alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 161.606 What will BIA do if the permittee doesn't cure a violation on time? ( a ) If the permittee does not cure a violation within the required time period, or if the violation is not referred to District Grazing Committee for mediation, BIA will consult with the Navajo Nation, as appropriate, and determine whether: ( 1 ) The permit may be canceled by BIA under paragraph (c) of this section and §§ 161.607 through 161.608;
( 2 ) BIA may invoke any other remedies available to BIA under the permit;
( 3 ) The Navajo Nation may invoke any remedies available to them under the permit; or
( 4 ) The permittee may be granted additional time in which to cure the violation.
( b ) If BIA grants a permittee a time extension to cure a violation, the permittee must proceed diligently to complete the necessary corrective actions within a reasonable or specified time from the date on which the extension is granted.
( c ) If BIA cancels the permit, BIA will send the permittee and the District Grazing Committee a written notice of cancellation within 5 business days of the decision. BIA will also provide actual or constructive notice of the cancellation to the Navajo Nation, as appropriate. The written notice of cancellation will: ( 1 ) Explain the grounds for cancellation;
( 2 ) Notify the permittee of the amount of any unpaid fees and other financial obligations due under the permit;
( 3 ) Notify the permittee of his or her right to appeal under 25 CFR part 2 of this title, as modified by § 161.607, including the amount of any appeal bond that must be posted with an appeal of the cancellation decision; and
( 4 ) Order the permittee to cease grazing livestock on the next anniversary date of the grazing permit or 180 days following the receipt of the written notice of cancellation, whichever is sooner.
Exhibit 99.1

                          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 Report of Bravo! Foods International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Roy G. Warren, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                       /S/  Roy G. Warren
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       Roy G. Warren
                                       Chief Executive Officer

May 15, 2003
Exhibit 33.1b



|     |  |  |                                 |                                
|---- |  |  | ------------------------------- | -------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |                                 | 260 Interstate North Circle, SE
|     |  |  | Atlanta, GA 30339              
|     |  |  | T 770.763-4000
www.assurant.com

February 4, 2019

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH

§1122 (d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii)

of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD

JANUARY 1, 2018 TO DECEMBER 31, 2018

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, the Asserting Party)
is responsible for assessing compliance for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and
§1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, (the Applicable Servicing Criteria) which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs
with respect to all mortgage backed securities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the Platform Transactions). The Asserting
Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has
complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transaction.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period.

American Security Insurance Company

Standard Guaranty Insurance Company

TrackSure
Insurance Agency, Inc.



|                                                                                                                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John Frobose                                                                                                                                                     
|By: John Frobose President of American Security
Insurance Company And Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, and
Sr. Vice President of TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.
|                                                                                                                                                                     
|Date: 2/4/2019
(Nos. 21021, 21023.

#### The National Bank of the Republic, Trustee, Appellant, *vs.*Charles V. Barrett *et al.*Appellees.—The Garland Court Building Corporation, Appellant, *vs.*Charles V. Barrett *et al.*Appellees.

*Opinion filed December 23, 1932.*

Tenney, Harding, Sherman & Rogers, (Roger Sherman, S. Ashley Guthrie, and John H. McBride, of counsel,) for appellants.

John A. Swanson, State’s Attorney, and Roy Massena, (Hayden N. Bell, and Louis H. Geiman, of counsel,) for appellees.

Per Curiam :

These are appeals from judgments of the circuit court of Cook county in- favor of Charles V. Barrett and others, members of the board of review of Cook county, and against the appellants, the National Bank of the Republic, as trustee, and the Garland Court Building Corporation, respectively. A short record in each of these cases was filed in this court on September 12, 1-931, and a complete record on April 11, 1932. On April 7, 1932, a motion *596was filed by the appellant in each of these cases that the case be consolidated with the Michigan Grand Building Corporation *vs.*Charles V. Barrett *et al.*(No. 21022,) and that the court consider the printed abstracts, briefs and arguments filed in cause No. 21022 as and for the printed abstracts, briefs and argument in each of these cases, and in support of that motion, in each case it was suggested by the appellant that “the petition and other pleadings in this case are substantially the same as the petition and pleadings in the case of Michigan Grand Building Corporation *vs.*Charles V. Barrett *et al.*(No. 21022,) and that the issues raised in the above entitled case and in said case No. 21022 are identical, so that said two causes may properly be consolidated for the purpose of this appeal and so that the printed abstracts, briefs and arguments in case No. 21022 may properly be taken and considered by this court as and for the abstracts and briefs in this cause.” This motion was allowed. Later, on motion of the appellants, Fred W. Brummel and George F. Nixon, as members of the board of appeals of Cook county, were substituted as parties appellee in place of Charles V. Barrett, Edward R. Litsinger and Edward J. Hughes, as members of the board of review of Cook county. The judgment was affirmed in the case of Michigan Grand Building Corporation *vs.*Charles V. Barrett *et at*on October 22, 1932, and a rehearing denied in the cause on December 7, 1932. *(Michigan-Grand Building Corp.*v. *Barrett, ante,*p. 291.) The issues in that case being identical with those here, for the reasons assigned in that case each of the judgments of the circuit court of Cook county in the cases now before us must be affirmed as to these appellants.

