alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 46.109 IRB review of research. ( a ) An IRB shall review and have authority to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove all research activities covered by this policy, including exempt research activities under § 46.104 for which limited IRB review is a condition of exemption (under § 46.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), and (d)(7), and (8)).
( b ) An IRB shall require that information given to subjects (or legally authorized representatives, when appropriate) as part of informed consent is in accordance with § 46.116. The IRB may require that information, in addition to that specifically mentioned in § 46.116, be given to the subjects when in the IRB's judgment the information would meaningfully add to the protection of the rights and welfare of subjects.
( c ) An IRB shall require documentation of informed consent or may waive documentation in accordance with § 46.117.
( d ) An IRB shall notify investigators and the institution in writing of its decision to approve or disapprove the proposed research activity, or of modifications required to secure IRB approval of the research activity. If the IRB decides to disapprove a research activity, it shall include in its written notification a statement of the reasons for its decision and give the investigator an opportunity to respond in person or in writing.
( e ) An IRB shall conduct continuing review of research requiring review by the convened IRB at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk, not less than once per year, except as described in § 46.109(f).
( f ) ( 1 ) Unless an IRB determines otherwise, continuing review of research is not required in the following circumstances: ( i ) Research eligible for expedited review in accordance with § 46.110;
( ii ) Research reviewed by the IRB in accordance with the limited IRB review described in § 46.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), or (d)(7) or (8);
( iii ) Research that has progressed to the point that it involves only one or both of the following, which are part of the IRB-approved study: ( A ) Data analysis, including analysis of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, or
( B ) Accessing follow-up clinical data from procedures that subjects would undergo as part of clinical care.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( g ) An IRB shall have authority to observe or have a third party observe the consent process and the research.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0173**
### §1138d. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §21, 62 Stat. 862, eff. Sept. 1, 1948

Section, acts June 16, 1933, ch. 98, title VI, §64, 48 Stat. 267; Jan. 31, 1934, ch. 7, §13, 48 Stat. 347, related to offenses and penalties. See sections 371, 433, 493, 657, 658, 1006, and 1014 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.
# C_2006326EN.01002802.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/28

---

Action brought on 16 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-423/06)

(2006/C 326/58)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 74/556/EEC of 4 June 1974 laying down detailed provisions concerning transitional measures relating to activities, trade in and distribution of toxic products and activities entailing the professional use of such products including activities of intermediaries (1) or, in any event, not informing the Commission thereof, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 74/556/EEC of 4 June 1974 laying down detailed provisions concerning transitional measures relating to activities, trade in and distribution of toxic products and activities entailing the professional use of such products including activities of intermediaries (1) or, in any event, not informing the Commission thereof, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 74/556 expired on 30 June 2004.

---

(1)  OJ No L 307, 18.11.1974, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of 1st Net Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, James H. Watson, Jr., Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
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:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.



/s/ James H. Watson, Jr.
------------------------------------------
James H. Watson, Jr.
Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of the Registrant
November 3, 2004
§ 556.3 Notice regarding false statements. ( a ) A tribe shall place the following notice on the application form for a key employee or a primary management official before that form is filled out by an applicant: A false statement on any part of your license application may be grounds for denying a license or the suspension or revocation of a license. Also, you may be punished by fine or imprisonment (U.S. Code, title 18, section 1001).
( b ) A tribe shall notify in writing existing key employees and primary management officials that they shall either: ( 1 ) Complete a new application form that contains a notice regarding false statements; or
( 2 ) Sign a statement that contains the notice regarding false statements.
( c ) All license application forms used 180 days after February 25, 2013 shall comply with this section.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60807 

Summary Calendar

__________________

RONALD GENE JOHNSTON, 

also known as Ronald Garrett, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

RAYMOND ROBERTS, Superintendent,

Mississippi State Penitentiary,

MIKE MOORE, Attorney General of

the State of Mississippi,

 Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:91cv82-D-D

- - - - - - - - - -

June 21, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronald Gene Johnston, #44872, argues that the district court

erred in denying his habeas corpus petition because he was not

competent at the time that he entered a guilty plea in 1983 and
No. 95-60807

-2-

because his counsel failed to provide him with effective

assistance.

