alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6181

SHAKA MACUMBA ZULU X, a/k/a Thomas Howard,

a/k/a Michael Wayne Montgomery,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-135-6-3)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 25, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shaka Macumba Zulu X, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. X v. South

Carolina, No. CA-96-135-6-3 (D.S.C. Jan. 22, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.1CertificationsI, Bruce Armstrong, President, Principal Executive Officer of KNOVA Software, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of KNOVA Software, Inc.:2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: August 14, 2006 /s/ Bruce Armstrong Title: Principal Executive Officer
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-6 

January 21, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 3(39) Definitions. Plan Year

4007(a). Payment of Premiums. Due Dates 

OPINION: 

 This is a confirmation of the telephone call to a member of your office by Mr. * * * of our staff. You inquired as

to what date should be entered on line 9 of Form PBGC-1 which requires a listing of the date on which the plan year

ends. You advise that the "Books, Form 990-D and Form D-2 are filed for years ending September 30" and that

"actuarial reports and the insurance contract are for years ending May 31 as the plan was established effective June 1,

1965." 

Section 3(39) of the Act provides that the "terms 'plan year' and 'fiscal year of the plan' mean with respect to a plan,

calendar policy or fiscal year on which the records of the plan are kept." The facts stated indicate that your "plan year"

ends on September 30, since the plan's "books" (i.e., "records") are kept on that basis. 

We hope this is of assistance. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
### §§1141b to 1141f. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–334, title V, §5411(52)–(56), (58), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4685

Section 1141b, act June 15, 1929, ch. 24, §4, 46 Stat. 13; Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933; Aug. 19, 1937, ch. 704, §37, 50 Stat. 717; Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, title XI, §1106(a), 63 Stat. 972; Pub. L. 96–592, title V, §510, Dec. 24, 1980, 94 Stat. 3451, set out general powers of the Farm Credit Administration.

Section 1141c, act June 15, 1929, ch. 24, §5, 46 Stat. 13; Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933; June 16, 1933, ch. 98, title V, §50(a), 48 Stat. 265, set out special powers of the Farm Credit Administration.

Section 1141d, act June 15, 1929, ch. 24, §6, 46 Stat. 14; Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933; June 16, 1933, ch. 98, title III, §§33, 34, title IV, §§40, 41, 48 Stat. 262, 264; Aug. 19, 1937, ch. 704, §38, 50 Stat. 718; Pub. L. 87–494, June 25, 1962, 76 Stat. 109, established and authorized an appropriation for a revolving fund.

Section 1141d–1, act June 22, 1939, ch. 239, 53 Stat. 853, related to limits on interest rates charged on loans made from the revolving fund.

Section 1141e, act June 15, 1929, ch. 24, §7, 46 Stat. 14; Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933; June 16, 1933, ch. 98, title V, §§50–53, 48 Stat. 265; June 3, 1935, ch. 164, §§9, 10, 49 Stat. 316, related to loans made to cooperative associations.

Section 1141f, act June 15, 1929, ch. 24, §8, 46 Stat. 14; Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933; June 16, 1933, ch. 98, title V, §54, 48 Stat. 266; June 3, 1935, ch. 164, §11, 49 Stat. 316; Aug. 19, 1937, ch. 704, §5(a), 50 Stat. 704; Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 785, title I, §109, 69 Stat. 662; Pub. L. 89–525, §4(b), Aug. 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 334, set out miscellaneous loan provisions.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 1141b to 1141d, 1141e, and 1141f were formerly classified to sections 524 to 526, 527, and 528, respectively, of Title 7, Agriculture.
Exhibit 23.1


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


The Board of Directors and Shareholders


LinnCo, LLC:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-182305) on Form S-1 of LinnCo, LLC of our report dated February 28, 2013, with respect to the balance sheet of LinnCo, LLC as of December 31, 2012 and the related statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for the period from April 30, 2012 (inception) to December 31, 2012, which report appears in the December 31, 2012 annual report on Form 10-K/A of LinnCo, LLC.