*. Judgments affirmed.*
### §20243. General officers ceasing to occupy positions commensurate with grade

(a) General Officers.—Within 60 days after an officer of the Space Force on the Space Force officer list in a general officer grade ceases to occupy a position commensurate with that grade (or commensurate with a higher grade), the Secretary of the Air Force shall transfer or discharge the officer in accordance with whichever of the following the officer elects:

(1) Transfer the officer in grade to the Space Force retired list, if the officer is qualified and applies for the transfer.

(2) Transfer the officer in grade to a Space Force inactive status, if the officer is qualified.

(3) Discharge the officer from the officer's appointment and, if the officer is qualified and applies therefor, appoint the officer in the grade held by the officer as a before 1 the officer's appointment in a general officer grade.

(4) Discharge the officer from the officer's appointment.

(b) Credit for Service in Grade.—An officer who is appointed under subsection (a)(3) shall be credited with an amount of service in the grade in which appointed that is equal to the amount of prior service in an active status in that grade and in any higher grade.

(Added Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title XVII, §1716(c), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 649.)

1 So in original.
### **[CHAPTER 139—REPEALED]**
§ 162.417 What requirements for due diligence must a business lease include? ( a ) If permanent improvements are to be constructed, the business lease must include due diligence requirements that require the lessee to complete construction of any permanent improvements within the schedule specified in the lease or general schedule of construction, and a process for changing the schedule by mutual consent of the parties. If construction does not occur, or is not expected to be completed, within the time period specified in the lease, the lessee must provide the Indian landowners and BIA with an explanation of good cause as to the nature of any delay, the anticipated date of construction of facilities, and evidence of progress toward commencement of construction.
( b ) Failure of the lessee to comply with the due diligence requirements of the lease is a violation of the lease and may lead to cancellation of the lease under § 162.467.
( c ) BIA may waive the requirements in this section if such waiver is in the best interest of the Indian landowners.
( d ) The requirements of this section do not apply to leases for religious, educational, recreational, cultural, or other public purposes.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elbert Powell, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 177]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Byrne, J.), rendered on or about May 24, 2005, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
### §12531. Purchase of insurance

(a) Purchase Authorized.—The Secretary may, instead of or in addition to underwriting the insurance program through the Fund, purchase from one or more insurance companies a policy or policies of group insurance in order to provide the benefits required under this chapter. The Secretary may waive any requirement for full and open competition in order to purchase an insurance policy under this subsection.

(b) Eligible Insurers.—In order to be eligible to sell insurance to the Secretary for purposes of subsection (a), an insurance company shall—

(1) be licensed to issue insurance in each of the 50 States and in the District of Columbia; and

(2) as of the most recent December 31 for which information is available to the Secretary, have in effect at least one percent of the total amount of insurance that all such insurance companies have in effect in the United States.

(c) Administrative Provisions.—(1) An insurance company that issues a policy for purposes of subsection (a) shall establish an administrative office at a place and under a name designated by the Secretary.

(2) For the purposes of carrying out this chapter, the Secretary may use the facilities and services of any insurance company issuing any policy for purposes of subsection (a), may designate one such company as the representative of the other companies for such purposes, and may contract to pay a reasonable fee to the designated company for its services.

(d) Reinsurance.—The Secretary shall arrange with each insurance company issuing any policy for purposes of subsection (a) to reinsure, under conditions approved by the Secretary, portions of the total amount of the insurance under such policy or policies with such other insurance companies (which meet qualifying criteria prescribed by the Secretary) as may elect to participate in such reinsurance.

(e) Termination.—The Secretary may at any time terminate any policy purchased under this section.

(Added Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title V, §512(a)(1), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 304.)
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Public Advisory: U.S. Coast Guard Invites Public in Saipan to View Coast Guard Helicopter, Meet the Crew 

By Chief Warrant Officer Sara Muir U.S. Coast Guard Forces Micronesia / Sector Guam

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
Federal Trade Commission ■ Bureau of Consumer Protection ■ Office of Consumer and Business Education

FTC Consumer Alert

Take Charge of Your Credit

The holiday shopping season is in full swing. Whether you’re shopping online, by phone or

at the mall, chances are you’ll use a credit card for some of your purchases. The Federal

Trade Commission offers these tips to keep in mind when you shop.

