alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

**Certification**

Pursuantto 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 Avianca Holdings S.A. (the “Company”), doeshereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company. 

Dated: April 30, 2014 

 

 

 
Section 906 CEOCertification
## COURT OF APPEALS

CATHERINE STONE CHIEF JUSTICE KAREN ANGELINI SANDEE BRYAN MARION PHYLIS J. SPEEDLIN REBECCA SIMMONS STEVEN C. HILBIG MARIALYN BARNARD JUSTICES FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER 300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037 WWW.4THCOA.COURTS.STATE.TX.US KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

TELEPHONE (210) 335-2635

FACSIMILE NO.

(210) 335-2762

January 15, 2010

Jon Hughes TDCJ-ID# 1536817 Coffield Unit 2261 FM 2054 Tenneessee Colony, TX 75884

E. Bruce Curry District Attorney - 216th Judicial District Court 521 Earl Garrett Street Kerrville, TX 78028 M. Patrick Maguire M. Patrick Maguire, P.C. 327 Earl Garrett Street, Suite 103 Kerrville, TX 78028

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04-08-00864-CR Trial Court Case Number: A-08--85

Style: Jon William Hughes

v. The State of Texas

The Pro Se's Petition for Discretionary Review has this date been received and filed in the above styled and numbered cause. Pursuant to Rule 68.7 (b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure the opposing party has 30 days to file a reply to the peti tion with the clerk.

Very truly yours,

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

__________________________________ John Davila Deputy Clerk, Ext 3220
IIA 

Calendar No. 154 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 19 

To express the disfavor of Congress regarding the proposed agreement for 

cooperation between the United States and the People’s Republic of 

China transmitted to the Congress by the President on April 21, 2015, 

pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 15, 2015 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr. COTTON) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign 

Relations 

JULY 21, 2015 

Committee discharged pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2159(i) and Section 601(b)(4) 

of Public Law 94–329, and placed on the calendar 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

To express the disfavor of Congress regarding the proposed 

agreement for cooperation between the United States 

and the People’s Republic of China transmitted to the 

Congress by the President on April 21, 2015, pursuant 

to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the Congress does not favor the proposed agreement 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

SJ 19 PCS 

1 for cooperation transmitted to the Congress by the Presi2 dent on April 21, 2015. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 154 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 19 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

To express the disfavor of Congress regarding the 

Act of 1954. April 21, 2015, pursuant to the Atomic Energy transmitted to the Congress by the President on United States and the People’s Republic of China proposed agreement for cooperation between the 

JULY 21, 2015 

Committee discharged pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2159(i) and 

on the calendar Section 601(b)(4) of Public Law 94–329, and placed 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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

May 27, 2011

t0524

Order 

May 27, 2011

142647

LAETHEM EQUIPMENT COMPANY,

LAETHEM FARM SERVICE COMPANY,

MICHAEL T. LAETHEM, and MARK E.

LAETHEM,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 142647

COA: 293116 

Saginaw CC: 05-055440-NM

CURRIE KENDALL, P.L.C.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 13, 2011 

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.

MARKMAN, J. (concurring). 

I concur for the simple reason that the language of the release at issue does not 

include defendants. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals, which reached the correct 

result, engaged in an analysis that was clouded and confused by Shay v Aldrich, 487 

Mich 648 (2010). Relying upon Shay, as it was obligated to do, the Court of Appeals 

engaged in an unnecessary discussion concerning third-party beneficiaries to determine 

that defendants are not third-party beneficiaries of this release, a conclusion that is both 

obvious and irrelevant. As I stated in my dissent in Shay, “[t]he third-party-beneficiary 

statute is relevant in this case only because it precludes a court from considering 

plaintiff's motion for reformation, not because it provides a basis for rewriting Michigan 

contract law.” Shay, 487 Mich at 704. In the instant case, however, there being no 

motion for reformation or, indeed, any need for such motion, the third-party beneficiary 

statute simply has no application. It is regrettable, but altogether predictable, that the 

parties would disagree concerning the meaning of Shay, and that the lower courts in 

following Shay would engage in irrelevant analysis of contract law. Shay, in my 

judgment, remains a decision that “unsettles contract law in this state on the basis of an 

essentially impenetrable analysis.” Id. at 706.
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

55 0 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**A****NNU AL S T ATEME NT OF COMPLI ANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2013, by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Service r, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WFRBS Series 2013- C14 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.             A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2.             To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 6th day of March 2015.

