alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31
                                  ----------



                                 CERTIFICATION

        I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

        1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
        Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in
        respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report,
        of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2004-12CB;

        2. 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;

        3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
        required to be provided to the trustee by the master servicer under
        the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in
        these reports is included in these reports;

        4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
        master servicer 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
        master servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;
        and

        5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
        master servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing 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 procedure, as set
        forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, 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: The
        Bank of New York, as Trustee, and Litton Loan Servicing LP.

        Date: March 29, 2005

                                  /s/ Steve Bailey
                                  -----------------
                                  Steve Bailey
                                  Senior Managing Director
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                      Certification of Chief Executive Officer
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of MAXXAM Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify that:

     (a) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2006 of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: April 2, 2007
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    /S/      CHARLES E. HURWITZ
                                             Charles E. Hurwitz
                                             Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code).
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ANTONIO SERPA

,

Defendant Below

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee. §

§ No. 286 , 2020

§

§ Court Below

— Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No. 1106001209 ( S )

§

§

§

§

Submitted: October 20 , 2020

Decided: November 19 , 2020

ORDER

It appears to the Court that, on October 6 , 2020 , the Chief Deputy Clerk issued

a notice, by certified mail, directing the appellant, Antonio Serpa , to show cause why

t his appeal should not be d ismissed for his failure to pay the Supreme Court filing

fee or to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

. Serpa received t he notice to

show cause on October 9 , 2020, making a timely response due by October 19 , 2020

.

To date, Serpa has not paid the Supreme Court filing fee, filed a motion to proceed

in forma pauperis

, or responded to the notice to show cause

. Dismissal of this action

is therefore deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule s 3(b)(2)

and 29 (b ), that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

July 24, 2012

t0716

Order 

July 24, 2012

144903

A&D DEVELOPMENT, POWELL

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, L.L.C.,

DICK BEUTER, d/b/a BEUTER BUILDING

& CONTRACTING, JIM’S PLUMBING &

HEATING, JEREL KONWINSKI BUILDER,

and KONWINSKI CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 144903

COA: 301296 

Ingham CC: 10-000879-NI

MICHIGAN COMMERCIAL INSURANCE

MUTUAL and ELEANOR POWELL-YODER,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 28, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>   1

===============================================================================
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                                -----------------


                                    FORM 8-K
                                 CURRENT REPORT

                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

        DATE OF REPORT (DATE OF EARLIEST EVENT REPORTED): MARCH 30, 1998


                                -----------------


                    CAPSTAR RADIO BROADCASTING PARTNERS, INC.
             (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)


          DELAWARE                  33-92732                  13-3034720
      (State or other         (Commission File Number)     (I.R.S. Employer
jurisdiction of incorporation)                          Identification Number)


  600 CONGRESS AVENUE
       SUITE 1400                                                78701
      AUSTIN, TEXAS                                            (Zip code)
  (Address of principal
    executive offices)

       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (512) 340-7800

                                 NOT APPLICABLE
          (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)


===============================================================================


<PAGE>   2


ITEM 5. OTHER EVENTS.

         In a press release dated March 30, 1998, a copy of which is filed as
Exhibit 99.1 hereto, Capstar Radio Broadcasting Partners, Inc. ("Capstar
Radio"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Capstar Broadcasting Partners, Inc.
("Capstar Partners"), announced the commencement of (i) a tender offer to
purchase for cash all of its outstanding 13 1/4% Senior Subordinated Notes due
2003 (the "Notes") and (ii) the solicitation of consents to proposed amendments
to eliminate certain restrictive covenants and to amend certain other provisions
of the indenture pursuant to which the Notes were issued.

ITEM 7.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS.

(c)      EXHIBITS.

         99.1     --        Press release, dated March 30, 1998.

<PAGE>   3

                                   SIGNATURES


         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.