/s/ KPMG LLP


Houston, Texas


November 5, 2013
-  Home 
-  Technical Resources 

# In This Section

                      -  HazMat Technical Resources 
                      -  Technical Reports 

# Designing Safety Regulations for High-Hazard Industries - May 18, 2017

designing-safety-regulations-high-hazard-industries.pdf (962.72 KB)

Study examined the advantages and disadvantages of performance-based safety regulation and is identifying constraints on U.S. regulators from pursuing this approach.

*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.*
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.74 How may an Indian tribe or tribal organization propose a lease to be compensated for the use of facilities? There are three options available: ( a ) The lease may be based on fair market rental.
( b ) The lease may be based on a combination of fair market rental and paragraphs (a) through (h) of § 900.70, provided that no element of expense is duplicated in fair market rental.
( c ) The lease may be based on paragraphs (a) through (h) of § 900.70 only.
### §1715z–24. Pilot program for automated process for borrowers without sufficient credit history

#### (a) Establishment

The Secretary shall carry out a pilot program to establish, and make available to mortgagees, an automated process for providing alternative credit rating information for mortgagors and prospective mortgagors under mortgages on 1- to 4-family residences to be insured under this subchapter who have insufficient credit histories for determining their creditworthiness. Such alternative credit rating information may include rent, utilities, and insurance payment histories, and such other information as the Secretary considers appropriate.

#### (b) Scope

The Secretary may carry out the pilot program under this section on a limited basis or scope, and may consider limiting the program to first-time homebuyers.

#### (c) Limitation

In any fiscal year, the aggregate number of mortgages insured pursuant to the automated process established under this section may not exceed 5 percent of the aggregate number of mortgages for 1- to 4-family residences insured by the Secretary under this subchapter during the preceding fiscal year.

#### (d) Sunset

After the expiration of the 5-year period beginning on July 30, 2008, the Secretary may not enter into any new commitment to insure any mortgage, or newly insure any mortgage, pursuant to the automated process established under this section.

(June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title II, §258, formerly §257, as added Pub. L. 110–289, div. B, title I, §2124(a), July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2839; renumbered §258, Pub. L. 111–22, div. A, title II, §202(c), May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1643.)
Report of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm



To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:



We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying
Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National
Association ("Midland" or the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions (the "Platform"),
as of December 31, 2012 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D),
1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the
servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with
the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation 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 applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise
the Platform, testing of 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 applicable servicing criteria. 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 detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred 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.
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 Midland Loan Services
complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012 for the Platform
is fairly stated, in all material respects.











March 1, 2013















PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut, Suite 1300, Kansas City,
MO 64106

T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890, www.pwc.com/us
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 FOR MEDIQUIK
SERVICES INC., AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              13,216
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      621,954
<ALLOWANCES>                                       284,975
<INVENTORY>                                         89,545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   439,740
<PP&E>                                             227,778
<DEPRECIATION>                                      15,324
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,767,114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,237,476
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                            334
<COMMON>                                            10,974
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,518,330
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,529,638
<SALES>                                          1,227,497
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,227,497
<CGS>                                              905,506
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,159,516
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   196,273
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5,798
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,843,323)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,843,323)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,843,323)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.29)



</TABLE>
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

83-5 

February 2, 1983 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4047 Restoration of Plans

4062 Liability of Employer in Single Employer Plans 

OPINION: 

 This responds to your letter in which you, on behalf of * * * Corp. (the "Company"), indicate an interest in restoring

the * * * Inc. Retirement Income Plan (the "Plan"). The Plan administrator filed a Notice of Intent to Terminate the Plan

on * * *. 

In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, including the short period of time between the filing of the Notice

and the request for restoration, the PBGC would permit restoration of the Plan if: 

1. The Company agrees to reimburse the PBGC for all expenses the PBGC has incurred as a result of the filing of

the Notice, including all expenses incurred in determining, filing and litigating bankruptcy claims pertaining to the Plan.

2. The Company agrees that it will not, without PBGC consent, terminate the Plan for at least five years after the

date of the restoration of the Plan. 

