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



UNITED STATES
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): April 21, 2005 IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED 
 Canada
    
    0-12014
    
    98-0017682(State or other jurisdiction
    
    (Commission
    
    (IRS Employerof incorporation)
    
    File Number)
    
    Identification No.)
 111 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario,
    
    M5W 1K3(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code:
    
    (800) 567-3776
  
 Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy
the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General
Instruction A.2. below): o     Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) o     Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) o     Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) o     Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 2.02     Results of Operations and Financial Condition. On April 21, 2005, Imperial Oil Limited (the Company) by means of a press release and a
speech by the Companys chairman, president and chief executive officer at the Companys annual
meeting of shareholders disclosed information relating to the Companys financial condition and
results of operations for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005. Copies of each statement are
attached as Exhibits 99.1 and 99.2 to this report. Item 9.01     Financial Statements and Exhibits.  (c)
    Exhibits.The following exhibits are furnished as part of this report on Form 8-K:  99.1
    Press release of the Company on April 21,
2005 disclosing information relating to the Companys
financial condition and results of operations for the
fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005.  99.2
    Speech by the Companys chairman,
president and chief executive officer at the Companys
annual meeting of shareholders on April 21, 2005
disclosing information relating to the financial condition
and results of operations for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2005. 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 hereunto duly authorized. IMPERIAL OIL LIMITEDDate: April 21, 2005By:
    /s/  Brian LivingstonName:
    Brian LivingstonTitle:
    Vice-President, General Counsel and
Corporate SecretaryBy:
    /s/  Marilyn HendersonName:
    Marilyn HendersonTitle:
    Assistant Secretary
EX-10.04D



 





Exhibit 10.04d




MONRO MUFFLER BRAKE, INC.

RETIREMENT PLAN




Amendment No. 4 to GUST Restatement




     Pursuant to Section 11.1, the Plan is amended, effective January 1, 2004, by adding the
following new provision to the end of Section 1.2:




     Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, with respect to the Code section
415 limit, for purposes of adjusting the annual benefit to a straight life annuity, the
equivalent annual benefit shall be the greater of the equivalent annual benefit computed
using the Plan’s interest rate and Plan mortality table (or other tabular factor) and the
equivalent annual benefit computed using five percent (5%) interest rate assumption and the
“applicable mortality table.” However, for purposes of adjusting the annual benefit to a
straight life annuity, if the annual benefit is paid in any form other than a
non-decreasing life annuity payable for a period not less than the life of a Participant
or, in the case of a Pre-Retirement Survivor Annuity, the life of the surviving spouse,
then the equivalent annual benefit shall be the greater of the equivalent annual benefit
computed using the Plan interest rate and Plan mortality table (or other tabular factor)
and the equivalent annual benefit computed using the “applicable interest rate” and the
“applicable mortality table.” With respect to Plan Years beginning in 2004 and 2005 and
any subsequent Plan Year as provided by law, for purposes of adjusting the annual benefit
to a straight life annuity, if the annual benefit is paid in any form other than a
non-decreasing life annuity payable for a period not less than the life of a Participant
or, in the case of a Pre-Retirement Survivor Annuity, the life of the surviving spouse,
then the equivalent annual benefit shall be the greater of the equivalent annual benefit
computed using the Plan interest rate and Plan mortality table (or other tabular factor)
and the equivalent annual benefit computed using five and one-half percent (5.5%) and the
“applicable mortality table.”