We have reviewed the record, the opinion of the district

court, and the briefs, and find that the denial of Johnston's

petition for habeas corpus relief should be affirmed

substantially for the reasons adopted by the district court.

See Johnston v. Roberts, No. 1: 92CV82-D-D (N. D. Miss. Dec. 13,

1995).

AFFIRMED.
#### § 67.8 Burden of proof.

The burden of proof rests upon the applicant to establish eligibility for enrollment. Documentary evidence such as birth certificates, death certificates, baptismal records, copies of probate findings, or affidavits may be used to support claims of eligibility for enrollment. Records of the BIA may be used to establish eligibility.
§ 13.31 Determining the amount of penalties and assessments. ( a ) In determining an appropriate amount of civil penalties and assessments, the ALJ and the Authority Head, upon appeal, should evaluate any circumstances that mitigate or aggravate the violation and should articulate in their opinions the reasons that support the penalties and assessments they impose. Because of the intangible costs of fraud, the expense of investigating such conduct, and the need to deter others who might be similarly tempted, ordinarily double damages and a significant civil penalty should be imposed.
( b ) Although not exhaustive, the following factors are among those that may influence the ALJ and the Authority Head in determining the amount of penalties and assessments to impose with respect to the misconduct (*i.e.*, the false fictitious, of fraudulent Claims or Statements) charged in the Complaint: ( 1 ) The number of false, fictitious, or fraudulent Claims or Statements;
( 2 ) The time period over which such Claims or Statements were Made;
( 3 ) The degree of the Defendant's culpability with respect to the misconduct;
( 4 ) The amount of money or the value of the property, services, or Benefit falsely claimed;
( 5 ) The value of the Government's actual loss as a result of the misconduct, including foreseeable consequential damages and the costs of investigation;
( 6 ) The relationship of the amount imposed as civil penalties to the amount of the Government's loss;
( 7 ) The potential or actual impact of the misconduct upon national defense, public health or safety, or public confidence in the management of Government programs and operations, including particularly the impact on the intended beneficiaries of such programs;
( 8 ) Whether the Defendant has engaged in a pattern of the same or similar misconduct;
( 9 ) Whether the Defendant attempted to conceal the misconduct;
( 10 ) The degree to which the Defendant has involved others in the misconduct or in concealing it;
( 11 ) Where the misconduct of employees or agents is imputed to the Defendant, the extent to which the Defendant's practices fostered or attempted to preclude such misconduct;
( 12 ) Whether the Defendant cooperated in or obstructed an investigation of the misconduct;
( 13 ) Whether the Defendant assisted in identifying and prosecuting other wrongdoers;
( 14 ) The complexity of the program or transaction, and the degree of the Defendant's sophistication with respect to it, including the extent of the Defendant's prior participation in the program or in similar transactions;
( 15 ) Whether the Defendant has been found, in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding to have engaged in similar misconduct or to have dealt dishonestly with the Government of the United States or of a State, directly or indirectly; and
( 16 ) The need to deter the Defendant and others from engaging in the same or similar misconduct.
( c ) Nothing in this section will be construed to limit the ALJ or the Authority Head from considering any other factors that in any given case may mitigate or aggravate the offense for which penalties and assessments are imposed.
(logo) PACIFIC LIFE

 

 

MANAGEMENT'S REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SEC REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

Pacific Life Insurance Company (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing compliance, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, with the Relevant Servicing Criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC's Regulation AB, specifically criteria 1122(d)(3)(i)(a-c) and (d)(4)(vii), which management has determined to be applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform (such criteria, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”).  The transactions covered by this report include all asset-backed transactions under the Securitized Commercial Mortgage Loans Operating Advisor Platform (the “Platform”), as listed in Appendix A.

 

The Asserting Party has used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB in order to assess the effectiveness of Pacific Life Insurance Company's compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015. The Asserting Party has concluded that it has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

 

Deloitte& Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report for the Platform on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, as set forth in this assertion.

 

 

Pacific Life Insurance Company

 

 

/s/ Michelle Stickles

Michelle Stickles

Vice President, Asset Management

February 26, 2016

 

 

PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

700 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660-6397 Tel (949) 219-3011

 

 

APPENDIX A

 

 

SECURITIZED COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE LOANS OPERATING ADVISOR PLATFORM

 

| Trust Name                              |
|-----------------------------------------|
| Morgan Stanley Capital I Series 2012-C4 |
### §1761a. Officers of the board

At their first meeting after the annual meeting of the members, the directors shall elect from their number the board officers specified in the bylaws. Only one board officer may be compensated as an officer of the board and the bylaws shall specify such position as well as the specific duties of each of the board officers. The board shall elect from their number a financial officer who shall give adequate fidelity coverage in accordance with section 1761b(2) of this title.

(June 26, 1934, ch. 750, title I, §112, formerly §13, as added Pub. L. 86–354, §1, Sept. 22, 1959, 73 Stat. 632; amended Pub. L. 88–150, §2, Oct. 17, 1963, 77 Stat. 270; Pub. L. 91–206, §2(1), Mar. 10, 1970, 84 Stat. 49; renumbered title I, §112, Pub. L. 91–468, §1(2), Oct. 19, 1970, 84 Stat. 994; amended Pub. L. 95–630, title V, §502(b), Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3681; Pub. L. 97–320, title V, §521, Oct. 15, 1982, 96 Stat. 1531; Pub. L. 100–86, title VII, §704(a), Aug. 10, 1987, 101 Stat. 652.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in section 11(b) of act June 26, 1934, ch. 750, 48 Stat. 1219 (formerly classified to section 1761(b) of this title), prior to the amendment and renumbering of act June 26, 1934, by Pub. L. 86–354.

#### Amendments

1987—Pub. L. 100–86 inserted third sentence and struck out former third sentence which read as follows: "The board shall elect from their number a financial officer who shall give bond with good and sufficient surety, in an amount and character to be determined by the board of directors in compliance with regulations prescribed from time to time by the Board conditioned upon the faithful performance of the officer's trust."

1982—Pub. L. 97–320 substituted provisions relating to the officers of the board for provisions which read: "At their first meeting after the annual meeting of the members, the directors shall elect from their number a president, one or more vice presidents, a secretary, and a treasurer, who shall be the executive officers of the corporation. No executive officer, except the treasurer, shall be compensated as such. The offices of secretary and treasurer may be held by the same person. The duties of the officers shall be as determined by the bylaws. Before the treasurer shall enter upon his duties he shall give bond with good and sufficient surety, in an amount and character to be determined by the board of directors in compliance with regulations prescribed from time to time by the Board, conditioned upon the faithful performance of his trust."

1978—Pub. L. 95–630 substituted "Board" for "Administrator".

1970—Pub. L. 91–206 substituted "Administrator" for "Director".

1963—Pub. L. 88–150 struck out ", except that the treasurer shall be the general manager of the corporation" after "bylaws" in fourth sentence.

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

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–630 effective on expiration of 120 days after Nov. 10, 1978, and transitional provisions, see section 509 of Pub. L. 95–630, set out as a note under section 1752 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1020 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1020

   To amend chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, to provide for 
 greater fairness in the arbitration process relating to motor vehicle 
                          franchise contracts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 1999

 Mr. Grassley (for himself and Mr. Feingold) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, to provide for 
 greater fairness in the arbitration process relating to motor vehicle 
                          franchise contracts.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract 
Arbitration Fairness Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. ELECTION OF ARBITRATION.

    (a) Sales and Service Contracts.--Chapter 1 of title 9, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 17. Motor vehicle franchise contracts
    ``(a) For purposes of this section, the term--
            ``(1) `motor vehicle' has the meaning given such term under 
        section 30102(6) of title 49; and
            ``(2) `motor vehicle franchise contract' means a contract 
        under which a motor vehicle manufacturer, importer, or 
        distributor sells motor vehicles to any other person for resale 
        to an ultimate purchaser and authorizes such other person to 
        repair and service the manufacturer's motor vehicles.
    ``(b) Whenever a motor vehicle franchise contract provides for the 
use of arbitration to resolve a controversy arising out of or relating 
to the contract, each party to the contract shall have the option, 
after the controversy arises and before both parties commence an 
arbitration proceeding, to reject arbitration as the means of settling 
the controversy. Any such rejection shall be in writing.
    ``(c) Whenever arbitration is elected to settle a dispute under a 
motor vehicle franchise contract, the arbitrator shall provide the 
parties to the contract with a written explanation of the factual and 
legal basis for the award.''.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following new item:

``17. Motor vehicle franchise contracts.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to contracts entered 
into, amended, altered, modified, renewed, or extended after the date 
of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.150 What decisions can an Indian tribe or tribal organization appeal under this subpart? ( a ) A decision to decline to award a self-determination contract, or a portion thereof, under section 102 of the Act;
( b ) A decision to decline to award a construction contract, or a portion thereof, under sections 105(m) and 102 of the Act;
( c ) A decision to decline a proposed amendment to a self-determination contract, or a portion thereof, under section 102 of the Act;
( d ) A decision not to approve a proposal, in whole or in part, to redesign a program;
( e ) A decision to rescind and reassume a self-determination contract, in whole or in part, under section 109 of the Act except for emergency reassumptions;
( f ) A decision to refuse to waive a regulation under section 107(e) of the Act;
( g ) A disagreement between an Indian tribe or tribal organization and the Federal government over proposed reporting requirements;
( h ) A decision to refuse to allow an Indian tribe or tribal organization to convert a contract to mature status, under section 4(h) of the Act;
( i ) All other appealable pre-award decisions by a Federal official as specified in these regulations, whether an official of the Department of the Interior or the Department of Health and Human Services; or
( j ) A decision relating to a request for a determination that a law or regulation has been superseded by the Act.
§ 286.8 Priority criteria. The following priority will be used in selecting economic enterprises for grant funding: ( a ) *First priority.* First priority will be given to economic enterprises located on a reservation that will: ( 1 ) Utilize Indian resources, both natural and human.
( 2 ) Create the highest ratio of Indian jobs to the total amount of dollars to be invested, including market value of materials and equipment contributed to the project.
( 3 ) Create the highest ratio of income to a tribe or its members in relation to the total amount of dollars to be invested, including market value of materials or equipment contributed to the project.
( 4 ) Generate the most non-Bureau financing.
( b ) *Second priority.* Second priority will be given to projects located in the immediate vicinity of a reservation that will: ( 1 ) Utilize Indian resources, both natural and human.
( 2 ) Create the highest ratio of Indian jobs to the total amount of dollars to be invested, including market value of materials and equipment contributed to the project.
( 3 ) Generate the most non-Bureau financing.
§ 83.39 What is the procedure if the petitioner elects to have a hearing before an ALJ? ( a ) If the petitioner elects a hearing to challenge the proposed finding before an ALJ, OFA will provide to the Departmental Cases Hearings Division, Office of Hearings and Appeals, copies of the negative proposed finding, critical documents from the administrative record that are central to the portions of the negative proposed finding at issue, and any comments and evidence and responses sent in response to the proposed finding. ( 1 ) Within 5 business days after receipt of the petitioner's hearing election, OFA will send notice of the election to each of those listed in § 83.22(d) and the Departmental Cases Hearings Division by express mail or courier service for delivery on the next business day.
( 2 ) OFA will retain custody of the entire, original administrative record.
( b ) *Hearing process.* The assigned ALJ will conduct the hearing process in accordance with 43 CFR part 4, subpart K.
( c ) *Hearing record.* The hearing will be on the record before an ALJ. The hearing record will become part of the record considered by AS-IA in reaching a final determination.
( d ) *Recommended decision.* The ALJ will issue a recommended decision and forward it along with the hearing record to the AS-IA in accordance with the timeline and procedures in 43 CFR part 4, subpart K.