 

 

 

 

/s/  Daniel Bober            

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

 
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
ex10-9.htm


    
 

    Exhibit
10.9

    


    Current Director Fee
Arrangements

    


    Directors
of Great Southern Bancorp, Inc. ("Bancorp") receive a monthly fee of $750, which
is the only compensation paid to directors by Bancorp, except for stock options
which may be granted in the discretion of the Board of Directors under Bancorp's
2003 Stock Option and Incentive Plan. Directors of Great Southern Bank receive a
monthly fee of $1,750. The directors of Bancorp and the directors of the Bank
are the same individuals. As the sole director of Great Southern Financial
Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank, William V. Turner, the
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company and the Bank, receives a
monthly fee of $600 for his service on that board. The directors of Bancorp and
its subsidiaries are not paid any fees for committee service and are not
reimbursed for their costs incurred in attending Board and committee
meetings.
#### Muluadam Gemechu BIFTU, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. Muluadam Gemechu Biftu, Petitioner, v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 07-1189, 07-1647.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 12, 2007.

Decided Jan. 7, 2008.

Samuel Cassin, Jason A. Dzubow, Lisa D. Butler, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anh-Thu P. Mai, Senior Litigation Counsel, Arthur L. Rabin, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Muluadam Gemechu Biftu, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of orders of *554the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s order denying her applications for asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and denying her motion for reconsideration and to reopen. We deny the petitions for review.

Insofar as Biftu petitions for review of the Board’s order adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s decision, we deny the petition for review because Biftu did not challenge the decision in the argument section of her brief. “It is a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned.” *United States v. Al-Hamdi,*356 F.3d 564, 571 n. 8 (4th Cir.2004). This rule applies in the immigration context as well. *See Yousefi v. INS,*260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir.2001) (issues not raised in the opening brief are abandoned).

We further find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider or to reopen. *See Nibagwire v. Gonzales,*450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th Cir.2006); *Jean v. Gonzales,*435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir.2006) (stating standard of reviews). We find the Board did not clearly err by finding after reviewing Biftu’s submissions that she failed to support her claim that she would be subjected to persecution if she returned to Ethiopia. We will not review the claim that the Board erred by not independently reviewing her claims for withholding from removal and withholding under the CAT. According to Biftu, a finding of firm resettlement does not prevent the alien from receiving either of those forms of relief. Biftu did not raise this claim in her motion to reopen. *See Asika v. Ashcroft,*362 F.3d 264, 267 n. 3 (4th Cir.2004).

Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITIONS DENIED*
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 143 

Supporting efforts to ensure that students have access to debt-free higher 

education. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 21, 2015 

Mr. SCHATZ (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. WARREN, Mr. REED, Mr. BOOKER, and Mr. MURPHY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting efforts to ensure that students have access to 

debt-free higher education. 

Whereas the economic competitiveness of the United States 

in the global economy requires a well-educated workforce; 

Whereas current and future young people in the United 

States should have the same opportunity offered to those 

who went to college in previous generations, including the 

ability to attend State colleges and universities without 

taking on burdensome debt; 

Whereas, in 2015, higher education is more important than 

ever because it is an essential step to entering and remaining in the middle class; 

Whereas, because of the importance of higher education, the 

United States should expand the opportunity to pursue 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 143 IS 

and attain higher education to more people than had that 

opportunity in the past; 

Whereas public investment in higher education pays off, as 

evidenced by the fact that workers with college degrees 

earn more money, pay more taxes, and rely less on government services; and 

Whereas student loan debt saddles the very students who 

most depend on a college degree to level the economic 

playing field with a burden that— 

(1) constrains the career choices and hurts the credit rating of the students; 

(2) prevents people from fully participating in the 

economy by purchasing goods and services; and 

(3) threatens essential milestones of the American 

dream, including the purchase of a home or car, starting 

a family, and saving for retirement: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports efforts— 

2 (1) to ensure that, through a combination of ef3 forts, all students have access to debt-free higher 

4 education, defined to mean having no debt upon 

5 graduation from all public institutions of higher edu6 cation; 

7 (2) to provide support to States so States can 

8 make increased investments in higher education that 

9 will result in lower tuition and costs for students; 

10 (3) to increase financial aid to students to help 

11 them afford the total cost of college attendance with12 out taking on debt; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 143 IS 

1 (4) to encourage innovation by States and insti2 tutions of higher education to cut costs for students 

3 and make college more affordable by increasing effi4 ciency and enabling speedy and less-costly degree 

