alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

March 25, 2002



Management Report on Internal Control over
Servicing of Securitized Credit Card Receivables

Management of JPMorgan Chase Bank is responsible for establishing and
maintaining effective internal control over servicing of securitized credit card
receivables, which is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
proper servicing of securitized credit card receivables. The internal control
system contains self-monitoring mechanisms, and actions are taken to correct
deficiencies as they are identified.

There are inherent limitations in any internal control, including the
possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of controls.
Accordingly, even effective internal control can provide only reasonable
assurance with respect to servicing of securitized credit card receivables.
Further, because of changes in conditions, the effectiveness of internal control
may vary over time.

Management of JPMorgan Chase Bank assessed its internal control over servicing
of securitized credit card receivables as of December 31, 2001 in relation to
criteria for effective internal control established in "Internal
Control-Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this assessment, management
believes that, as of December 31, 2001, JPMorgan Chase Bank maintained effective
internal control over servicing of securitized credit card receivables.


/s/ Richard Srednicki
-----------------------
Richard Srednicki
Executive Vice President
JPMorgan Chase Bank


/s/ Daniel DeMeo
-------------------------
Daniel DeMeo
Senior Vice President
JPMorgan Chase Bank
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Authentidate Holding Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, being, Surendra Pai, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and William A. Marshall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Dated: May 10, 2006



|                        |  |  |  |                         |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Surendra Pai        |  |  |  | /s/ William A. Marshall |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer |  |
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification Pursuant To
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the report on Form 10-Q of Viad Corp for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Viad Corp.
 Date: May 6, 2011
    By
    /s/ Paul B. DykstraPaul B. DykstraChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31**Certification**     I, Michael Coco, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required tobe filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Advanta Business CardMaster Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);     2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Actperiodic reports;     4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this reportunder Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, theservicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and     5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15-d-18 have been included as an exhibit tothis report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed 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 bythe following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank TrustCompany Americas.Date: March 27, 2008By:      /s/ Michael Coco
March 30, 2012

 

Securities and Exchange Commission  Judiciary Plaza  450 Fifth Street NW  Washington DC 20549

 

**RE: Saturna Investment Trust, File #33-13247**

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

On behalf of the referenced Trust and pursuant to Rule 497(j), we wish to certify that the form of the recently filed *Prospectus*and *Statement of Additional Information* for CIK #0000811860, Saturna Investment Trust, that would have been filed under Rule 497 paragraph (b) or (c) would not have differed from that contained in the most recent registration or amendment, and that the text has been filed electronically.

If you have any questions or comments concerning this filing, please contact me at (360) 594-9900 Ext. 303.

 

              Yours truly, */s/ Ethel Bartolome*              Ethel Bartolome               Secretary              Saturna Investment Trust
Waverly, Inc.
                              1997 Annual Form 10-K
                                   Exhibit 21

                           Subsidiaries of the Company
                           --------------------------- 

Williams & Wilkins Sales, Inc.  
351 West Camden Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201                       A Maryland Corporation

Waverly Sales, Inc.
351 West Camden Street                          A United States
Baltimore, Maryland 21201                       Virgin Island Corporation

Waverly Europe Ltd.
Broadway House
2-6 Fulham Broadway
London SW6 1 AA England                         A United Kingdom Corporation

Urban & Schwarzenberg GmbH
Landwehrstrabe 61
D-8000 Munich                                   A German Corporation

Oscar Rothacker Verlagsbuchhandlung, GmbH
Landwehrstrasse 38
Munich                                          A German Corporation

Urban & Schwarzenberg Verlag fur Medizin, GmbH
Landwehrstrabe 61
D-8000 Munich
                                                A German Corporation

Urban & Schwarzenberg Ges.m.b.H.
Frankgasse 4,
Vienna, Austria                                 An Austrian Corporation

Med-Pub, Inc.
900 Market St.
Suite 200
Wilmington, Delaware 19801                      A Delaware Corporation

Urban & Partner
Marii Sklodowskiej-Curie Str. 55/61
50-950 Wroclaw, Poland                          A Polish Corporation

Williams & Wilkins Asia-Pacific Ltd.
Room 808 Metroplaza Tower 2
223 Hing Fong Road
New Territories, Hong Kong                      A Hong Kong Corporation

Williams & Wilkins Asia-Pacific Ltd.
5/12 Wireless Road
Opp. Hilton Hotel
Bangkok, 10330, Thailand                        A Thailand Corporation
#### Charles Andrae GRAYTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Director William Byars, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 12-7432.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

Charles Andrae Grayton, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*255PER CURIAM:

Charles Andrae Grayton seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grayton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons 

HARVEY SCOTT 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1224-99-2 PER CURIAM 

 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 

PENINSULA AIRPORT COMMISSION AND 

 EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Harvey Scott, pro se, on brief). 

 (Deborah S. O'Toole; Cowen & Owen, P.C., 

 on brief), for appellees. 

 Harvey Scott (claimant) contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission (commission) erred in denying him 

benefits after January 19, 1998 on the grounds that he was 

released to light-duty work and that he failed to market his 

remaining work capacity after that date. Upon reviewing the 

record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this 

appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the 

commission’s decision. See Rule 5A:27. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). 

Unless we can say as a matter of law that claimant’s evidence 

sustained his burden of proof, the commission’s findings are 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

binding and conclusive upon us. See Tomko v. Michael’s 

Plastering. Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970). 

 In denying claimant's application for benefits, the 

commission found as follows: 

The medical record contains a note dated May 

30, 1995, in which Dr. [Charles H.] Bonner 

opined that [claimant] was not suitable for 

any work. There are no later work 

disability slips in the record. Dr. Bonner 

wrote on January 20, 1998, that the 

claimant's restrictions were sitting three 

hours, walking 200 feet, standing one-half 

hour intermittently, and the "pt states 

taking bus exceeds his functional 

capacities." It is immaterial that the 

restrictions originated from [claimant's] 

request for documentation of his inability 

to ride the bus. The restrictions were 

written on a work disability form and 

indicated partial, not complete incapacity. 

 . . . The claimant has not looked for 

any type of light-duty employment. Since he 

failed to reasonably market his residual 

work capacity, benefits were correctly 

denied after January 19, 1998. 

 In light of Dr. Bonner's uncontradicted January 20, 1998 

work disability form, which established that claimant was 

partially but not totally disabled, and the lack of any evidence 

to indicate that claimant made any effort to market his residual 

work capacity, we cannot find as a matter of law that claimant's 

evidence sustained his burden of proof. Accordingly, we affirm 

the commission's decision. 

Affirmed.
DEL WEBB CORPORATION

                  SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN NO. 2

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 3

     The Del Webb Corporation  Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan No. 2 (the
"Plan"),  originally  effective as of January 1, 1989, and as amended since that
time, is further amended as follows, effective as of February 11, 1998:

     Section 4.2(a) is amended in its entirety to ready as follows:

     (a) AMOUNT.  If a Participant  retires on or after Normal  Retirement Date,
the  Employer  shall pay the  Participant  a Normal  Retirement  Benefit for the
Participant's life equal to the target percentage specified in the Participant's
Participation Agreement times the Participant's High average Compensation,  less
the sum of the following:

          (i) Fifty percent (50%) of the  Participant's  maximum  primary Social
     Security benefit determined at age sixty-five (65); and

          (ii) The  single-life  annuity payable at age sixty-five (65) which is
     actuarially equivalent to amounts contributed (and earnings thereon) by die
     Employer  to  the  participant's   account  under  the  Employer's  current
     tax-qualified  profit sharing plan and any  predecessor or successor  plan.
     For purposes of this section,  Employer  contributions made under the prior
     Employee Stock Ownership Plan and the frozen Del E. Webb Corporate Restated
     Profit  Sharing  plan shall be  considered  as amounts  contributed  by the
     Employer.

The target benefit designated shall not exceed 60%.

     Section 4.2(c) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

     (c) SHORT SERVICE PENALTY.  For a Participant retiring before having twenty
(20)  Years of  Service,  the  target  percentage  in (a)  shall be  reduced  by
one-twentieth  (1/20) for each Year of Service less than twenty (20). The offset
amounts in (a)(i) and (ii) shall not be reduced.  For this purpose,  but not for
vesting  under 2.3, a partial  Year of Service  shall be prorated to the nearest
mouth for partial yew.

