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



Exhibit 31.1Section 302 Certification I, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that: I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing
distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year covered by
this annual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 2004-7;  1.
    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;  2.
    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to
the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, for
inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;  3.
    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trustee
under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and the
annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
reports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;
and  4.
    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trustee
and the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the
Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth in
the pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included in these reports. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the
following unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A. Date: March 29, 2005 By:      /s/ Ellen Z. Lamale
Name: Ellen Z. Lamale
Title:   Senior Vice President and Chief Actuary
#### Benjamin Goodin *v.*Sellers & Tate.

Execution — Nullifying Settlement on; Ground of Mistake.

Where -a note has been executed in settlement of an execution, and the execution has been “satisfied” by order of the judgment plaintiff, the judgment plaintiff can not nullify the settlement and have a new execution issued on the ground of mistake in the amount due, without first vacating -the sheriff’s return and canceling the note given in settlement.

APPEAL FROM GARRARD- CIRCUIT COURT.

December 26, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

The answer of the appellees admits that they accepted the note of $80, dated August 27, 1868, for the supposed balance of the judgment enjoined, and the note expresses that it was given for a “balance on settlement of execution,” thereby importing, with the admission of the answer, that an execution had issued on the judgment, which was satisfied by the delivery of the note; and this is fully proved by the sheriff’s deposition and return of the execution, brought up by certiorari.

The answer, however, seeks to sustain the action of the appellees in treating their own settlement and the return of the execution “satisfied” by their own order, as nullities, and in suing out a new *163execution, on the ground that they made a mistake and did not take appellant’s note for enough money. If this was so it did no't justify the issuance of the execution, without the judgment of the court vacating the sheriff’s return, and cancelling the note given as the result of the settlement. But this had not only not been done, when the execution was sued out and enjoined, but no sufficient grounds for doing so are either alleged or proved in this record.

*Bradley, for appellcmt.*

*McKee, Anderson, for appellees.*

We are of the opinion that the court should have perpetuated the injunction and dismissed the appellees’ cross-petition.

Wherefore the judgmlent is reversed and the cause remanded for a judgment in conformity to this opinion.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of DoubleClick Inc. (the Company) for
the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Bruce Dalziel, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ BRUCE DALZIEL      
| |                        
| | Bruce Dalziel          
| | Chief Financial Officer

Dated:
August 9, 2004
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                         EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATIONS
                      (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   THREE MONTH PERIOD        NINE MONTH PERIOD
                                                    ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,     ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                   --------------------     -------------------
                                                   2000         1999        2000          1999
                                                   ----         ----        ----          ----
<S>                                              <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
EARNINGS PER COMMON AND DILUTIVE
    POTENTIAL SHARE:
    Net Income                                   $ 9,346      $11,538      $20,541      $28,412
                                                 =======      =======      =======      =======
    Shares:
    Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding - Basic                 26,710       26,725       26,707       26,664
    Effect of dilutive securities (a):
       Stock options                                 210          376          284          339
                                                 -------      -------      -------      -------
           Adjusted common shares - Diluted       26,920       27,101       26,991       27,003
                                                 =======      =======      =======      =======
EARNINGS PER SHARE - DILUTED                     $  0.35      $  0.43      $  0.76      $  1.05
                                                 =======      =======      =======      =======
</TABLE>


(a)      Shares issuable were derived using the "Treasury Stock Method" for all
         dilutive potential shares.
Order filed September 1, 2022

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 22

- 00522

- CV

____________ JOSE JUAN MALDONADO , Appellant

V. YELLOWFIN LOAN SERVICING CORP., AS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO SUMMIT MORTGAGE CORPORATION , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 2

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- 004152

- 2



### O R D E R
The clerk’s record was filed July 25, 2022. Our review has determined that a
relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See T e x. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain the Final Summary Judgment signed J u ne 6,
2022.The Tarrant County Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on

or before September 12, 2022 , containing the Final Summary Judgment signed
J u ne 6, 2022.
If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a supplem ental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief J ustice Christopher and Justices Wise and H a ssan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              11
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      205
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          1
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   239
<PP&E>                                            5915
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (3944)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2269
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              396
<BONDS>                                           1319
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1945
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1761)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2269
<SALES>                                            419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   436
<CGS>                                              274
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      274
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    96
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     21
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 19
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        19
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
<FN>
<F1>(EPS-PRIMARY) DENOTES BASIC EPS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 400 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 400

   To amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
Transportation to require automobile manufacturers to provide automatic 
   door locks and interior-opening trunk locks on new passenger cars 
                        manufactured after 2005.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2003

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
Transportation to require automobile manufacturers to provide automatic 
   door locks and interior-opening trunk locks on new passenger cars 
                        manufactured after 2005.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the ``Auto Safety Assurance Act of 
2003''.