                          CAPSTAR RADIO BROADCASTING PARTNERS, INC.
                          (Registrant)



                         By: /s/ KATHY ARCHER
                             ----------------------------------------
                         Name:   Kathy Archer
                         Title:  Vice President


Date:    April 6, 1998


<PAGE>   4

                                  EXHIBIT INDEX

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
   EXHIBIT
   NUMBER                        EXHIBIT TITLE
          <S>       <C>
          99.1  --   Press release, dated March 30, 1998.
</TABLE>
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00442-CR

MAXWELL POLIDOR, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 16th District 

Court

of Denton County (F15-1205-16)

August 8, 2019

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.03
 
 CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP, INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, DATED JUNE 23,
                                      1998
 
     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in this Registration Statement of our report dated November 14,
1997 on the consolidated financial statements of Charter Behavioral Health
Systems, LLC and subsidiaries included in Crescent Operating, Inc.'s Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and to all references
to our Firm included in or made a part of this Registration Statement.
 
                                                 /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 
Atlanta, Georgia
June 23, 1998
F-024 

JUNE 2008 

Is the Wax Coating on Cheese Considered Tare? 

By David Sefcik 

Recently, the NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) has received calls from several state weights and 

measures jurisdictions asking about the wax coating on a variety of cheeses. Should the wax coatings be considered 

as tare weight or net weight? Definitely a good question! 

Some may argue that although the wax is not consumed, it may be an integral part of the manufacturing of the 

cheese and there are cases where cheese that is sold wholesale, by weight, has included the weight of the wax. 

The issue of wax on cheese came up in 1984, and the WMD asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for 

guidance. In a letter dated March 20, 1984, the FDA Associate Director for Compliance provided the following 

interpretation: 

We are of the opinion that 21 CFR 101.105(g) requires that wax coatings on cheese always be considered part of the 

tare. This section states that the declaration of quantity of contents shall accurately reveal the quantity of food in the 

package exclusive of wrappers and other material packed therewith. 

Even when the wax is an integral part of the manufacture of the cheese, the wax itself is not derived from the curd of 

any type of milk. As a result, it would be inappropriate to consider the wax to be part of the food known as cheese. 

Also, most consumers would consider such wax inedible and would discard it. Under these circumstances, we 

believe that consumers would be misled by declarations of net weight including the wax coating. 

Further, you should be aware that our position on these wax coatings applies to wholesale as well as retail cheese 

packages. Both types of packages could be considered misbranded if the net weight declaration included the wax 

coating. 

Clearly, wax on cheese is to be considered tare! This interpretation still holds true today. 

To obtain a copy of this letter, please visit our website at http://www.nist.gov/owm. Go to the Quick List of Popular 

Links and select “Handbook 133, Checking Net Contents” and scroll down to the “Handbook 133 Resources” table 

to select the letter and this article.
1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1667

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Carlos Price, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 1, 2009

Filed: April 6, 2009

___________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Carlos Price appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which challenges the district court’s

imposition of 3 criminal history points under U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.1(d) and 4A1.1(e), and

argues that the court abused its discretion in sentencing Price to180 months in prison.
-2-

We conclude that the district court’s application of sections 4A1.1(d) and

4A1.1(e) is unreviewable, given that Price would have received a 15-year statutorily

mandated sentence whether or not those provisions were applied. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(e)(1) (setting forth 15-year mandatory minimum prison term); United States v.

Williams, 74 F.3d 872, 872 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (application of Guidelines

provision not reviewable where defendant faced same sentence whether or not

provision was applied). 

We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

sentencing Price to 180 months in prison, because the court lacked discretion to

impose a lower sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (setting forth 15-year mandatory

minimum prison term); United States v. Phelps, 536 F.3d 862, 869 (8th Cir. 2008)

(substantive reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion), cert.

denied, 2009 WL 177236 (U.S. Feb. 23, 2009); United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930,

937 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court was without discretion to impose sentence for

firearm conviction below statutory minimum).

Having reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
MAYTAG CORPORATION

                                   Exhibit 21

                     List of Subsidiaries of the Registrant

                                    <PAGE>


                              MAYTAG CORPORATION

                                  Exhibit 21

                    List of Subsidiaries of the Registrant


The following schedule lists the subsidiaries of Maytag Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, as of December 31, 1998.