                                        DEL WEBB CORPORATION

                                        By: /s/ Lynn Schuttenberg
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Its: VP Human Resources
                                             -----------------------------------
Exhibit 10.17

APPENDIX A

VAIL RESORTS, INC.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Authentidate Holding Corp. (the company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, being, OConnell Benjamin, President of the company, and William A. Marshall, Chief Financial Officer of the company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 8, 2008     |  |                        
|                       | 
|/s/ OConnell Benjamin |  | /s/ William A. Marshall
|President              |  | Chief Financial Officer
PGEM - EX10.26 - 2012.31.12 - 10K


Exhibit 10.26






December 17, 2012
David Schmoll
3417 Donner Trail
Wake Forest, NC 27587


Re:    Renewal of Amended and Restated Retention Agreement
Dear David:
This letter is to serve as your notification that Ply Gem Industries, Inc. has elected to execute its Renewal Term right under your current Amended and Restated Retention Agreement dated December 31, 2008 for a period of one year.  As such, all applicable rights and terms as outlined in your Amended and Restated Retention Agreement will remain in effect through December 31, 2013.
Please sign this letter in the space provided below as your acknowledgement and agreement of this Renewal Term agreement and return this original to me, and retain a copy for your own records.


	
		
	 
	Sincerely,

	 
	 

	 
	PLY GEM INDUSTRIES, INC.

	 
	 

	 
	By:  /s/ Gary E. Robinette

	 
	Name:  Gary E. Robinette

	 
	Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	Acknowledged and Agreed:
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	/s/ David Schmoll
	 

	David Schmoll
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                                      FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS, INC.
                            STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER SHARE


                                                                      Three months ended
                                                                 March 31,          March 31,
                                                                   1999               1998
                                                               -------------      -----------
<S>                                                           <C>                <C>         
Net income                                                     $   102,990        $   364,748 
                                                               ===========        =========== 
                                                                                 
Basic:                                                                           
                                                                                 
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding            18,005,090         14,528,419
                                                               ===========        =========== 
                                                                                 
Diluted:                                                                         
                                                                                 
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding            18,005,090         14,528,419
                                                               -----------        ----------- 
Weighted average common equivalent shares                          716,815          1,346,896
                                                                                 
Weighted average number of common and common equivalent                          
shares outstanding used to calculate per share data             18,721,905         15,875,315
                                                               ===========        =========== 
                                                                                 
Net income per share                                                             
        Basic                                                  $      0.01        $      0.03
                                                               -----------        ----------- 
        Diluted                                                $      0.01        $      0.02
                                                               -----------        ----------- 
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof PALIGENT INC. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),Salvatore A. Bucci, as Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officerof the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

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

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

 
| Date: August 11, 2006 | by:    | /s/ Salvatore A. Bucci                |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Salvatore A. Bucci                    |
|                  |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                  |   | (Principal Financial Officer)         |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mitchell Jerome BOOTHE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-30213.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 31, 2012.

Tara Elliott, Timothy John Racieot, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, J. Bishop Grewell, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorneys, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Andrew J. Nelson, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders Of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Mitchell Jerome Boothe appeals from the district court’s order affirming his bench-trial conviction for disorderly conduct, in violation of 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.390. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Boothe contends that the magistrate judge violated his First Amendment rights by requiring, as a condition of his one-year term of unsupervised probation, that he secure the permission of the presiding district judge before entering any United States District Court facility in the District of Montana. As the district court concluded, imposition of the challenged condition was a permissible exercise of the magistrate judge’s discretion. *See United States v. Terrigno,*838 F.2d 371, 374 (9th Cir.1988) (sentencing judge has broad discretion to set probation conditions). The condition is reasonably related to both the circumstances of Boothe’s conviction and the goals of deterrence, punishment, and promotion of respect for the law, and it involves only such deprivation of liberty as is reasonably necessary to serve those ob*509jectives. *See*18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (2) and 3563(b); *Terrigno,*838 F.2d at 374.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[No. 31881-4-II.

Division Two.

November 1, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Gregory Franks, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 03-1-01706-1, Katherine M. Stolz, J., entered June 18, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Van Deren, A.C.J., and Armstrong, J.