D  5613 AM  EINDHOVEN  9.As we have negotiated and agreed, we have noted that the date of entry into force of the Agreement toward us is fixed to 1stof July 2014.  For the good shape, please return to us one of the two originals of these preceded by the words read and approved and your handwritten signature.  Kind regards,   Done at Eindhoven, on August 1, 2014Cnova N.V.by
/s/ German QuirogaGerman Quiroga
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 with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of South Jersey
      Gas
      Company (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward
      J. Graham, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.











**SOUTH
                JERSEY GAS COMPANY**Date: March
                7, 2006
              By:
              /s/ Edward
                J. GrahamEdward J. GrahamTitle:   Chief
                Executive Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Keith HALL.

No. 2011-KK-0132.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 18, 2011.

In re Hall, Keith; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial *952Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 475-183.

Stay denied; writ denied.
EXHIBIT 10.3
                                                                    ------------


                                AMENDMENT TO THE
                            CAS MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
                           2003 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

         WHEREAS, CAS Medical Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), previously established the CAS Medical Systems Inc. 2003 Equity
Incentive Plan (the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, in Section 9 of the Plan, the Company reserved the right to
amend the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, in light of changes to the law concerning deferred
compensation, including Internal Revenue Code Section 409A and related Treasury
Regulations, the Company wishes to amend the Plan to clarify its intentions with
respect to the Plan.

         NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by the addition of new
Section 14 at the end thereof, to read as follows:

         "SECTION 14. CODE SS.409A COMPLIANCE.

                  To the extent any Award hereunder provides for a deferral of
         compensation (within the meaning of Code ss.409A and related
         regulations), the material terms of the deferral, to the extent
         required under Treasury Regulation ss.1.409A-1(c)(3) to establish a
         deferred compensation plan, shall be set forth in the written Award
         documentation (including by incorporation by reference, if applicable)
         prior to the effective date of such Award. Such provisions may include
         a requirement that if any payment or acceleration of a payment is made
         upon a change of control, the definition of change of control for
         purposes of such award also complies with the requirements of Treasury
         Regulation ss.1.409A-3(i)(5).

                  In addition, whenever it is provided in this Plan or in any
         Award made hereunder that a payment or delivery is to be made
         "promptly" after a given event, such payment or delivery shall be made
         within 10 days of the event and the recipient shall have no right to
         designate the taxable year of payment or delivery."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officer has set his hand this 29th
day of December, 2008.

                                               CAS MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.


                                               By: /s/ Andrew E. Kersey
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   Name:  Andrew E. Kersey
                                                   Title: President and CEO
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Leah Nivison, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report onForm 10-K of the GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-GC22 (the "Exchange Actperiodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, takenas a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing andother information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilledtheir obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesrequired to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 ofRegulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Anymaterial instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer, Deutsche Bank TrustCompany Americas, as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCertificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCustodian, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor, CoreLogicSolutions, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant, Computershare Trust Company,National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for the CertificateAdministrator on and after November 1, 2021, Computershare Trust Company,National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for the Custodian onand after November 1, 2021, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asPrimary Servicer for the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan, LNR Partners, LLC, asSpecial Servicer for the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan, U.S. Bank NationalAssociation, as Trustee for the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan, U.S. Bank NationalAssociation, as Custodian for the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan, Park Bridge LenderServices LLC, as Operating Advisor for the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan, andCoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant for the Maine Mall MortgageLoan.

 

 

 

Dated:March 22,2022

 

 

/s/ Leah Nivison

Leah Nivison

Chief Executive Officer

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    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: March 3, 2008
    /s/ EUGENE B. SHEPHERD, JR.Eugene B. Shepherd, Jr.Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
Order filed December 17, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00207-CV

____________

WHITE STAR PUMP COMPANY, LLC, Appellant

V.

ALPHA HUNTER DRILLING, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-57416

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due April 14, 2020. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. On August 20, 2020, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record 

within 30 days. On September 18, 2020, the court reporter filed a motion 

requesting an additional 30 days to file the reporter’s record, in that motion she 

stated it would be her final extension. We granted her motion and stated that no 

further exceptions would be granted absent exceptional circumstances. As of
today, the record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Amanda King, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 15 days of the date of this order. No further extension will be 

entertained absent exceptional circumstances. If Amanda King does not timely 

file the record as ordered, we will issue a show cause order directing the court 

reporter to appear before this court on a date certain to show cause why the 

reporter should not be held in contempt for failing to file the record as ordered. 

Contempt of court is punishable by a fine and/or confinement in jail.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Spain.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

MATTHEW SCOTT DIEHL, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 368 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 25th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.
#### Azar OSMANOVIC, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-3502.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 6, 2010.

Azar Osmanovic, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with the well reasoned report and recommendation of the special master, the petition seeking a belated appeal of the order rendered on or about August 6, 2009, denying petitioner’s motion to correct illegal sentence in Duval County Circuit Court case number 16-2007-CF-002008-XXXX, is granted. Upon issuance of mandate, a copy of this opinion shall be furnished to the clerk of the lower tribunal for treatment as a notice of appeal in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(5)(D).

WOLF, ROBERTS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 35.1



AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB



I, Paul C. Honda, do hereby
certify that I am the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California corporation (the
"Company"), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the "Servicer" and "Sponsor")
under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of May 21, 2014 among the Servicer and Sponsor, American
Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2014-2 Owner Trust, as follows:



| | (i) | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2015, and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | To the best of my knowledge and information, based upon such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this 8thday of June, 2015.



| | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                   
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | Paul C. Honda                                       
| | Vice President and Assistant Secretary              
| | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1517 

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for 

coverage under that Act of employees of State and local governments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2007 

Mr. ANDREWS (for himself, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. HARE, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, and Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

to provide for coverage under that Act of employees 

of State and local governments. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness for State and 

5 Local Workers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES. 

7 Section 3(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health 

8 Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 652(5)) is amended— 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1517 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘including a State or political 

2 subdivision of a State,’’ after ‘‘employees,’’; and 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘or any State or political sub4 division of a State’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Mark SINGER.

No. 2009-KP-2167.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 1, 2010.

PER CURIAM.

11 The recent confession made by respondent’s co-defendant occurred only after the co-defendant completed serving his manslaughter sentence for the same crime and, thus, only after the co-defendant no longer faced any further prosecution for that crime. Even assuming the confession qualified as “facts not known to petitioner or his attorney,” and thus exempted respondent from the prescriptive period of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8, the evidence does not constitute “new, material, noncumulative and conclusive evidence, which meets an extraordinarily high standard, and which undermine[s] the prosecution’s entire case” as set out in *State v. Conway,*01-2808 (La.4/12/02), 816 So.2d 290. *Cf. United States v. Reyes-Alvarado,*963 F.2d 1184, 1188 (9th Cir,1992)(“It would encourage perjury to allow a new trial once co-defendants have determined that testifying is no longer harmful to themselves. They may say whatever they think might help their co-defendant, even to the point of pinning all of the guilt on themselves, *172knowing they are safe from retrial. Such testimony would be untrustworthy and should not be encouraged.”); *State v. Perique,*340 So.2d 1369, 1377 (La.1976)(“[W]e do not consider that, after a joint trial, an allegation in a motion for a new trial by one co-defendant that the other co-defendant will now testify on his behalf is a sufficient ground for the granting of a new trial.”).

| ¡Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the court of appeal vacating the district court’s dismissal of respondent’s application for post-conviction relief is reversed. The district court’s ruling is reinstated.
#### David Troy KNOWLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-2586.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 20, 2010.

*333David Troy Knowles, pro se, Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

HAWKES, C.J.

Appellant challenges the denial of his postconviction motion brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 (2010). Without reaching the merits of the motion, we affirm the trial court’s denial as the motion was clearly untimely.

A Rule 3.850 motion must be filed within two years after the defendant’s judgment and sentence become final. *See*Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). The two-year time period begins to run when appellate proceedings have concluded and the court issues a mandate, a fact clearly stated in the Rule. *See Jones v. State,*602 So.2d 606, 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Although the Rule lists three exceptions to its timeliness requirement, it indicates the exceptions must be alleged in the postconviction motion to be considered. *See*Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(l — 3).

Here, the appellate proceedings in Appellant’s case concluded nearly 19 years ago when this Court affirmed his conviction. Despite this fact, Appellant proceeded to file the instant motion, giving no reason for his tardiness and failing to allege any of the exceptions listed in Rule 3.850(b)(l-3). When the trial court denied the action as time barred, Appellant ignored its reasoning and filed the instant appeal. Such action, which shows a lack of respect for court procedure and an indifference to the law, has resulted in court time and resources being spent on an appeal whose baseless nature was plain from the start. *See Proctor v. State,*869 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), quoting *United States v. Robinson,*251 F.3d 594, 596 (7th Cir.2001) (“ ‘having to file, read, and return a frivolous motion is almost as great a burden on the court’s staff as the preparation of a ruling’ ”). Considering that the motion was clearly time barred, and considering that this fact was made known to Appellant prior to the filing of this appeal, we find Appellant’s appeal to be frivolous.

For this reason, we not only affirm the denial of Appellant’s 3.850 motion, but also recommend that the Department of Corrections impose disciplinary sanctions, including, if appropriate, the loss of gain *334time. *See*§ 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2009) (stating that when an inmate files a “frivolous or malicious collateral criminal proceeding,” a court may recommend “disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections”); § 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009) (authorizing the Department of Corrections to forfeit gain time when an inmate files a “frivolous suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal”). Pursuant to section 944.279, we direct the Clerk of this court to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate correctional facility for the consideration of disciplinary procedures against Appellant.

AFFIRMED; Certified Opinion FORWARDED to the Department of Corrections.

KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ, concur.
#### Donald Lee MEADER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D09-4952.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 27, 2011.

Donald Lee Meader, Graceville, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Diane F. Medley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DAMOORGIAN, J.

Donald Meader appeals from an order denying his motion for transcripts, in which he requested copies of his plea and sentencing transcripts free of charge in order to prepare his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm the denial of the motion for transcripts. “‘Beyond the record provided for a direct appeal, [a prisoner] is not entitled to free transcripts to assist in the preparation of either a post-conviction motion or a petition for extraordinary relief.’” *Vanover v. State,*946 So.2d 1152, 1152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting *Golden v. State,*870 So.2d 167, 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)).

*Affirmed.*

MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Angelo A. GONZALEZ v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0186.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Gonzalez, Angelo A; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 10-CR5-107523; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1794.

Denied.