alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1

Annual Statement of
ComplianceProtective Life Secured Trust 2004-25 (the "Trust")

I, Millie
Cicero, a duly elected and acting officer of The Bank of New York ("Indenture Trustee"), do hereby certify on
behalf of the Indenture Trustee, that:

1.     I
have reviewed and examined the performance by the Indenture Trustee of the
collection and distribution of trust money pursuant to
Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the Indenture
pursuant to which the Trust's notes (the "Notes") were issued during the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2004 (the "Relevant
Year"); and

2.     Based
upon my review and examination described in 1 above, and except as provided in the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, dated March 30, 2005, prepared by the Trust's
independent registered public accounting firm in accordance with Section 10 of the Expense and Indemnity
Agreement, to the best of my knowledge, the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to noteholders
pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the
Indenture was performed in a satisfactory manner in all material respects
throughout the Relevant Year.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Indenture Trustee

|By: |  | /s/MILLIE CICERO
      Name:  Millie
      CiceroTitle:    Assistant Treasurer |  |  |  | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | 

Date:  March 30, 2005
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BUFFALO MINING COMPANY, Petitioner,

v. HOBERT DILLON; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF No. 96-2034 WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-1719-BLA) Argued: July 7, 1997 Decided: October 21, 1997 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Sannie Overly, JACKSON & KELLY, Lexington, Kentucky, for Petitioner. Kelly Rosetta Charnock, SHAFFER & SHAFFER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondent Dillon; Barry H.Joyner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Director. ON BRIEF: Anthony J. Cicconi,SHAFFER & SHAFFER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondent Dillon. J. Davitt McAteer, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire,Associate Solicitor, Christian P. Barber, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Edward Waldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Director.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Buffalo Mining Company (Buffalo) petitions for review of a decision by the Benefits Review Board (the Board) affirming an award of black lung benefits to Hobert Dillon. Finding no error, we affirm. Dillon applied for black lung benefits in 1991, after working for Buffalo for at least ten years. An administrative law judge (ALJ) awarded benefits, ruling that Dillon suffered from pneumoconiosisarising from his coal mine employment and that he was totally disabled due to the disease. The Board affirmed the ALJ's finding of total disability, but concluded that she had improperly relied on the"true doubt" rule in determining that Dillon suffered from pneumoconiosis. See Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Dep't of Labor v. Greenwich Collieries , 512 U.S. 267, 281 (1994) (holding that the true doubt rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act). Accordingly, the Board vacated this finding and the finding that Dillon's total disability was due to pneumoconiosis and remanded forreconsideration. On remand, the ALJ again awarded benefits, concluding that Dillon had established the existence of pneumoconiosis by a preponderance of the evidence and that he was totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis. The Board affirmed. Having had the benefit of oral argument and the parties' briefs, and after careful consideration of the record, we conclude that the deci-
2sion of the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen

United States Courthouse

Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850

www.ca7.uscourts.gov

 

ORDER 

October 13, 2021

By the Court: 

No. 21-2517 

LEGACY SPORTS BARBERSHOP LLC, et al., 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Originating Case Information:

District Court No: 1:20-cv-04149

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

District Judge Charles P. Kocoras

The following are before the court:

1. MOTION TO VACATE BRIEFING ORDER AND TO HOLD APPEAL IN ABEYANCE, 

filed on October 1, 2021, by counsel for the appellee.

2. RESPONSE TO MOTION TO VACATE BRIEFING ORDER AND TO HOLD APPEAL IN 

ABEYANCE, filed on October 12, 2021, by counsel for the appellants.