1. Keep track of your spending.

$ Incidental and impulse purchases add up. Remember credit cards are just like loans —

you have to pay what you owe. Owing more than you can repay can damage your credit

rating. That can make it hard to finance a car, rent an apartment, get insurance — even

get a job.

$ Pay your bill on time, and in full, if possible. If you don’t, you’ll have to pay finance

charges on the unpaid balance — and it takes forever to get caught up if you just pay

the minimum.

2. Keep an eye on your card and account number.

$ Never lend your credit card to anyone because you’re responsible for paying the bill.

Any problems with the bill can damage your credit rating.

$ Don’t sign a blank charge slip. Draw a line through blank spaces on charge slips above

the total so the amount cannot be changed.

$ Never put your account number on the outside of an envelope or a postcard.

$ Be cautious about disclosing your account number over the phone unless you know you

are dealing with a reputable company.

$ Carry only the cards you anticipate using to help prevent loss or theft.

$ If your credit and ATM cards are lost or stolen, report it to the card issuers as quickly as

possible. Many companies have toll-free numbers and 24-hour service to deal with such

emergencies. Follow up with a letter, including your account number, when you noticed

the card was missing, and the date you first reported the loss.
F C EDERAL RADE OMMISSION T FTC OR HE ONSUMER

1-877-FTC-HELP www.ftc.gov

3. Keep good records

$ Save your receipts. Compare them with your monthly bill. Promptly report problems to

the company that issued the card. Usually, your statement will provide instructions for

disputing a charge.

$ If you order by mail, phone or online, keep copies or printouts with details about the

transaction, including any warranties, or return and refund policies if you’re not

satisfied. You should have the company’s name, address, phone number, the date of your

order; a copy of the order form you sent to the company or a list of the items ordered and

their stock codes, the order confirmation codes and the ad or catalog from which

you ordered.

The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business

practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop and avoid

them. To file a complaint or to get free information on consumer issues, call toll-free,

1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the online complaint form. The FTC enters

Internet, telemarketing, identity theft and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer

Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement

agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

December 2001
- 399 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports STATE v . MALONE Cite as 309 Neb. 399

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Kevin W. Malone, appellant. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed June 4, 2021. Nos. S-20-118, S-20-460.

supplemental opinion Appeals from the District Court for Douglas County: Shelly R. Stratman , Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled. Richard L. Boucher and Bradley H. Supernaw, of Boucher Law Firm, for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Melissa R. Vincent for appellee.
Heavican , C.J., Miller

- Lerman , Cassel , Stacy , Funke , Papik , and Freudenberg , JJ.
Per Curiam

. This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellant, Kevin W. Malone, concerning our opinion in State v. Malone , 308 Neb. 929, 957 N.W.2d 892 (2021). We find no substantive merit to Malone’s motion and overrule it, but modify the opinion as follows: In the analysis section, under the heading “2. Postconvic tion Relief ” and the subheading “(b) Claim of Prosecutorial Mis conduct,” id. at 962, 957 N.W.2d at 920, we withdraw the second paragraph and substitute the following: Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 08/20/2021 09:13 AM CDT- 400 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports STATE v . MALONE Cite as 309 Neb. 399 The district court first rejected this argument as pro

cedurally barred. However, Malone had amended his motion to add an allegation that his appellate counsel had been ineffective for failing to raise the claims of pros

ecutorial misconduct on direct appeal. The district court alternatively rejected Malone’s claim, reasoning that even if not procedurally barred, the claim failed to “set forth the facts and applicable law to establish an objection based on any of these prosecutorial [misconduct] claims would . . . have been successful.” We agree. The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled.
#### § 19.6 Definition.

The term “Presidential proclamations and Executive orders,” as used in chapter 15 of title 44 of the United States Code (44 U.S.C. 1505(a)), shall, except as the President or his representative may hereafter otherwise direct, be deemed to include such attachments thereto as are referred to in the respective proclamations or orders.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Pacific Air Forces Airmen test Next Generation Aircrew Protection Equipment

By Tech. Sgt. Hailey Haux and Col. Paul “Jimi” Hendrickson

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20190 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MICHAEL D. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-92-CR-ALL

-------------------- December 16, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Assistant Federal Public Defenders appointed to represent Michael Dejean Brown have filed a motion to withdraw from representation of Brown and a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Brown has responded to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Brown’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, Brown’s court-appointed attorneys’ motion toNo. 99-20190 -2- withdraw is GRANTED; the attorneys are excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH CIR . R. 42.2.