alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| ·   | Servicing criterion 1122(d)(1)(iii) is applicable only with respect to the Company’s continuing obligation to act as, or locate a, successor servicer under the circumstances referred to in certain transaction agreements.  It is management's interpretation that the Company has no other active back-up servicing responsibilities in regards to 1122(d)(1)(iii) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012. Furthermore, Management’s Assertion of Compliance indicates that there were no activities performed related to this criterion during the year ended December 31, 2012 with respect to the Platform, because there were no occurrences of events that would require the Company to perform such activities. |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Servicing criterion 1122(d)(4)(iii) is applicable to the activities the Company performs with respect to the Platform only as it relates to the Company’s obligation to report additions, removals or substitutions on reports to investors in accordance with the transaction agreements.  Furthermore, Management’s Assertion of Compliance indicates that there were no activities performed related to this criterion during the year ended December 31, 2012 with respect to the Platform, because there were no occurrences of events that would require the Company to perform such activities. |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
[Cite as State ex rel. Hayes v. Winkler, 131 Ohio St.3d 66, 2011-Ohio-6046.] 

THE STATE EX REL. HAYES, APPELLANT, v. WINKLER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Hayes v. Winkler, 131 Ohio St.3d 66, 2011-Ohio-6046.] 

Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing complaint for writ of mandamus affirmed. 

(No. 2011-1381—Submitted November 16, 2011—Decided December 1, 2011.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-110365. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 

petition of appellant, Marcus Hayes, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, 

Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Ralph Winkler, to issue a 

judgment on certain postconviction motions in accordance with Civ.R. 58 and 

App.R. 4(A). Insofar as Hayes sought to compel Judge Winkler to rule on his 

motions, the judge has already done so. Mandamus will not compel a judge to 

rule on motions that the judge has already ruled on. State ex rel. Womack v. 

Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-229, 943 N.E.2d 1010, ¶ 10. And as for 

Hayes’s claim that he could not appeal the rulings because the clerk never served 

notice of the judgments on him, he had adequate remedies in the ordinary course 

of law by delayed appeal and motion for relief from judgment to raise his claim. 

State ex rel. McKinney v. Defiance Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 

153, 2009-Ohio-4693, 914 N.E.2d 1044, ¶ 1. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 Marcus Hayes, pro se. 

______________________
### §1863. Permissible bank service company activities for depository institutions

Without regard to the provisions of sections 1864 and 1865 of this title, an insured depository institution may invest in a bank service company that performs, and a bank service company may perform, the following services only for depository institutions: check and deposit sorting and posting, computation and posting of interest and other credits and charges, preparation and mailing of checks, statements, notices, and similar items, or any other clerical, bookkeeping, accounting, statistical, or similar functions performed for a depository institution.

(Pub. L. 87–856, §3, Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1132; Pub. L. 97–320, title VII, §709, Oct. 15, 1982, 96 Stat. 1541; Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title II, §2613(d), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–477; Pub. L. 109–351, title VI, §602(a), Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1978.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2006—Pub. L. 109–351 substituted "insured depository institution" for "insured bank".

1996—Pub. L. 104–208 substituted "company" for "corporation" wherever appearing in section catchline and text.

1982—Pub. L. 97–320 substituted provisions relating to permissible bank service corporation activities for depository institutions for provisions that a bank service corporation must provide bank services to a bank that applied for them if the applying bank competed with a bank which held stock in the corporation unless comparable services were available elsewhere at competitive cost or furnishing the services would be beyond the practical capacity of the corporation.
§ 308.3 Conditions of eligibility to attach certificates. To be eligible to attach the certificate, an enterprise must meet the following conditions: ( a ) It must offer for sale only Indian-made genuine handicraft products, i.e., objects produced by Indian craftsmen with the help of only such devices as allow the manual skill of the maker to condition the shape and design of each individual product.
( b ) It must be entirely Indian owned and organized either by individual Indians or by groups of Indians.
( c ) It must agree to apply certificates of genuineness only to such products as meet the standards of quality prescribed by the Indian Arts and Crafts Board at the time of the application of the enterprise for the privilege of attaching the certificate.
( d ) It must agree to obtain the approval of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board as to the manner of production of the certificates.
**- About Sanctuaries 
- Visiting Sanctuaries 
- News/Events  
- Education  
-  Science    - »  Condition Reports
  - »  Science Needs
  - »  Conservation Series
  - »  Characterization
  - »  Monitoring
  - »  Research
  - »  Historical Ecology
  - »  Socioeconomics
  - »  Publications 
- Management and Resource Protection  
- Maritime Heritage  
- Expeditions 
- Advisory Council
- Multimedia  
- Publications  
- Get Involved 
        
An annotated bibliography of diet studies on fish of the southeast United States and Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary**Katrin E. Marancik1 and Jonathan A. Hare2**1NOAA/Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research2NOAA/NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center
***Conservation***An annotated bibliography of diet studies on fish of the southeast United States and Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary *(pdf, 632K)*One goal of Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) is to protect the unique community found within the Sanctuary's boundaries. An understanding of the ecological interactions, including trophic structure, among these organisms is necessary to realize this goal. Therefore, diet information for 184 fish species was summarized from 113 published studies. Among the fish included are 84 fish species currently known to reside in Gray's Reef NMS. The locations of these studies ranged from the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of the northeast United States to northern Brazil, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean. All of the species described in this bibliography occur in the southeast United States and are, therefore, current or potential residents of Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary. Each entry includes the objectives, brief methods, and conclusions of the article. The bibliography is also indexed by species.**Key Words**: Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary, southeast United States, fish diet, gut contents, marine, estuarine								
**indicates a link leaves the site. Please view our Link Disclaimer for more information.**Revised           September 12, 2023     by Sanctuaries Web Team****|**Contact Us |** Web Site Owner: National Ocean ServiceNational Ocean Service | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | Privacy Policy | For Employees | User Survey     http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/includes/np_footer.html                 

**
### §1750d. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–117, title XI, §1108(aa), Aug. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 507

Section, act June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title IX, §905, as added Sept. 1, 1951, ch. 378, title II, §201, 65 Stat. 301, provided for management of National Defense Housing Insurance Fund, issue and cancellation of debentures, and receipt and payment of charges and fees.
# C_2007056EN.01001501.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/15

---

Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

(Case C-508/06)

(2007/C 56/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Malta

Defendant:

The applicant claim that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Maltese authorities have failed to fulfil their obligations under Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) as read in conjunction with Article 54 of the 2003 Act of Accession. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Maltese authorities have failed to fulfil their obligations under Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) as read in conjunction with Article 54 of the 2003 Act of Accession.

1

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

—

order Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time limit within which the Republic of Malta was required to have communicated the plans and outlines under article 11 of the directive expired on 1 May 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 243, p. 31.

1

---
### Part C—Specific Bureau Authorities
Dismiss and Opinion Filed March 4, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-20-00824-CV

SAM NAEEMIPOOR, Appellant

V.

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 002-02600-2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. After appellant failed to respond to 

our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record, we ordered the appeal submitted without 

a reporter’s record and appellant’s brief to be filed by January 6, 2021. By postcard 

dated January 8, 2021, we notified appellant the time for filing his brief had expired. 

We directed appellant to file a brief and an extension motion within ten days. We 

cautioned appellant that failure to file his brief by that time might result in the 

dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not filed a 
–2–

brief, filed a further extension motion, nor otherwise corresponded with the Court 

regarding the status of this appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c).

200824F.P05

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/

ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SAM NAEEMIPOOR, Appellant

No. 05-20-00824-CV V.

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 2, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 002-02600-

2019.

Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness. Justices Pedersen, III and 

Goldstein participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee MIDLAND FUNDING LLC recover its costs 

of this appeal from appellant SAM NAEEMIPOOR.

Judgment entered this 4th day of March, 2021.
# C_2006294EN.01006801.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/68

---

Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Kerstens v Commission

(Case F-119/06)

(2006/C 294/134)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Petrus J. F. Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of 8 December 2005 of the Board of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) amending the PMO's organisation chart; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 8 December 2005 of the Board of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) amending the PMO's organisation chart;

| — | annul the express decision of the Appointing Authority of 6 July 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint No R/167/06; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the express decision of the Appointing Authority of 6 July 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint No R/167/06;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant a sum assessed on equitable principles at EUR 5 000as damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant a sum assessed on equitable principles at EUR 5 000as damages;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, formerly head of the ‘Resources’ Unit of the PMO, challenges the contested decision of 8 December 2005, which has the effect of reassigning him to a research position. He claims infringement of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations in that the reassignment decision in question is contrary to the interests of the service and does not respect the principle of assignment to an equivalent post. The applicant invokes in the second place infringement of the statutory provisions concerning disciplinary sanctions. Third, he alleges misuse of powers.

---
# C_2006331EN.01002501.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-75/06) (1)

1

(2006/C 331/48)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

1

---
### §178. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–325, title VI, §602(f)(5)(B), Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2293

Section, acts July 12, 1882, ch. 290, §9, 22 Stat. 164; Mar. 14, 1900, ch. 41, §12, 31 Stat. 49; Mar. 4, 1907, ch. 2913, §4, 34 Stat. 1290, authorized national banking associations desiring to withdraw circulating notes to deposit money with Treasurer of United States and withdraw bonds or other securities securing such notes.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Alvin Ray Lilley, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 72-155;

Fifth District

November 25, 1974.

Robert E. Farrell and Michael J. Rosborough, both of State Appellate Defenders Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.

Nicholas G. Byron, State’s Attorney, of Edwardsville (Raymond F. Buckley, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel), for the People.