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused its duly authorized officer to execute this
amendment on its behalf this 21st day of December, 2006.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	MONRO MUFFLER BRAKE, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Catherine D’Amico
 	 
	 	 	Title: Executive Vice President Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Public Administrator of Queens County, as Administratrix of the Estate of Alberto Cassinari, Deceased, Respondent, v Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 886]

— In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to Insurance Law § 5218 for leave to commence an action against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (J. Golia, J.), entered July 11, 2012, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting leave to the petitioner to file a notice of intention to file a claim with the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (hereinafter MVAIC) nunc pro tunc *(see*Insurance Law § 5208 [b]; *Matter of Lloyd [Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.],*23 NY2d 478, 482 [1969]; *Matter of Smith v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.,*299 AD2d 554 [2002]), and properly granted leave to the petitioner to commence an action against MVAIC *(see*Insurance Law § 5218 [b] [5]). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.
VI 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3809 

For the relief of Jacqueline W. Coats. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 3, 2006 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Jacqueline W. Coats. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JAC4 QUELINE W. COATS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Jacqueline W. Coats shall be eligible 

8 for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of 

9 status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 

10 residence upon filing an application for issuance of an im11 migrant visa under section 204 of that Act or for adjust12 ment of status to lawful permanent resident. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3809 IS

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Jacqueline W. 

2 Coats enters the United States before the filing deadline 

3 specified in subsection (c), Jacqueline W. Coats shall be 

4 considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 

5 shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 

6 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) 

7 as of the date of enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Jacqueline W. Coats, the Secretary of State shall 

16 instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the cur17 rent or next following fiscal year, the total number of im18 migrant visas that are made available to natives of the 

19 country of birth of Jacqueline W. Coats under section 

20 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if appli21 cable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 

22 available to natives of the country of birth of Jacqueline 

23 W. Coats under section 202(e) of that Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### Anna Pezhman, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 20, 2009;

decided June 4, 2009

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*12 NY3d 796 (2009)].
Exhibit 35.2

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

RALI Series 2007-QS5 Trust (the Issuing Entity)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicers activities during the period covered by the Issuing Entitys report on Form 10-K and of the Servicers performance under
the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
duly executed this Certificate this 24th day of March 2008.



|       |  |                         
|------ |  | ------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Anthony N. Renzi    
|Name:  |  | Anthony N. Renzi        
|Title: |  | Executive Vice President
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 11

- 00822

- CR

Trial Court Cause

Number: 10CR1217

Style: Thomas Wayne Florence

v The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : August 27 , 2013

Type of motion: M otion to add atta chments

Party filing motion: A ppellant, Thomas Wayne Florence

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If doc ument is to be filed, document due:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdict ion, moot)

Other:

Judge's signature: /s/ E vel yn V

. K e yes

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Bland.

Date: September 26, 2013
**EXHIBIT 34.5**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

The Trust & Securities Services department of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas:

We have examined the accompanying management’s assertion that the Trust & Securities Services department of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (the “**Company**”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Crusade Global Trust No. 1 of 2007 mortgage-backed securities transaction (the “**Platform**”), except for criteria 1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(i), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(viii), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), 1122(d)(4)(xiv) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determinedare not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform, as of September 30, 2007 and for the period March 15, 2007 through September 30, 2007.  Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may haveaffected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the transaction specified above or any other transactions.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria, as of September 30, 2007 and for the period March 15, 2007 through September 30, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois

November 30, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Efrain Hernandez, Appellant.

Submitted May 4, 2009;

decided May 7, 2009

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th *842Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, Jenna L. Kemp, 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 Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR3 (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 servicers have fulfilled their
    obligations under the servicing agreements 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: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    as Trustee.

    Dated:   March 31, 2008


    /s/ Jenna L. Kemp
    Signature

    Executive Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the servicer)
#### George THOMAS; Linda Thomas, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., Defendant—Appellee.

No. 07-36100.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 6, 2009.

Filed May 19, 2009.

Justin Michael Baxter, Michael C. Baxter, Esquire, Baxter & Baxter, LLP, Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

William L. Larkins, Jr., Julie R. Vacura, Larkins Vacura LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: W. FLETCHER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SEABRIGHT,* District Judge.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

MEMORANDUM**

Plaintiff George Thomas (“Thomas”) brought this suit against Defendant U.S. Bank for its attempts to collect an uncol-lectible debt from Thomas and for two pulls of Thomas’s credit report, claiming U.S. Bank’s conduct violated Oregon statutes and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). Thomas appeals various rulings by the district court.