                                                    State or Country
Corporate Name                                      of Organization 
Maytag Appliances Sales Company                     Delaware
D.N. Holdings, Inc.                                 Delaware
  Dixie-Narco, Inc.                                 West Virginia
  Blodgett Holdings, Inc.                           Delaware
    G.S. Blodgett Corporation                       Vermont
       G.S. Blodgett International Limited          Barbados
       Pitco Frialator, Inc.                        New Hampshire
       Frialator International Limited              England
       MagiKitch'n Inc.                             Pennsylvania
       Cloverleaf Properties, Inc.                  Vermont
Maytag Foreign Sales Corporation                    Virgin Islands
The Hoover Company                                  Delaware
  The Hoover Company (Sales)                        Delaware
Maytag International, Inc.                          Delaware
  Maharashtra Investment, Inc.                      Delaware
  Hoover Mexicana S.A. de C.V.                      Mexico
Hoover Holdings Inc.                                Delaware
  Juver Industrial S.A. de C.V.                     Mexico
  Maytag International Limited                      United Kingdom
  Maytag Limited                                    Canada
  Maytag Worldwide N.V.                             The Netherlands Antilles
  AERA LIMITED                                      Hong Kong
  AERA (Hong Kong) PTE LTD                          Singapore
Maytag International Investments, Inc.              Delaware
  Maytag I.I., Inc.                                 Delaware
    Maytag International Investments B.V.           Netherlands
       Hefei Rongshida Co. Ltd. (50.5%)             China
         Chongqing General Washing Machine Factory  China
Anvil Technologies LLC (33.77%)                     Delaware

NOTE:  Ownership in subsidiaries is 100% unless otherwise indicated.

Other subsidiaries in the aggregate would not constitute a significant
subsidiary.<PAGE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education (virtual) (#9487).                    

*Dates:*                         January 20, 2015; 2:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         Stafford I, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Open.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Linda Deegan, National Science Foundation, Suite 655, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230. Email:                         *ldeegan@nsf.gov*.                    

*Minutes:*                         May be obtained from the contact person listed above.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice, recommendations, and oversight concerning support for environmental research and education.                    

*Agenda:*                         Discuss development of the Decadal Vision for Environmental Research and Education document.                    

Dated: November 18, 2014.

Suzanne Plimpton,

Acting Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2014-27655 Filed 11-21-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   Exhibit 10.24


                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT


         THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT dated as of July 2, 1997 is entered into by
and between TCC Industries, Inc., a Texas corporation, formerly named TeleCom
Corporation, (the "Company") and W. Grogan Lord ("Lord").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, the Company and Lord have agreed that the Consulting and
Noncompetition Agreement (the "Consulting Agreement") dated as of May 10, 1994
entered into between them, should be terminated on the terms and conditions set
forth herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants
and agreements herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and adequacy of which are expressly acknowledged by the parties by their
execution and delivery hereof, the undersigned hereby agree as follows:

1.       The Consulting Agreement is hereby terminated in its entirety,
         including without limitation the obligations of the Company to make
         payments to Lord as therein provided upon his ceasing to be a member of
         the Board of Directors of the Company and the obligation of Lord to
         render consulting services and not to compete with the Company upon his
         ceasing to be such a member.

2.       The Company agrees that it will exercise, to the extent that it is
         entitled to do so, its option to elect the "discovery clause" under its
         Officer's and Director's Liability Insurance policy, so as to extend
         coverage for an additional twelve month period at a cost of 75% of the
         annual premium on such policy, such option to be exercised as provided
         in such policy in the event the Company elects not to renew such policy
         or replace such policy with similar coverage, or such policy is
         terminated or not renewed by the insurer.

3.       This Termination Agreement may be executed in counterparts, all of
         which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. In
         making proof hereof, it shall not be necessary to produce or account
         for any counterpart other than one signed by the party against which
         enforcement is sought.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound,
have duly executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.

                                        THE COMPANY:

                                        TCC Industries, Inc.
                                              /s/ ROBERT THOMAJAN
                                        By:
                                        Name: Robert Thomajan
                                        Title:   President

                                        LORD:
                                              /s/ W. GROGAN LORD

                                           W. Grogan Lord



                                       50
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 27, 2017

p0619 

# Order

Clerk June 27, 2017

154520

JAMES E. PEASE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 154520

COA: 332282

Wayne CC: 97

- 731630

- DO

MARY JANE PEASE,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 31, 2016

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that t he questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

W ILDER , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.