3. The Company agrees that, if the Plan terminates for any reason whatsoever within five years of the date of the

restoration of the Plan, the Company will be liable to the PBGC for * * * less the amount of any employer contributions

made to the Plan subsequent to the [*2] date of the restoration. This liability shall not be limited by the Company's net

worth and shall be in addition to the Company's liability: (a) to the PBGC for the amount of liability, as of the date the

Plan terminates, under 29 U.S.C. § 1362; and (b) to the Plan for employer contributions required by statute or by

contract. The amount paid to the PBGC under this paragraph shall be credited as an asset of the Plan in determining the

amount due under 29 U.S.C. § 1362. 

4. The Company agrees that it will continue to fund the Plan in accordance with any contractual obligations to

contribute to the Plan and in accordance with the minimum funding standards contained in Section 412 of the Internal

Revenue Code (the "Code"), 26 U.S.C. § 412 and in Section 302 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of

1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1082. 

We understand that the Company may amend the Plan to cease benefit accruals but that accruals for purposes of

vesting will continue. Of course, any such amendment must comply with the requirements of [*3] ERISA and the Code.

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
### [§2410s. Renumbered §2388]
#### § 542.7 [Reserved]
-  Home 
-  Technical Resources 
-  Pipeline Technical Resources 
-  High Volume Excess Flow Valves 

# In This Section

                      -  Pipeline Technical Resources 
                      -  High Volume Excess Flow Valves (EFV): Overview 
                      -  High Volume EFV: Key Documents 
                      -  High Volume EFV: Public Meeting 

## Related Documents

                  -                                          EFV FAQs                   

## Contact Us

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

**Email:**phmsa.pipelinesafety@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-4595****Fax:**202-366-4566****Business Hours:**9:00am-5:00pm ET, M-F

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

# High Volume Excess Flow Valves

**High Volume Excess Flow Valves**

Welcome. This site is administered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

Excess Flow Valves (EFVs) are safety devices installed on natural gas distribution pipelines to reduce the risk of accidents. EFVs are required for new or replaced gas service lines servicing single-family residences (SFR), as that phrase is defined in 49 CFR 192.383(a). Following the investigation of a natural gas explosion in Loudon County, Virginia, in 1998, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended (Recommendation P-01-002) that PHMSA require that excess flow valves be installed in all new and renewed gas service lines, regardless of a customer's classification, when the operating conditions are compatible with readily available valves

In a Final Rule published in the Federal Register on October 14, 2016, PHMSA made changes to 49 CFR Part 192 to expand the requirement for EFVs, to include new or replaced branched service lines servicing SFRs, multifamily residences, and small commercial entities consuming gas volumes not exceeding 1,000 standard cubic feet per hour (SCFH). PHMSA also amended Part 192 to require the use of either manual service line shut-off valves (e.g., curb valves) or EFVs, if appropriate, for new or replaced service lines with meter capacities exceeding 1,000 SCFH. This final rule also requires operators to notify customers of their right to request installation of EFVs on service lines that are not being newly installed or replaced. PHMSA left the question of who bears the cost of installing EFVs on service lines not being newly installed or replaced to the operator's rate-setter. This final rule, entitled "Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences", is effective April 14, 2017.
# C_2006281EN.01003802.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/38

---

Appeal brought on 7 September 2006 by Beau against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 28 June 2006 in Case F-39/05, Beau v Commission

(Case T-252/06 P)

(2006/C 281/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Marie-Yolande Beau (Paris, France) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | declare the present appeal admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present appeal admissible;

| — | annul the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 28 June 2006 in Case F-39/05; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 28 June 2006 in Case F-39/05;

| — | grant the pleas for annulment and compensation submitted by the appellant at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the pleas for annulment and compensation submitted by the appellant at first instance;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In her appeal, the appellant alleges, firstly, that the Tribunal infringed Community law by an incorrect legal classification of certain facts and, secondly, that it committed a procedural error infringing her rights of the defence.

---
#### Richard E. DeBoer, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Peter A. DeBoer, d/b/a Towns & Country Real Estate, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 73-158;

Second District

December 17, 1974.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE SEIDENFELD.

*222No appearance for appellant.

John R. Rogers, of Elgin, for appellee.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | Corporate Trust Services

 

MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation 

60 WALL ST

NEW YORK, New York 10005-2836

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for COMM 2012-CCRE1 Commercial Mortgage Pass -Through Certificates

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2012 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

March 1, 2016

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.