5 completion; and 

6 (5) to reduce the burden of existing student 

7 loan debt. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Lotus Acupuncture PC a/a/o Marilyn Rivera, Plaintiff-Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co., Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Debra Rose Samuels, J.) dated April 4, 2014, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Debra Rose Samuels, J.) dated April 4, 2014, reversed, with $10 costs, defendant's motion denied, and the complaint reinstated. </p><p>The defendant-insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing this first-party no-fault action should have been denied. Initially, we note that Civil Court correctly determined that defendant's documentary submissions were sufficient to establish, prima facie, that its denial of claim forms were timely and properly mailed (<a href="../2014/2014_02328.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v Donnelly</i>, 22 NY3d 1169</a> [2014];<i> AutoOne Ins./General Assurance v Eastern Island Med. Care, P.C.</i>, 136 AD3d 722 [2016]), and that the peer review reports of defendant's acupuncturist were in admissible form (<a href="../2010/2010_05987.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Furtow v Jenstro Enters., Inc.</i>, 75 AD3d 494</a>, 495 [2010]<i>; Collins v AA Trucking Renting Corp.</i>, 209 AD2d 363 [1994]).However, the peer review report pertaining to acupuncture services rendered November 19, 2007 through November 29, 2007, failed to make a prima facie showing that the services rendered during this time frame were not medically necessary. The peer reviewer's assertion, in effect, that the documentation submitted for his review lacked "supportive information" was insufficient to sustain defendant's burden of eliminating all triable issues as to medical necessity (see <i>Amherst Med. Supply, LLC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.</i>, 39 Misc 3d 135[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50586[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2013]). Moreover, inasmuch as the peer reviewer did not address plaintiff's claim for services rendered January 2, 2008, and "stopped short of concluding that the assignor's medical condition could never be shown to warrant further acupuncture treatment," his report cannot properly form the basis for denial of this claim (<a href="../2014/2014_51407.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Shirom Acupuncture, P.C. v Kemper Independence Ins. Co.</i>, 44 Misc 3d 144</a>[A], <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>2014 NY Slip Op 51407[U][App Term, 1st Dept. 2014]).</p><br>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.<br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: April 18, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Order entered August 4 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00640
- CR
STEPHANIE BEL JANA LIMAURO , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416
- 82584
- 2020

O RDER Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, w e GRANT the motion of Maria Tu to withdraw as counsel for appellant. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to
remove Mar ia Tu as counsel of record for appellant.
We ORDER the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal and to transmit a supplemental clerk’s record containing the order appointing new counsel to this Court within FIFTEEN DAYS of t he date of this
order. Appellate counsel shall review the record and file a brief addressing anyiss ues noted in the opinion in this case as well as any other grounds that might

arguably support the appeal within FORTY DAYS of the date of counsel’s appoin tment.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send copies of this order to the Honorable Andrea Thompson, Presiding Judge, 416 th District Court; Destiny M. Moses, court reporter , 416 th District Court; John R. Rolater, Collin County District Attorney’s Offi ce; and appellant Stephanie Limauro, TDCJ No. 02355092 , Lane Murray Unit, 1916 North Highway 36 Bypass , Gatesville, TX 76596.
We ABATE this appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal shall be reinstated when the order appointin g new counsel is received or the Court deems it appropriate to do so.
/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 21, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133590 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133590 

 COA: 272091 

Monroe CC: 06-035205-AR 

1st Judicial DC: 05-07924-FY 

GARY ALLEN GROESBECK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 9, 2007 

order 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. 

p0914 

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. 

September 21, 2007 

Clerk
IIA 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 7 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify 

the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations, limited 

liability companies, and other corporate entities established by the laws 

of any State, the United States, or any foreign state. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2015 

Mr. TESTER (for himself and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following 

joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States 

to regulate corporations, limited liability companies, and 

other corporate entities established by the laws of any 

State, the United States, or any foreign state. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 7 IS 

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

2 States: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. The rights enumerated in this Constitu5 tion and other rights retained by the people shall be the 

6 rights of natural persons. 

7 ‘‘SECTION 2. As used in this Constitution, the terms 

8 ‘people’, ‘person’, and ‘citizen’ shall not include a corpora9 tion, a limited liability company, or any other corporate 

10 entity established by the laws of any State, the United 

11 States, or any foreign state. 

12 ‘‘SECTION 3. A corporate entity described in section 

13 2 shall be subject to such regulation as the people, through 

14 representatives in Congress and State representatives, 

15 may determine reasonable, consistent with the powers of 

16 Congress and the States under this Constitution. 

17 ‘‘SECTION 4. Nothing in this Constitution shall be 

18 construed to limit the rights enumerated in this Constitu19 tion and other rights retained by the people, which are 

20 unalienable.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS