alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. Jassoy *&*Co. *v.*John Horn.

1. Limitation op actions *under the act of*1849. An action against a bank on an account evidenced by the entries in a depositor’s bank book, is not, under the statute of limitations of 1849, barred until tbe lapse of sixteen years after tbe cause of action accrued.

2. *Interest—whether recoverable.*Where demand was repeatedly made for tbe payment of sucb an account, and ten years elapsed after tbe deposit of tbe money, it was *held,*that tbe delay of payment was vexatious and unreasonable, and interest should be allowed on tbe account.

"Writ of Error to the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Aurora; the Hon. E. G. Montony, Judge, presiding.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Horn against John Jassoy and others. The defendants pleaded the statute of limitations, alleging that the promises stated in the declaration were not in writing, and did not accrue within five years previous to the commencement of the suit. As evidence of the indebtedness, the plaintiff produced in evidence a depositor’s bank book, kept in the usual form, in which the defendants, as bankers, had made entry of the amounts of money deposited and drawn out by the plaintiff. The plaintiff recovered a judgment, to reverse which the defendants bring the record to this court.

Mr. H. E., Yallette, for the plaintiffs in error.

Mr. C. J. Métzner, for the defendant in error.

Per Curiam:

The majority of the court are of opinion that the account evidenced by the bank book is not barred until the lapse of sixteen years after the cause of action accrued.

*380The act of November 5, 1849 (Gross’ Stat. 430), is: “All actions, founded upon any promissory note, simple contract in writing, bond, judgment, or other evidence of indebtedness in writing * * shall be commenced within sixteen years after the cause of action accrued.”

The entries in the book were made by the bankers, and they charged themselves with the money deposited. *■ They constituted “ evidence of an indebtedness in writing,” within the meaning of the statute.

The only other question is, ought interest to be computed upon the account ? It has been over ten years since the deposit of the money, and a demand was repeatedly made of it. The delay of payment was vexatious and unreasonable, and interest should be allowed.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 34.2



Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm



The Board of Directors



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



We
have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Assertion of Compliance, that theTrust
& Securities Services department of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (collectively
the “Company”)complied with the servicing criteria set forth
inItem 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s
Regulation AB for the Honda Auto Receivables 2010-3 Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction, the Honda Auto Receivables
2012-2 Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction and the Honda Auto Receivables 2013-3 Owner Trust asset-backed securities
transaction (the “Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii)-1122(d)(2)(vii),
1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs
with respect to the Platform, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2014. With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii)
is applicable only as it relates to remittances. Management is responsible
for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s
assertion about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.



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



In our opinion, management’s assertion
that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2014, is fairly stated,
in all material respects.



/s/ KPMG LLP



Chicago, Illinois

May 30, 2014
DRAFT January 14, 2014 **Improving Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants:**

**Posting of 11 Summaries from Public Listening Sessions and Opening a Document Repository** Today, we are making available summaries of the 11 public listening sessions and opening a repository for information submitted to EPA during the outreach effort. These summaries are available at http://www2.epa.gov/carbon - pollution standards . The public listening sessions were held from October – November 2013 at all of EPA’s regional offices and at EPA’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. The non - regulatory docket number is EPA- HQ- OAR - 2014-0020, and is available at regulations.gov. Background

 Since August 2013, EPA and our sta keholders have been reaching out to the public and stakeholders about using section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to improve emissions of carbon pollution from power plants.  Our outreach has included a webinar viewed more than 4,100 times, with attendance a t more than 200 meetings, and holding 11 public listening session attended by more than 3,300 people.  Many individuals and groups have submitted information for EPA to consider as we move toward fulfilling the President’s directive to propose , by June 20 14, guidelines for states on how to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants.  We are still developing the guidelines and everyone will have further opportunities to comment on EPA’s guidelines when they are proposed in June, including a public hearing and a formal comment period. This repository is not a rulemaking docket but rather a place for EPA to share some of the input that we have received. QA Q: Why are you doing this now? A: EPA is coming to the end of our first phase of outreach and i t was a good time to activate mechanisms for sharing what has been provided to us. The second phase of our outreach will include further discussions with stakeholders and we continue to be interested in receiving information. The information can be sen t to carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov Q: Can people submit information to this repository? A: No, anyone wishing to submit information to EPA should email carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov Q: My comment isn’t included in here. Where is it? A: EPA has received thousands of emails and documents from stakeholders and the public about our upcoming guidelines. We are in the process of populating the repository and e xpect to have more information posted everyday. Q: What are you doing with all of this information? A: EPA staff are reviewing all of the input received and it will inform our efforts to propose guidelines by June 2014.
#### Union Trust and Savings Company *v.*Harbaugh et al.

[No. 12,385.

Filed November 17, 1925.]

From Industrial Board of Indiana.

Proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act between the Union Savings and Trust Company and Margaret Harbaugh and another. From the award rendered, the former appeals. *Reversed.*By the court in banc.

*William H. Eichhorn, Frank W. Gordon*and *John H. Edris,*for appellant.

*George Mock,*for appellees.

Remy, C. J.

Reversed, on authority of *Bailey*v. *Humrickhouse*(1925), *ante*497, 148 N. E. 428.
-  Home 
-  171 

# In This Section

-  PHMSA Rules 
-  Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits 
-  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
-  Pipeline Special Permits & State Waivers 

# 171.7

## Section §171.7: Reference material

Below are the available interpretations and guidance for the given section. To return to the list of parts, use the Parts link above. If you do not see any guidance or interpretation information below, that means there is none available for the given part/section. Return to the search page to browse additional regulations sections.

PHMSA has published several Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) documents on regulatory topics. Please review our FAQ documents below:

https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/about-phmsa/phmsa-faqs.

Additionally PHMSA has Hazardous Materials FAQs based on letters of interpretation on the following topics:
                              - Applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations
                              - Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting
                              - Hazardous Materials Training Requirements

This section of the website provides the ability to find regulations information including regulations parts, content of sections, and interpretations for regulations sections. Below is a list of parts, identified by the part number and subject. To browse sections by part, click on the subject link below. You will be taken to the eCFR website to view sections for a part.

A written regulatory interpretation, response to a question, or an opinion concerning a pipeline safety issue may be obtained by submitting a written request to the Office of Pipeline Safety (PHP–30), PHMSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001 or at the email address: pipeline_interp_submittal@dot.gov. In addition to email address, the requestor must include his or her return address and should also include a daytime telephone number. Requests should be submitted at least 120 days before the time the requestor needs a response.

Note: electronic submission is provided as alternative to the 49 CFR Part 190.11(b) mail-in requirement.

The regulations text of the section can be found on the eCFR website. To view the regulations text, use the link below. For assistance, please send an email to PHMSA.Webmaster@dot.gov.

View section 171.7 on the ECFR website

## Interpretation Responses
# C_2006305EN.01001702.xml

| 14.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/17

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4449 — KKR/SIF (Tarkett))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 305/08)

On 7 December 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4449. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4449. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/16

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 16 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.06 N 76.88 W Meters AGL
### Part C—Enforcement Powers of Farm Credit Administration
-  Home 
-  Newsroom 

# In This Section

                      -  Newsroom 
                      -  Press Releases 
                      -  Reports to Congress 
                      -  Congressional Testimony 
                      -  Speeches 

## Contact Us

Office of Governmental, International, and Public Affairs
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**phmsa.publicaffairs@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-4831****Fax:**202-366-7431**

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Report to Congress - Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee Report

Report to Congress - Lithium Battery Air Safety Adviosry Committee - July 2021.pdf (1.11 MB)

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact          PHMSA-Accessibility@dot.gov.*
§ 556.7 Notice. ( a ) All notices under this part shall be provided to the Commission through the appropriate Regional office.
( b ) Should a tribe wish to submit notices electronically, it should contact the appropriate Regional office for guidance on acceptable document formats and means of transmission.
### §582. Warrant officer active-duty list: exclusions

Warrant officers in the following categories are not subject to this chapter:

(1) Reserve warrant officers—

(A) on active duty as authorized under section 115(a)(1)(B) or 115(b)(1) of this title, or excluded from counting for active duty end strengths under section 115(i) of this title; or

(B) on full-time National Guard duty.

(2) Retired warrant officers on active duty (other than retired warrant officers who were recalled to active duty before February 1, 1992, and have served continuously on active duty since that date).

(3) Students enrolled in the Army Physician's Assistant Program.

(Added Pub. L. 102–190, div. A, title XI, §1112(a), Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1500; amended Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title V, §501(d), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2748; Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title XV, §1501(c)(5), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 498; Pub. L. 108–375, div. A, title IV, §416(i), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 1869.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Par. (1). Pub. L. 108–375 amended par. (1) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (1) read as follows: "Reserve warrant officers—

"(A) on active duty for training;

"(B) on active duty under section 12301(d) of this title in connection with organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components;

"(C) on active duty to pursue special work;

"(D) ordered to active duty under section 12304 of this title; or

"(E) on full-time National Guard duty."

1996—Par. (1)(B). Pub. L. 104–106 substituted "section 12301(d)" for "section 672(d)".

Par. (1)(D). Pub. L. 104–106 substituted "section 12304" for "section 673b".