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Briefing in this appeal shall be SUSPENDED

pending this court’s resolution of Bend Hotel Dev. Co., LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 21-1559, 

TJBC, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 21-1203, and Sandy Point Dental, P.C. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 

No. 21-1186. The appellants’ brief shall be due 40 days after this court resolves Bend Hotel, TJBC, 

and Sandy Point Dental. The appellee’s brief will be due 30 days after appellants’ brief, and any 

reply brief will be due 21 days after appellee’s brief.

form name: c7_Order_BTC (form ID: 178)

Case: 21-2517 Document: 13 Filed: 10/13/2021 Pages: 1

Case: 1:20-cv-04149 Document #: 55 Filed: 10/14/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1970
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. §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;                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| /s/              Jean Dagenais    |
|----------------------------------------|
| Jean              Dagenais        |
| Chief                Financial Officer |

| Date: | November                13, 2007 |
|-------|----------------------------------|

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1035

JOSEPH COVELL BROWN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MARCUS PORTER, in his individual capacity; NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY; BOARD OF VISITORS OF NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; TRACCI K. JOHNSON, in her individual capacity , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Rebecca Beach Smith , Senior District Judge. ( 2:19

- cv - 00376

- RBS

- RJK )

Submitted : December 29, 2021 Decided: February 4 , 2022

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Alastair C. Deans, Chesapeake, Virginia, for Appellant. Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Samuel T. Towell, Deputy Attorney General, Sandra S. Gregor, Assistant Attorney General, Toby J. Heytens, Solicitor General, Michelle S. Kallen, Deputy Solicitor Ge neral, Jessica Merry Samuels, Deputy Solicitor General, Kendall T. Burchard, John Marshall Fellow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF2 VIRGINIA , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM : Following his expulsion from Norfolk State University, Joseph Covell Brown sued the university and two of its officials, among others, alleging violation s of his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process, gender discrimination in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 to 1688, and breach of contract under Virginia law. On appeal, Brown challenges the district court’s dismissal of his due process claim against the university officials and its dismissal of his gender discrimination
and breach of contract claims. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court correctly determined that the university officials were entitled to qualified immunity on Brown’s due process claim and that Brown fa iled to plausibly allege gender
discrimination or breach of contract. Moreover, Brown’s gender discrimination claim was too speculative to warrant discovery. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: IN THE DISCIPLINARY MATTER OF NINA RAE RINGGOLD, California State Bar No. 133735,

______________________________ NINA RINGGOLD, California State Bar No. 133735,
Petitioner

- Appellant. No. 20

- 55199
D.C. No. 2:19

- ad

- 00196

- VAP

MEM ORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 20, 2021 * * Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Nina Ringgold appeals pro se from the district court’s order s in her disciplinary action. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1 ) . We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & County of
San Francisco , 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014)

. We affirm in part and dismiss

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 55199

in part

. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ringgold’s request
to file a motion i n her separate civil action. See Bias v. Moynihan , 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Broad deference is given to a district court’s interpretation of its local rules.”); C.D. Cal. L.R. 83

- 3.3 (“Any attorney previously admitted to the Bar of this Court who no longer is enrolled as an active member of the Bar, Supreme Court, or other governing authority of any State . . . shall not practice before this Court.”); see also Jackson , 746 F.3d at 958 (setting forth requirements for a preliminary injunction)

. We lack jurisdiction to consider the district cour t’s orders entered on October 29, 2019 and December 11, 2019 because they are not final appealable
orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (jurisdiction of appeals from “final decisions”); Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States , 489 U.S. 794, 798 (1989) (“For purpos es of [28 U.S.C. § 1291], a final judgment is normally deemed not to have occurred until there has been a decision by the District Court that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, Ringgold did not file a notice of appeal within 30 days after entry of these orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order appealed from).3 20

- 55199

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, including Ringgold’s request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); Acosta

Huerta v. Estelle , 7 F.3d 139 , 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in appellant’s opening brief are waived)

. All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part
.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 379 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         March 5, 1998.
    Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 104) to amend the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act of 1982, in the opinion of this House, contravenes the first clause 
of the seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the United 
States and is an infringement of the privileges of this House and that such bill 
be respectfully returned to the Senate with a message communicating this 
resolution.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (SUBSECTION (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES
                                     CODE)

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Vornado
Operating Company (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's
knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

November 4, 2004                               /s/ JOSEPH MACNOW
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Name:   Joseph Macnow
                                               Title:  Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Thomas W. Winfree, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Southern Community Financial Corp.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this  report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of  the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  March 21, 2005

By: /s/ Thomas W. Winfree

Thomas W. Winfree

President and

Chief Executive Officer
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3806

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against 

the alternative minimum tax where stock acquired pursuant to an incentive stock option is sold or exchanged at a loss. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2004

Mr. GERLACH (for himself, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. GILLMOR, and Mr. EHLERS) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 

credit against the alternative minimum tax where stock 

acquired pursuant to an incentive stock option is sold 

or exchanged at a loss.