Opinion by

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE G. MORAN.
Form 7004

(Rev. December 2018) 

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service 

Application for Automatic Extension of Time To File Certain 

Business Income Tax, Information, and Other Returns

▶ File a separate application for each return.

▶ Go to www.irs.gov/Form7004 for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0233 

Print 

or 

Type 

Name Identifying number 

Number, street, and room or suite no. (If P.O. box, see instructions.) 

City, town, state, and ZIP code (If a foreign address, enter city, province or state, and country (follow the country’s practice for entering postal code).)

Note: File request for extension by the due date of the return. See instructions before completing this form.

Part I Automatic Extension for Certain Business Income Tax, Information, and Other Returns. See instructions.

1 Enter the form code for the return listed below that this application is for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Application 

Is For: 

Form 

Code 

Form 706-GS(D) 01

Form 706-GS(T) 02

Form 1041 (bankruptcy estate only) 03

Form 1041 (estate other than a bankruptcy estate) 04

Form 1041 (trust) 05

Form 1041-N 06

Form 1041-QFT 07

Form 1042 08

Form 1065 09

Form 1066 11

Form 1120 12

Form 1120-C 34

Form 1120-F 15

Form 1120-FSC 16

Form 1120-H 17

Form 1120-L 18

Form 1120-ND 19

Application 

Is For: 

Form 

Code 

Form 1120-ND (section 4951 taxes) 20

Form 1120-PC 21

Form 1120-POL 22

Form 1120-REIT 23

Form 1120-RIC 24

Form 1120S 25

Form 1120-SF 26

Form 3520-A 27

Form 8612 28

Form 8613 29

Form 8725 30

Form 8804 31

Form 8831 32

Form 8876 33

Form 8924 35

Form 8928 36

Part II All Filers Must Complete This Part 

2 If the organization is a foreign corporation that does not have an office or place of business in the United States, 

check here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ▶

3 If the organization is a corporation and is the common parent of a group that intends to file a consolidated return, 

check here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ▶

If checked, attach a statement listing the name, address, and employer identification number (EIN) for each member 

covered by this application. 

4 If the organization is a corporation or partnership that qualifies under Regulations section 1.6081-5, check here . ▶

5a The application is for calendar year 20 , or tax year beginning , 20 , and ending , 20 .

b Short tax year. If this tax year is less than 12 months, check the reason: Initial return Final return 

Change in accounting period Consolidated return to be filed Other (See instructions—attach explanation.)

6 Tentative total tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

7 Total payments and credits. See instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

8 Balance due. Subtract line 7 from line 6. See instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

For Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions. Cat. No. 13804A Form 7004 (Rev. 12-2018)
§ 46.10 Eligible activities. ( a ) Subject to availability of funds, funds appropriated for the BIA's Adult Education Program may be used to support local projects or programs designed to: ( 1 ) Enable Indian adults to acquire basic educational skills, including literacy;
( 2 ) Enable Indian adults to continue their education through the secondary school level;
( 3 ) Establish career education projects intended to improve employment opportunities;
( 4 ) Provide educational services or instruction for elderly, disabled, or incarcerated Indian adults;
( 5 ) Prepare individuals to benefit from occupational training; and
( 6 ) Teach employment-related skills.
( b ) Funds should not be used to support programs designed solely to prepare Indian adults to enter a specific occupation or cluster of closely related occupations.
( c ) The Adult Education Program must be implemented in accordance with a plan established by the tribe(s) affected by the program. The tribe(s) may determine to set standards in addition to those established in this part.
#### § 41.9 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart prescribes procedures for providing financial and technical assistance under the TCCUA for the operation and improvement of Tribal colleges and universities and advancement of educational opportunities for Indian students. This subpart does not apply to Diné College.
§ 256.24 How can I be sure that construction work meets minimum standards? ( a ) At various stages of construction, a trained and qualified representative of your servicing housing office or a building inspector will review the work to ensure that it meets construction standards and building codes. Upon completion of each stage, further construction can begin only after the inspection occurs and approval is granted.
( b ) Inspections of construction and renovation will occur, at a minimum, at the following stages: ( 1 ) Upon completion of inspection footings and foundations;
( 2 ) Upon completion of inspection rough-in, roughwiring, and plumbing; and
( 3 ) At final completion.
§ 83.28 When does OFA review for previous Federal acknowledgment? ( a ) OFA reviews the documented petition for previous Federal acknowledgment during the Phase II technical assistance review of the documented petition.
( b ) If OFA cannot verify previous Federal acknowledgment during this technical assistance review, the petitioner must provide additional evidence. If a petitioner claiming previous Federal acknowledgment does not respond or does not demonstrate the claim of previous Federal acknowledgment, OFA will consider its documented petition on the same basis as documented petitions submitted by petitioners not claiming previous Federal acknowledgment.