alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-10009 In the Matter of: GARY R. COOPER; JUNANNE M. COOPER, Debtors

------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ----- GARY R. COOPER, Appellant
v. DIANE G. REED, Chapter 7 Trustee; THE CADLE COMPANY, Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CV-576 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### AFFIRMED. See5 T H 

### C I R 

### . R. 47.6. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

## F I L E D Octob er 7, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### Case: 11-10009 Document: 00511626975 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/07/2011
### §782. Selection of trustee

(a) In General.—

(1) Appointment.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the conservator or receiver who files the petition shall be the trustee under this chapter, unless the Board designates an alternative trustee.

(2) Successor.—The Board may designate a successor trustee if required.

(b) Authority of Trustee.—Whenever the Board appoints or designates a trustee, chapter 3 and sections 704 and 705 of this title shall apply to the Board in the same way and to the same extent that they apply to a United States trustee.

(Added Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(5) [title I, §112(c)(5)(B)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–394.)
Exhibit 35.1







AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





I, Paul C. Honda, do
hereby certify that I am the Vice President, Assistant Secretary and Compliance Officer of American Honda Finance Corporation,
a California corporation (the "Company"), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the
"Servicer" and "Sponsor") under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of February
23, 2012 among the Servicer and Sponsor, American Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2012-1 Owner Trust,
as follows:



| | (i) | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2012, and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                            

| | (ii) | To the best of my knowledge and information, based upon such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
my hand this 1stday of June, 2012.





| | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                          
| | -----------------------------------------------------------
| | Paul C. Honda                                              
| | Vice President, Assistant Secretary, and Compliance Officer
| | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
Aaron H Armstrong

11495 Navaid Rd. 

Bridgeton Mo. 63044

Tel: (314) 222-4703

Fax: (314) 222-4718

Email: aarmstrong@transstates.net

November 24, 2010

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.

Washington, DC 20590

In accordance with 14 CFR 11.63, Trans States Airlines is requesting an exemption to the

requirements of 14 CFR 121.1109 - Supplemental Inspections deadline of December 20, 2010.

14 CFR121.1109 requires that operators develop and include in its maintenance program a list of

Fatigue Critical Baseline Structure and Fatigue Critical Alteration Structure and a means for

addressing the adverse effects of repairs, alterations and modification on the structure. We are

requesting an extension of 180 days to the deadline requirement. 

Trans States Airlines is a 14 CFR Part 119 operator of the Embraer 145LR and EP model

aircraft. According to the Repair Evaluation Guidelines (REG) developed by the manufacturer of

the aircraft as required by 14 CFR 26.43, the EMB145 has a Designed Service Goal (DSG) of

60,000 Flight Cycle (FC) or 67,200 Flight Hours (FH), whichever occurs first. The REG goes on

to include an implementation schedule that was developed in accordance with guidance

contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 120-93 that suggests operators begin physical surveys of

the Fatigue Critical Structure at 45,000 FC. Trans States Airlines' highest time aircraft is

currently has 25,617 cycles; well short of the suggested 45,000 FC. It is with these facts that

Trans States Airlines feels that public safety is not jeopardized should the exemption be granted.

Trans States Airlines developed and provided our proposed program to our Certificate

Management Office (CMO) on November 16, 2010. However, there is some concern that a

thorough review by the CMO and any subsequent revisions required by Trans States Airlines to

the proposed program may cause Trans States Airlines not to meet the December 20, 2010

deadline. As stated earlier, 14 CFR 121.1109 states that if the operator's Supplemental Inspection

program is not approved by the Administrator prior to December 20, 2010, the certificate holder

may not operate an airplane under this part. 
Based upon the need to ensure that a safe, effective and compliant Supplemental Inspection

program is developed, approved and implemented, Trans States is making this request for an

additional 180 days or a date that the office feels is adequate to review and approve the

Supplemental Inspection program. 

 If you should have any questions and/or concerns with this request, please do not hesitate to

contact me at (314) 222-4703.

Regards,

Aaron H Armstrong

Director of Quality Assurance
Editorial Note on Part 23
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 23 appear at 79 FR 27190, May 13, 2014.

§ 23.47 Reports and availability of information to Indians. ( a ) Any tribal government or off-reservation Indian organization receiving a grant under this part shall make general programmatic information and reports concerning that grant available to the Indian people it serves or represents. Access to this information may be requested in writing and shall be made available within 10 days of receipt of the request. Except as required by title IV of Pub. L. 101-630, the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act, grantees shall hold confidential all information obtained from persons receiving services from the program, and shall not release such information without the individual's written consent. Information may be disclosed in a manner which does not identify or lead to the identification of particular individuals.
( b ) Grantees shall submit Standard Form 269 or 269A on a quarterly and an annual basis to report their status of funds by the dates specified in the grant award document.
( c ) Grantees shall furnish and submit the following written quarterly and annual program reports by the dates specified in the award document: ( 1 ) Quarterly and annual statistical and narrative program performance reports which shall include, but need not be limited to, the following; ( i ) A summary of actual accomplishments and significant activities as related to program objectives established for the grant period;
( ii ) The grantee's evaluation of program performance using the internal monitoring system submitted in their application;
( iii ) Reports on all significant ICWA direct service grant activities including but not limited to the following information: ( A ) Significant title II activities;
( B ) Data reflecting numbers of individuals referred for out-of-home placements, number of individuals benefiting from title II services and types of services provided, and
( C ) Information and referral activities.
( iv ) Child abuse and neglect statistical reports and related information as required by 25 U.S.C. 2434, Pub. L. 99-570, the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986;
( v ) A summary of problems encountered or reasons for not meeting established objectives;
( vi ) Any deliverable or product required in the grant; and
( vii ) Additional pertinent information when appropriate.
( 2 ) The BIA may negotiate for the provision of other grant-related reports not previously identified.
( d ) Events may occur between scheduled performance reporting dates which have significant impact on the grant-supported activity. In such cases, the grantee must inform the awarding agency as soon as problems, delays, adverse conditions, or serious incidents giving rise to liability become known and which will materially impair its ability to meet the objectives of the grant.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PHILIP KUO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72100