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

3 SECTION 1. CREDIT AGAINST THE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM 

4 TAX WHERE STOCK ACQUIRED PURSUANT TO 

5 AN INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION IS SOLD OR 

6 EXCHANGED AT A LOSS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 53 of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 (relating to credit for prior year min-
2

•HR 3806 IH 

1 imum tax liability) is amended by adding at the end the 

2 following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(e) SPECIAL RULE IN CASE OF INCENTIVE STOCK

4 OPTIONS.—

5 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The amount determined 

6 under subsection (c) for any taxable year beginning 

7 after December 31, 2003, shall be not less than the 

8 incentive stock option tax. 

9 ‘‘(2) INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION TAX.—For pur10 poses of this subsection, the term ‘incentive stock 

11 option tax’ means the excess (if any) of—

12 ‘‘(A) the aggregate tax imposed by section 

13 55 by reason of section 56(b)(3) for all prior 

14 taxable years with respect to stock if—

15 ‘‘(i) such stock is sold or exchanged 

16 during the taxable year or any prior tax17 able year, and 

18 ‘‘(ii) a loss is recognized on such sale 

19 or exchange for purposes of part VI, over 

20 ‘‘(B) the aggregate increase in the amount 

21 determined under subsection (c) by reason of 

22 this subsection for all prior taxable years.’’
3

•HR 3806 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2003.

Æ
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

    In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DoubleClick Inc.
(the 'Company') for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the 'Report'), Bruce
Dalziel, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or
    15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                                     /s/ BRUCE DALZIEL
                                           .....................................

                                                      BRUCE DALZIEL
                                                 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

November 14, 2002
AV Validation

1

Colm Boran
Driving Rules/Guidelines

Established State Tests (Written and On-Road) Are 

A Defined Source Of Driving Validation Tests.
Emergency/Evasive Maneuvers for “Edge Cases”

• AEB

– Vehicle

– Pedestrian

– Intersections/Crossings

• Avoiding Crash Scenarios

– VTTI Naturalistic Driving Database

– Volpe Study

– AV Developers Contributing Data From Real-World Incidents

Data Sets Can Provide Validation Tests For “Edge Cases”. 
Simulation vs Vehicle Tests

Simulation Test Coverage

Vehicle / 

Physical

Test

Coverage

• Simulation:

• Increases coverage across production 

vehicle tolerance bands and traffic 

scenarios

• Allows analysis of combinations that may

be difficult to obtain otherwise

• Conclusions require correlation to actual 

system components, which is often 

challenging.

• Not always a substitute for real-world 

testing where local norms/behavior occur.

Parameter X

Parameter Z

Automotive Safety System Developers Have Successfully Used Simulation For Decades 

To Help Ensure Performance Goals In Complex Systems. 
Driving Behavior/Norms

• Anticipating potential behavior of 

other road users

• Enhancing traffic flow and safety: – Wide berth when overtaking parallel

- parked vehicles, cyclists, etc.

– Encroaching upon, or crossing over, 

oncoming traffic lane lines when 

appropriate.

– Maximize the pavement

Desirable Driving Behaviors/Norms are 

Often Region-Specific. 

Situation Flexibility Can Benefit AVs, As Afforded to 

Human Drivers Today.

AV AV
Other AV Industry Business Factors

UK

Like Any Customer-Facing Businesses, AVs Will Likely Thrive or Fail Based on Numerous Competitive Factors, 

Customer/Municipal Expectations and Mobility Alternatives
H. Res. 351

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 5, 1998.

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

that they are hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES:

Mr. Max Sandlin of Texas and Mr. Gregory Meeks of New

York.

Attest:

Clerk.