SEC. 2. ANTICARJACKING AUTOMOBILE SAFETY LOCKS.

    (a) In General.--Title 49 of the United States Code is amended by 
inserting after section 30127 the following new section:
``Sec. 30128. Occupant safety locks
    ``Not later than January 1, 2004, the Secretary of Transportation 
shall prescribe under this chapter an amendment to Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard 206 (49 C.F.R. 571.206) issued under the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The amendment 
shall require that all passenger cars (as such term is defined in 
section 30127(a)(3)) manufactured after December 31, 2005, shall be 
fitted with--
            ``(1) equipment that automatically locks the doors of the 
        vehicle when--
                    ``(A) the vehicle transmission is engaged; or
                    ``(B) the vehicle reaches a specified rate of 
                speed; and
            ``(2) vehicle trunk lock mechanisms that permit unlatching 
        from inside the trunk.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding after 
the item related to section 30127 the following new item:

``30128. Occupant safety locks.''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF MUELLER GROUP, LLC**

 

 
| ** **                                  | ** ** | **STATE/COUNTRY OR OTHER**      |
|---------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|
| ** **                                  | ** ** | **JURISDICTION OF**             |
| ** **                                  | ** ** | **INCORPORATION OR**            |
| **SUBSIDIARIES**                            | ** ** | **ORGANIZATION**                |
|                                        |       |                            |
| AnvilStar, LLC                              |       | Delaware                        |
| Anvil International, Inc.              |       | Delaware                        |
| Anvil International, LLC                    |       | Delaware                        |
| Henry Pratt Company                         |       | Delaware                        |
| Henry Pratt International Ltd.              |       | Delaware                        |
| Hersey Meters Co.                           |       | Delaware                        |
| Hydro Gate Acquisition Corp.                |       | Delaware                        |
| James Jones Company                         |       | California                      |
| J.B. Smith Mfg Co.                          |       | Oklahoma                        |
| Jingmen Pratt Valve Co. Ltd.                |       | People’s Republic of China |
| Milliken Acquisition Corp.                  |       | Delaware                        |
| Mueller Canada Holding Corp.                |       | Canada                          |
| Mueller Canada Ltd.                         |       | Canada                          |
| Mueller Co.                                 |       | Illinois                        |
| Mueller Financial Services, LLC             |       | Delaware                        |
| Mueller Group Co-Issuer, Inc.          |       | Delaware                        |
| Mueller International, Inc.            |       | Delaware                        |
| Mueller International, L.L.C.               |       | Delaware                        |
| Mueller International Finance, Inc.    |       | Delaware                        |
| Mueller International Finance, L.L.C.       |       | Delaware                        |
| Mueller Service Co.                         |       | Delaware                        |
| United States Pipe and Foundry Company, LLC |       | Alabama                         |
#### Dorothy BANNERMAN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY, Allen F. Breed et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 77-3887.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 21, 1980.

Curtis G. Oler, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Charlton G. Holland, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Before CHOY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON *, District Judge.

*

The Honorable Bruce R. Thompson, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM

Two women who were not hired as parole agents of the California Department of Youth Authority sued for damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII. They appeal a judgment for the defendants. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the district judge in his opinion reported at 436 F.Supp. 1273 (N.D.Cal.1977).

One point urged on appeal was obviated by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in *Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney,*442 U.S. 256, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979), which upheld the right of a state to grant preference to veterans in public employment. The other points, particularly that the oral interview process discriminated against women job applicants, are fully answered in the careful analysis of the evidence by the trial judge. The court, in detailed findings that survive review under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52, found that there was a failure of proof of gender-based discrimination.

Affirmed.
#### Ellen Gillian *v.*Jean Brozovic and Richard J. Brozovic as Administrators of the Estate of John Brozovic.

[No. 3-775A142.

Filed November 24, 1975.]

*Andrew P. Rodovich,*of Hammond, for appellant.

*Robert J. Addison,*of Gary, for appellees.

Per Curiam

This case is pending before us on the appellees’ Motion To Dismiss Or Affirm which alleges the appellant’s motion to correct errors was not timely filed.

The record reveals that judgment was entered on December 6, 1974, and that the motion to correct errors was filed on February 6, 1975. Rule TR. 59(C) requires that the motion to correct errors shall be filed not later than 60 days after the entry of judgment. In this case, the 60th day after judgment fell on Tuesday, February 4,1975.