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Thomas’s claims under the Oregon Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act (“UDCPA”). Thomas’s claim under Or.Rev.Stat. § 646.639(2)(m) fails because he presented no evidence that U.S. Bank represented that Thomas’s debt would be increased by fees or other charges. Thomas’s claim under Or.Rev. Stat. § 646.639(2)(n) fails because he presented no evidence that the difference between his actual debt amount and the amount U.S. Bank attempted to collect was attributable to added interest or fees. Thomas’s claim under Or.Rev.Stat. § 646.639(2)(k) fails because a litigation is not a “right or remedy” that was unavailable to U.S. Bank when it threatened to sue. *Porter v. Hill,*314 Or. 86, 838 P.2d 45, 49 (1992); *Pro Car Care, Inc. v. Johnson,*201 Or.App. 250, 118 P.3d 815, 818 (2005).

We also affirm the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law to U.S. *593Bank on Thomas’s “permissible purposes” FCRA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f). Thomas presented no evidence that U.S. Bank or Capital Management Services, Inc., had requested his credit report for any reason other than to attempt to collect on the debt, and requesting a credit report with the intent to collect on a debt is among the “permissible purposes” listed in the FCRA. 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A).

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the video testimony of Thomas’s deceased expert witness. Nor did it abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to U.S. Bank.

AFFIRMED.

**

 The Honorable J. Michael Seabright, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
NUMBER 13-19-00420-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

JOSEPH TAMEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 148th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

On May 24, 2021, this Court received a letter from the 148th District Court of 

Nueces County, Texas, informing this Court that there was a potential issue regarding 

appellant Joseph Tamez’s court appointed representation in this matter.

On its own motion, the Court, having examined and reconsidered the documents 

on file, hereby abates and remands this cause to the trial court for further proceedings 
2

consistent with this order. Upon remand, the trial court shall determine whether new 

appellate counsel shall be appointed in this matter. If the trial court determines that new 

counsel should be appointed, the name, address, email address, telephone number, and 

state bar number of newly appointed counsel shall be included in the order appointing 

counsel. If the trial court determines appellant is not entitled to new court-appointed 

counsel, it shall issue such findings.

The trial court shall further cause its findings and/or order to be included in a 

supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the 

expiration of fifteen days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

3rd day of June, 2021.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-51064

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Luis Ferney Campuzano-Henao, 

Defendant—Appellant, 

consolidated with

_____________

No. 22-51066

_____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Luis Ferney Campuzano Henao, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 26, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-51064 Document: 00516765867 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
2

No. 22-51064

c/w No. 22-51066

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC Nos. 4:22-CR-609-1, 4:22-CR-616-1

______________________________

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Luis Ferney Campuzano-Henao appeals his conviction and sentence 

for illegal reentry after removal from the United States, in violation of 8 

U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b). He also appeals the revocation of his supervised 

release and the sentence imposed upon revocation; however, because he does 

not address either the validity of the revocation or the revocation sentence, 

he has abandoned any challenge to those issues on appeal. See Yohey v. 

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

With respect to his illegal reentry conviction and sentence, 

Campuzano-Henao argues that the application of § 1326(b)’s enhanced 

penalty provision is unconstitutional because it permits a defendant to be 

sentenced above the statutory maximum of § 1326(a) based on the fact of a 

prior conviction that was not alleged in the indictment or found by a jury 

beyond a reasonable doubt. He has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

disposition and a letter brief conceding that the issue is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), see United States v. 

Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019), and explaining that he raises the 

issue to preserve it for Supreme Court review.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 22-51064 Document: 00516765867 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
22-51064

c/w No. 22-51066

3

Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., 

Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the motion is GRANTED, 

and the district court’s judgments are AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-51064 Document: 00516765867 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/26/2023