Agency No. A095-663-282

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 10, 2010** 

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Philip Kuo, a native and citizen of Malaysia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

AUG 31 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72100

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual

findings, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992), and we deny the

petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the vandalism,

curses, and other harassment Kuo suffered in Malaysia did not rise to the level of

persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003)

(incidents of discrimination and harassment do not compel a finding of past

persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Kuo failed

to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution because it is too

speculative to assume that he will be persecuted as a result of his Christian

religion. See id. at 1018 (record evidence did not show petitioner had objectively

reasonable basis for future fear); see also Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089,

1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (agency is entitled to rely on all relevant evidence in the

record, including State Department reports, in considering whether a petitioner’s

fear of future persecution is objectively reasonable). Accordingly, Kuo’s asylum

claim fails. 

Because Kuo did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows

that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
3 09-72100

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Kuo failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not he would be

tortured. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner

failed to provide evidence “that he is likely to be tortured by the actors he fears”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT 99

                            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 OptiMark  Holdings,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Robert J. Warshaw,  the Chief Executive Officer and the Principal  Financial and
Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of the
Company.




                                      /s/ Robert J. Warshaw
                                      ---------------------
                                      Robert J. Warshaw
                                      Chief Executive Officer



                                      /s/ Robert J. Warshaw
                                      ---------------------
                                      Robert J. Warshaw
                                      Principal Financial and Accounting Officer

August 26, 2002
# C_2006261EN.01002101.xml

| 28.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/21

---

Action brought on 29 August 2006 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM (Port Louis)

(Case T-230/06)

(2006/C 261/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by M. Kinkeldey and A. Lehmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 June 2006 — Case R 25/2006-1 — with regard to Community trade mark application no. 003 664 133 PORT LOUIS; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 June 2006 — Case R 25/2006-1 — with regard to Community trade mark application no. 003 664 133 PORT LOUIS;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Port Louis’ for goods in Classes 18, 24 and 25 (application no. 366 4133).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as the mark for which registration is sought is capable of registration. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the right to a fair hearing has been infringed.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 189 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          June 8, 1999.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 150) to amend the Act popularly known as the Recreation and Public 
Purposes Act to authorize disposal of certain public lands or national forest 
lands to local education agencies for use for elementary or secondary schools, 
including public charter schools, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. After general debate the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be 
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Resources now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration of the 
bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment 
has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole 
a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum 
time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 
minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
§ 20.319 What responsibilities does the general assistance recipient have? In working with the social services worker, you, the recipient, must: ( a ) Participate with the social services worker in developing an ISP and sign the ISP;
( b ) Perform successfully in the work related activities, community service, training and/or other employment assistance programs developed in the ISP;
( c ) Participate successfully in treatment and counseling services identified in the ISP;
( d ) Participate in evaluations of job readiness and/or any other testing required for employment purposes; and
( e ) Demonstrate that you are actively seeking employment by providing the social services worker with evidence of job search activities as required in the ISP.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1430

JAMES D. SULLIVAN,

Movant - Appellant,

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner – Appellee,

v.

RICHARD VON BIBERSTEIN, JR.,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (7:14-cv-00175-BO)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James D. Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James D. Sullivan appeals the district court’s orders

accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and granting 

the Government’s petition to enforce an Internal Revenue Service 

third party summons and denying Sullivan’s motions to quash the 

summons and stay the proceedings. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by 

the district court. United States v. Biberstein, No. 7:14-cv00175-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2015). 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
Board of Directors resolution approving an additional retainer



 EXHIBIT 10.94 
 Lead Director Retainer 
 RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby approve an additional
retainer for the lead director of the Board of Directors in the amount of $20,000.00. 
  

 E-36
§ 169.130 Must a right-of-way grant address ownership of permanent improvements? ( a ) A right-of-way grant must specify who will own any permanent improvements the grantee constructs during the grant term and may specify under what conditions, if any, permanent improvements the grantee constructs may be conveyed to the Indian landowners during the grant term. In addition, the grant may indicate whether each specific permanent improvement the grantee constructs will: ( 1 ) Remain on the premises, upon the expiration, cancellation, or termination of the grant, in a condition satisfactory to the Indian landowners, and become the property of the Indian landowners;
( 2 ) Be removed within a time period specified in the grant, at the grantee's expense, with the premises to be restored as closely as possible to their condition before construction of the permanent improvements; or
( 3 ) Be disposed of by other specified means.
( b ) A grant that requires the grantee to remove the permanent improvements must also provide the Indian landowners with an option to take possession of and title to the permanent improvements if the improvements are not removed within the specified time period.
# C_2006310EN.01003002.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/30

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Achten v Commission

(Case T-339/99) (1)

1

(2006/C 310/65)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.

1

---
### [§2440. Renumbered §4820]