alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             704
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            3364
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      66099
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         183912
<ALLOWANCE>                                        530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  264266
<DEPOSITS>                                      145878
<SHORT-TERM>                                     55000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                951
<LONG-TERM>                                      30000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                       31572
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  264266
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   3858
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  962
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   196
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  5016
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1827
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3109
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             1907
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       45
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1030
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    856
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         856
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       551
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.70
<LOANS-NON>                                         92
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   485
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  530
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               530
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4174

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES TOBE WOOD, a/k/a Charles James Wood,

a/k/a Toby Wood,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-97-483)

Submitted: August 18, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

R. Keith Kelly, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellant. Harold

Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Wood pled guilty to maintaining an establishment for

the purpose of distributing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 856 (1994). The district court sentenced Wood to imprisonment for

151 months, followed by supervised release for three years. His

attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), addressing whether the district court properly

imposed Wood’s sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. Counsel

asserts that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Wood was

informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, which he

failed to file. Because our review of the entire record reveals no

reversible error, we affirm.

Wood contends that the district court erred in calculating his

offense level and sentencing him to 151 months’ imprisonment. The

district court correctly interpreted and applied the guidelines in

ascertaining Wood’s total offense level of 29, criminal history

category of VI, and sentence range of 151-188 months. Because

Wood’s sentence is within the applicable guideline range and the

statutory maximum penalty for his crime, this court lacks authority

to review his sentence. See United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789,

794 (4th Cir. 1990).

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record

in this case and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm

Wood’s sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client
3

in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. If the client requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw

from representation. See Local Rule 46(d). Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on the client. See id. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court, and

oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
October 2021

MSPB Docket Number Construction

DE-0752-19-0750-I-1

MSPB currently uses a 14 character docket number. When the docket number is displayed, it is divided into six parts 

by five dashes, for a total of 19 characters. 

DE Office The first two characters of a docket number are the abbreviation of the office that docketed the 

case. 

AT – Atlanta Regional Office DC – Washington Regional Office 

CH – Central Regional Office NY – New York Field Office

DA – Dallas Regional Office PH – Northeastern Regional Office

DE – Denver Field Office SF –Western Regional Office

CB – Office of the Clerk of the Board 

0752 Appeal 

Type

Four characters which are related to the provision of law governing the appeal type; e.g., “0752” is 

used for adverse action appeals; “1221” is used for individual right of action appeals. 

19 Fiscal Year Two-digit fiscal year in which the appeal was first docketed.

0750 Sequence 

number

Four-digit number assigned to the appeal to make the docket number unique. Each office numbers 

appeals sequentially as they are received, starting with 0001 at the beginning of each fiscal year. 

I Case Type Single alphabetical character that indicates the phase of the proceeding. The most common case 

types are: 

I – Initial appeal C – Compliance proceeding

Y – Initial Appeal (contractual) X – Compliance Referral (HQ)

W – Individual right of action (IRA) appeal A – Attorney fees proceeding

B – Board remand P – Damages proceeding

M – Court remand 

1 Iteration One-digit number that is incremented if a closed case is refiled.
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


December 14, 2021


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2101


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2101 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined the Registration
Statement File No. 333-259546 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Matter of A. G.

Appellate case number: 01-18-01092-CV

Trial court case number: 2016-04829J

Trial court: 315th District Court of Harris County

On April 26, 2019, this Court issued an order abating the appeal and directing the trial court 

to hold a hearing within 7 days to determine why appellant’s counsel had not filed a brief. 

Appellant’s brief was filed on April 29, 2019.

Accordingly, the Court withdraws the order of April 26, 2019. The appeal is reinstated on 

the active docket. Appellee’s brief is due within 20 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Justice Peter Kelly____

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __April 30, 2019___
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Somsak Chivavibul,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
covered by this report on Form 10-K of Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-7 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

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

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

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Xerox Education Services, LLC, as subservicer, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.

Date: March 31, 2015



|                                                                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                            
|/S/ SOMSAK
CHIVAVIBUL                                                                                       
|Somsak Chivavibul President and Chief
Financial Officer (Senior Securitization Officer) Navient Funding, LLC
# **Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Paul Tate,certify that:

 

1.                                       I havereviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A to the quarterly reporton Form 10-Q of Frontier Airlines, Inc.; and

 

2.                                       Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.

 

Date                       November 10,2005

 

 
|   | By:    |    /s/  Paul H. Tate       |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |    Paul  H. Tate           |
|   |   |    Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-6 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and
 
 5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Xerox Education Services, LLC, as subservicer, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.
 
  
 
  
 /s/ CHRISTIAN LOWN
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending July 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert B. Goergen, Chairmanand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except for the matters set forth in PartII – Item 5 of this Quarterly Report; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert B. Goergen                |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert B. Goergen                    |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | December 16, 2004               |

 

 

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350,subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any otherpurpose.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                      MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                           SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                                 133,337
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                          203,709
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                                            899,178
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                       19,214
<PP&E>                                                                 99,306
<DEPRECIATION>                                                         49,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                         1,820,740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                  870,289
<BONDS>                                                                0
<COMMON>                                                               4,429
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                             946,022
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                           1,820,740
<SALES>                                                                2,873,533
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                       2,873,533
<CGS>                                                                  1,706,319
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                          1,282,162
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                     23,368
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        (133,525)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           505
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    (134,030)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           (134,030)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                          (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          (.03)
        


</TABLE>
#### Pamela K. GARLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SEATTLE; Norm Stamper, Chief of Police; Joe Kessler; Jane Doe Kessler; John Doe, Defendants who will be named after discovery, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 99-35259.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 7, 2000.

Decided Jan. 16, 2001.

Before B. FLETCHER, FISHER, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Pamela Garland appeals the district court’s summary judgment on her claims of intentional discrimination pursuant to Title VII and Washington’s Law Against Discrimination, wrongful termination and gender discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

*721We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, *Balint v. Carson City,*180 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc), and we affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court’s Order granting summary judgment filed on February 8, 1999.

Garland also objects to the district court’s award of $3,172.38 in costs to the City for depositions. We review the district court’s award of costs for abuse of discretion. *LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh,*205 F.3d 1146, 1157 (9th Cir.2000). The costs of obtaining depositions and copies of deposition transcripts are allowable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 where the transcripts were reasonably necessary to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. *Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Lab., Inc.,*914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir.1990). In this case, the district court awarded only “those expenses incurred by either party for a deposition actually used in support of or opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.” Although the clerk’s order does not specifically itemize the deposition costs, the City points out that the amount awarded equals the total amount set forth in the itemized listing of deposition costs for those depositions of which portions were submitted as a part of summary judgment proceedings. It is reasonable to assume that those depositions actually used in the summary judgment proceedings were “reasonably necessary” to the City’s motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the award of costs in this case does not constitute an abuse of discretion and is also affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            PHOTOELECTRON CORPORATION

    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 Photoelectron Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 28, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Timothy W. Baker, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition of the Company as of September 28, 2002
     and results of operations of the Company for the three and nine months
     ended September 28, 2002.

                                              /s/ Timothy W. Baker
                                              --------------------

                                              Timothy W. Baker, President
                                              and Chief Financial Officer


                                              November 12, 2002
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jaisun Garcha, Chief Financial Officer of Snipp Interactive Inc. (the Company) do 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 my knowledge:



1.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.





Date: May 16, 2016





/s/  Jaisun Garcha

Jaisun Garcha,

Chief Financial Officer