*683
      *682The appellant makes the sophistic argument that the motion to correct errors was timely served on the opposing party. *683That pursuant to Rule TR. 5(D) service on the opposing party is of primary importance, while filing, which is a mere technical requirement, is of secondary importance and may be done either before service or at a reasonable time thereafter. The appellant mailed the motion to correct errors to the opposing party and to the trial court on the 60th day after judgment, by *ordinary mail.*Pursuant to Rule TR. 5(E)(2) filing is complete upon mailing only when the papers are mailed to the clerk *by registered or certified mail, return receipt*requested. Because the motion to correct errors was mailed to the clerk by ordinary mail, the clerk filed it as of the date of its receipt, February 6, the 62nd day after judgment. Appellant does not argue that February 6 is not the correct file date, but asserts since service was made on the opposing parties on February 4, filing on February 6 was within a reasonable time thereafter and therefore sufficient.

This Court has repeatedly held that the timely filing of the motion to correct errors is a jurisdictional act, and when the motion is late filed, it presents no question to the trial court, preserves no question for appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed because there is no jurisdiction in the reviewing court.1 Thus, while TR. 5 does stress service and TR. 5(D) permits the filing of pleadings and papers within a reasonable time after service, the express requirements of TR. 59 control with respect to a motion to correct errors. TR. 59(C) mandates filing not later than sixty days after the entry of judgment.

Therefore, the appellees’ Motion to Dismiss is sustained and this cause is dismissed.

Note. — Reported at 337 N.E.2d 152.

. *Brunner*v. *Terman*(1971), 150 Ind. App. 139, 275 N.E.2d 553; *Lines*v. *Browning*(1973), 156 Ind. App. 185, 295 N.E.2d 853; *In re Estate of Barnett*(1974), 159 Ind. App. 491, 307 N.E.2d 490; *Murray*v. *Murray*(1974), 160 Ind. App. 72, 309 N.E.2d 831; *Hendrixon*v. *State*(1974), Ind. App., 310 N.E.2d 569.
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4045

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2004

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a 

feasibility study with respect to the Mokelumne River, 

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 4045 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF MOKELUMNE RIVER RE2 GIONAL WATER STORAGE AND CONJUNCTIVE 

3 USE PROJECT STUDY. 

4 Pursuant to the Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 

5 388) and Acts amendatory thereof and supplemental 

6 thereto, the Secretary of the Interior (hereafter in this Act 

7 referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) is authorized to prepare 

8 a feasibility study entitled the ‘‘Mokelumne River Regional 

9 Water Storage and Conjunctive Use Project Study’’ for 

10 a project to provide additional water supply and improve 

11 water management flexibility through the development of 

12 new water storage and conjunctive use programs. 

13 SEC. 2. USE OF REPORTS AND OTHER INFORMATION. 

14 In developing the Mokelumne River Regional Water 

15 Storage and Conjunctive Use Project Study, the Secretary 

16 shall use, as appropriate, reports and any other relevant 

17 information supplied by the Mokelumne River Water and 

18 Power Authority, the East Bay Municipal Utility District 

19 and other stakeholders. 

20 SEC. 3. DEADLINE. 

21 The Secretary shall complete the Mokelumne River 

22 Regional Water Storage and Conjunctive Use Project 

23 Study and provide copies of that study to the Committee 

24 on Resources of the House of Representatives and the 

25 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Sen-
3

HR 4045 RFS 

1 ate not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment 

2 of this Act. 

3 SEC. 4. COST SHARES. 

4 (a) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the 

5 costs of the Mokelumne River Regional Water Storage and 

6 Conjunctive Use Project Study shall not exceed 50 percent 

7 of the total cost of the study. 

8 (b) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary shall 

9 accept, as appropriate, such in-kind contributions of goods 

10 or services from the Mokelumne River Water and Power 

11 Authority as the Secretary determines will contribute to 

12 the conduct and completion of the Mokelumne River Re13 gional Water Storage and Conjunctive Use Project Study. 

14 Goods and services accepted under this section shall be 

15 counted as part of the non-federal cost share for that 

16 study. 

17 SEC. 5. WATER RIGHTS. 

18 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to invalidate, 

19 preempt, or create any exception to State water law, State 

20 water rights, or Federal or State permitted activities or 

21 agreements. 

22 SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

23 There is authorized to be appropriated to the Sec24 retary $3,000,000 for the Federal cost share of the 
4

HR 4045 RFS 

1 Mokelumne River Regional Water Storage and Conjunc2 tive Use Project Study.

Passed the House of Representatives September 22, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.