1994—Par. (2). Pub. L. 103–337 inserted before period at end "(other than retired warrant officers who were recalled to active duty before February 1, 1992, and have served continuously on active duty since that date)".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title XV, §1501(c), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 498, provided that the amendment made by that section is effective as of Dec. 1, 1994, and as if included as an amendment made by the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act, title XVI of Pub. L. 103–337, as originally enacted.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Feb. 1, 1992, see section 1132 of Pub. L. 102–190, set out as an Effective Date of 1991 Amendment note under section 521 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Benjamin Capaci, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 505]

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), entered July 8, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence following his conviction of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, waived his right to appeal, and was sentenced to a prison term of 2Vs to 7 years. Defendant then moved pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside his sentence alleging that the Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Act *(see*L 2004, ch 738), which was enacted after he was arrested but before he was sentenced, entitled him to resentencing. County Court denied the motion and this Court granted defendant permission to appeal.

The provisions of the Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Act were intended to apply only to criminal conduct committed on or after the Act’s effective date *(see People v Zippo,*29 AD3d 1179 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 852 [2006]; *People v Milner,*28 AD3d 873, 874-875 [2006]; *People v Walker,*26 AD3d 676, 677 [2006]). As such, defendant’s contention that he is entitled to a reduced determinate sentence is without merit.

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  American Rescue Plan (ARP) Special Financial Assistance P... 
-  Special Financial Assistance Applications 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Special Financial Assistance Applications 

Download Full List of Applications

The table below includes links to the application documents submitted with applications for which PBGC has completed redactions of personally identifiable information (PII).  Application documents for the other submitted applications will be posted when PBGC completes the redaction of sensitive information.

Select the Download button to the right to view a full list of SFA applications received to date including both summary and additional supporting information for each. Plans that have submitted lock-in applications and plans that have been placed on the waiting list are also included.

This information is updated weekly on Fridays.

From the table below, select a Plan Name to view all applications submitted and related press releases, if applicable.

**344 Results (Page 1 of 7)**

-  1 
-  2 
-  3 
-  4 
-  5 
-  6 
-  7 
-   Next  
-   Last  

*Date by which an application for SFA must be approved or denied. PBGC is required to process initial and revised applications within 120 days of filing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6431

BILLY G. ASEMANI,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUSKASEY; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE USA; MICHAEL

CHERTOFF; SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08-cv00347-RWT)

Submitted: October 10, 2008 Decided: November 6, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy G. Asemani, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Billy G. Asemani, a Maryland state prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district

court. Asemani v. Mukasey, No. 8:08-cv-00347-RWT (D. Md. Mar. 11,

2008). 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.

AFFIRMED
§ 11.1 General application. ( a ) *Application of Debt Collection Standards.* The provisions of 31 CFR parts 285, 900-904, as amended by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, are applicable to debts and debt procedures within the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security.
( b ) *Authority.* The Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Homeland Security is delegated authority to administer this subpart and to redelegate authority under this subpart.
( c ) *Application to DHS.* This subpart provides procedures for the collection of DHS debts, and for collection of other debts owed to the United States when a request for offset of a DHS payment is received by the DHS from another federal agency. This subpart applies to all of DHS, including all of its components. It applies to the DHS when collecting a DHS debt, to persons who owe DHS debts, and to Federal agencies requesting offset of a payment issued by the DHS as a payment agency (including salary payments to DHS employees).
( d ) *Exclusions.* This subpart does not apply to debt arising from taxation under the Internal Revenue Act of 1986, as amended, or to any debt excepted from the FCCS, 31 CFR parts 900 through 904.
( e ) *Non-exclusive procedure or remedy.* Nothing in this subpart precludes collection or disposition of any debt under statutes and regulations other than those described in this subpart. To the extent that the provisions of laws or other regulations apply, including the remission or mitigation of fines, penalties, forfeitures and debts arising under the tariff laws of the United States, DHS components are authorized to collect debts under those laws and regulations. DHS components and other Federal agencies may simultaneously use multiple collection remedies to collect a debt, except as prohibited by law.
( f ) *Additional policies and procedures.* DHS components may, but are not required to, promulgate additional policies and procedures consistent with this subpart and other applicable Federal law, policies, and procedures.
( g ) *Duplication not required.* Nothing in this subpart requires DHS to duplicate notices or administrative proceedings required by contract, this subpart, or other laws or regulations.
( h ) *No private rights created.* This subpart does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person, nor shall the failure of any DHS component to comply with any of the provisions of this subpart or 31 CFR parts 285, 900-904 be a defense to the collection of any debt or enforcement of any other law.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Adolescent LiteratureChildrens LiteratureCitizenship EducationElementary Secondary EducationSocial StudiesValuesValues Education

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget