alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 201.234 Depositions upon written questions. ( a ) *Availability.* Any deposition permitted under § 201.233 may be taken and submitted on written questions upon motion of any party, for good cause shown, or as stipulated by the parties.
( b ) *Procedure.* Written questions shall be filed with the motion. Within 10 days after service of the motion and written questions, any party may file objections to such written questions and any party may file cross-questions. When a deposition is taken pursuant to this section no persons other than the witness, counsel to the witness, the deposition officer, and, if the deposition officer does not act as reporter, a reporter, shall be present at the examination of the witness. No party shall be present or represented unless otherwise permitted by order. The deposition officer shall propound the questions and cross-questions to the witness in the order submitted.
( c ) *Additional requirements.* The order for deposition, filing of the deposition, form of the deposition and use of the deposition in the record shall be governed by paragraphs (c) through (l) of § 201.233, except that no cross-examination shall be made.
[60 FR 32796, June 23, 1995, as amended at 81 FR 50238, July 29, 2016]
Power of Attorney


Know all by these presents, that the undersigned (the "Reporting Person")
hereby constitutes and appoints each of Melanie A. DeMorrow, Assistant Vice
President-Shareholder Relations; Richard M. Lavers, Secretary; Joseph P.
Tomczak, Executive Vice President & C.F.O.; Ellen C. Padesky, Assistant
Secretary; and Jessica L. Long, Assistant Secretary,  signing singly, as the
Reporting Person's true and lawful attorney-in-fact, to:

(1) execute for and on behalf of the Reporting Person, in the Reporting
Person's capacity as an officer or trustee of Coachmen Industries, Inc.
(the "Company"), Forms 3, 4, and 5 and such other similar forms as may be
required for filing in accordance with Section 16(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and the rules
thereunder;

(2) do and perform all acts for and on behalf of the Reporting Person
which may be necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such forms
and timely file such forms with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission and any stock exchange or similar authority or other federal
agency; and

(3) take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the
foregoing which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit
to, and in the best interest of, or legally required by, the Reporting
Person.

The Reporting Person hereby grants to each such attorney-in-fact full power and
authority to do and perform any and every act and thing whatsoever requisite,
necessary, or proper to be done in the exercise of any of the rights and powers
herein granted, as fully to all intents and purposes as the Reporting Person
might or could do if personally present, with full power of substitution or
revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact, or
such attorney-in-facts substitute or substitutes, shall lawfully do or cause to
be done by the virtue of this Power of Attorney and the rights and powers
herein granted.  The Reporting Person acknowledges that the foregoing
attorneys-in fact, in serving in such capacity at the request of the Reporting
Person, are not assuming, nor is the company assuming, any of the Reporting
Persons responsibilities to comply with any of the above specified laws or
regulations.

This Power of Attorney shall remain in full force and effect until the
Reporting Person is no longer required to file such forms with respect to the
Reporting Person's holdings of and transactions in securities issued by the
Company, unless earlier revoked by the Reporting Person in a signed writing
delivered to the Secretary of  the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Reporting Person has caused this Power of Attorney to
be executed as of this 14th day of September, 2003.


						s/Edwin W. Miller
### Part B—Development of New Communities
# Subpart 3414.4—Opening of Bids and Award of Contract

**Parent topic:**PART 3414—SEALED BIDDING

## 3414.407 Mistakes in bids.

## 3414.407-3 Other mistakes disclosed before award.

Authority is delegated to the HCA to make determinations under FAR 14.407–3(a) through (d).
#### § 20.2 Covered contracts.

The futures and option contracts listed by designated contract markets for the purpose of reports filed and information provided under this part are as follows:

| Chicago Board of Trade (“CBOT”) Corn. |
| --- |
| CBOT Ethanol. |
| CBOT Oats. |
| CBOT Rough Rice. |
| CBOT Soybean Meal. |
| CBOT Soybean Oil. |
| CBOT Soybeans. |
| CBOT Wheat. |
| Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) Butter. |
| CME Cheese. |
| CME Dry Whey. |
| CME Feeder Cattle. |
| CME Hardwood Pulp. |
| CME Lean Hogs. |
| CME Live Cattle. |
| CME Milk Class III. |
| CME Non Fat Dry Milk. |
| CME Random Length Lumber. |
| CME Softwood Pulp. |
| COMEX (“CMX”) Copper Grade #1. |
| CMX Gold. |
| CMX Silver. |
| ICE Futures U.S. (“ICUS”) Cocoa. |
| ICUS Coffee C. |
| ICUS Cotton No. 2. |
| ICUS Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice. |
| ICUS Sugar No. 11. |
| ICUS Sugar No. 16. |
| Kansas City Board of Trade (“KCBT”) Wheat. |
| Minneapolis Grain Exchange (“MGEX”) Wheat. |
| NYSELiffe (“NYL”) Gold, 100 Troy Oz. |
| NYL Silver, 5000 Troy Oz. |
| New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”) Cocoa. |
| NYMEX Brent Financial. |
| NYMEX Central Appalachian Coal. |
| NYMEX Coffee. |
| NYMEX Cotton. |
| NYMEX Crude Oil, Light Sweet. |
| NYMEX Gasoline Blendstock (RBOB). |
| NYMEX Hot Rolled Coil Steel. |
| NYMEX Natural Gas. |
| NYMEX No. 2 Heating Oil, New York Harbor. |
| NYMEX Palladium. |
| NYMEX Platinum. |
| NYMEX Sugar No. 11. |
| NYMEX Uranium. |
| Diversified Commodity Index (See § 20.11). |

Covered Agricultural and Exempt Futures Contracts
No: 16-056 September 21, 2016

Contact: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC to Hold Mandatory Hearing on William States Lee

New Reactor Application Oct. 5 in Rockville, Md.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct a mandatory hearing Wednesday, Oct. 5, on 

an application for Combined Licenses to build and operate two new reactors at the William States Lee

site in South Carolina. This hearing marks the final step in the agency’s Part 52 reactor licensing 

process.

“My fellow Commissioners and I look forward to carefully evaluating whether the available

safety and environmental review evidence supports the necessary regulatory findings for the licenses,” 

said NRC Chairman Stephen G. Burns. “The complex job of reviewing these applications is a critical 

part of our regulatory and safety mission.”

The Commission’s hearing will include testimony and exhibits from applicant Duke Energy 

Carolinas (Duke), as well as NRC staff, on the question of whether the staff’s review adequately 

supports the findings necessary to issue the licenses.

The hearing will begin at 9 a.m. on Oct. 5 in the Commission Hearing Room at NRC 

Headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. The hearing will be open to public observation 

and will be webcast. A detailed agenda and presentation slides will be available in advance on the 

Commission’s meeting transcript page.

Duke is applying for permission to build and operate two AP1000 reactors at the site, near 

Gaffney in Cherokee County, S.C. Duke submitted the application on Dec. 12, 2007. The NRC 

certified the 1,100-megawatt AP1000 design in 2011; more information on the certification process is 

available on the NRC website.

The NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards independently reviewed aspects of the 

application that concern safety, as well as the staff’s final safety evaluation report . The committee 

provided the results of its review to the Commission on Dec. 14, 2015. The NRC completed its 

environmental review and issued the final impact statement for the proposed William States Lee 

reactors in December 2013.

Media Notes: At this time, this event will be open for television; the agency reserves the right 

to seek a mandatory pool if demand exceeds available space. Seats on one side of the Commission 

hearing room will be reserved for accredited members of the news media. Photographers will have 

limited space at the meeting in which to take photos. Movement must be kept to a minimum so as not to 

be distracting and entry into the inner well closest to the Commission briefing table is prohibited.
Page | 2

Plan to arrive in advance of the meeting at the NRC’s One White Flint North entrance, at the 

corner of Rockville Pike and Marinelli Road, with proper media credentials. The NRC is located across 

the street from the White Flint Metro station. Parking is available at the White Flint metro parking 

garage on Marinelli Road. Members of the media are asked to call the NRC Office of Public Affairs 

(301-415-8200) in advance to provide the names of those attending the meeting to assure sufficient 

seating.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: EWB-I, LLC v. PlazAmericas Mall Texas, LLC; Sharpstown Mall 

Texas, LLC; Burlington Coat Factory Realty of Bellaire, Inc.; Mai & 

Matthew, R.E.I., Inc.; CCW, LLC; Smith, FLP, Ltd.; and LG 

Sharpstown Bellaire, LLC

Appellate case number: 01-15-00527-CV

Trial court case number: 2010-71771

Trial court: 215th District Court of Harris County

Appellant EWB-I, LLC appeals the trial court’s order dismissing its declaratoryjudgement claims. In those claims, EWB raised the issues of changed conditions and waiver. 

Each Appellee is hereby ORDERED to provide the Court with the following:

(1) a statement whether the responding Appellee moved for judgment that EWB 

could not prevail as a matter of law on the basis of waiver; and

(2) if the responding Appellee did, the citation to the record where the motion and 

corresponding order are located.

Appellees are ordered to provide this information no later tomorrow, May 25, 2017 at 

4:00 pm.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _Harvey Brown______________________________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: _May 24, 2017_____________________
### §16917. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 16917 was editorially reclassified as section 20919 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                18 U.S.C. ss.1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of ASB Holding Company ("the Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  December 31, 2004 (the  "Report") as filed
with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof,  we Joseph
Kliminski, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Eric Heyer, Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer,  certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13 (a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2. The information contained in such Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of
     operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods  presented in
the financial statements included in such report.




Dated: February 14, 2005      /s/Joseph Kliminski
                              ------------------------------------------------
                              Joseph Kliminski
                              President and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: February 14, 2005      /s/Eric B. Heyer
                              ------------------------------------------------
                              Eric B. Heyer
                              Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 10.36 Commission review of rulings.

Interlocutory review by the Commission of a ruling as to matters within the scope of § 10.33, § 10.34 or § 10.35 may be sought in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 10.101 of these rules without certification by the Administrative Law Judge.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:National Fire Plan research and development. Business summary.**
 
2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004-2005
 
SuDoc Number:A 1.38:
Item Number:0084
CGP systemNumber:000571999
 
July 10, 2018
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Enrique Hernandez, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 141]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrero, J.), imposed July 18, 2005, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Krausman, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED (Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

HaroldG. Giomi certifies as follows:

 

1.               I am the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of The Bank Holdings.

 

2.               The Form 10-Q of TheBank Holdings for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthe information contained in the report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TheBank Holdings.

 

 
| Date:  | August 19,  2009                        |   | /s/  Harold G. Giomi |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------|
|   | THE  BANK HOLDINGS                           |
|   | Harold  G. Giomi                             |
|   | Chairman &  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 3, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1763

Lower Tribunal No. 94-20024A

________________

Jean Desroses,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge. 

Jean Desroses, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238, 243 (Fla. 2007) 

(holding that the “could have been imposed” test is the proper one to apply 

to a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence resulting from a 

scoresheet error, and that “if the trial court could have imposed the same 

sentence using a corrected scoresheet, any error was harmless”); Masis v. 

State, 245 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
### §15607. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15607 was editorially reclassified as section 30307 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 22.10 Application of other regulatory provisions.

Sections 1.27, 1.28, 1.29, and 1.30 of this chapter shall apply to the Cleared Swaps Customer Collateral in accordance with the terms therein.

[77 FR 66335, Nov. 2, 2012]
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-2 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify andrepresent that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofMarch 20, 2019, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-2 and Wilmington Trust, National Association (the “Agreement”) duringthe period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 

 
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By: /s/ Marc WomackName: Marc WomackTitle: EVP, Head of OperationsDate: March 31, 2023By: /s/ Vikas GuptaName: Vikas GuptaTitle: TreasurerDate: March 31, 2023**
§ 229.1002 (Item 1002) Subject company information. ( a ) *Name and address.* State the name of the subject company (or the issuer in the case of an issuer tender offer), and the address and telephone number of its principal executive offices.
( b ) *Securities.* State the exact title and number of shares outstanding of the subject class of equity securities as of the most recent practicable date. This may be based upon information in the most recently available filing with the Commission by the subject company unless the filing person has more current information.
( c ) *Trading market and price.* Identify the principal market in which the subject securities are traded and state the high and low sales prices for the subject securities in the principal market (or, if there is no principal market, the range of high and low bid quotations and the source of the quotations) for each quarter during the past two years. If there is no established trading market for the securities (except for limited or sporadic quotations), so state.
( d ) *Dividends.* State the frequency and amount of any dividends paid during the past two years with respect to the subject securities. Briefly describe any restriction on the subject company's current or future ability to pay dividends. If the filing person is not the subject company, furnish this information to the extent known after making reasonable inquiry.
( e ) *Prior public offerings.* If the filing person has made an underwritten public offering of the subject securities for cash during the past three years that was registered under the Securities Act of 1933 or exempt from registration under Regulation A (§ 230.251 through § 230.263 of this chapter), state the date of the offering, the amount of securities offered, the offering price per share (adjusted for stock splits, stock dividends, etc. as appropriate) and the aggregate proceeds received by the filing person.
( f ) *Prior stock purchases.* If the filing person purchased any subject securities during the past two years, state the amount of the securities purchased, the range of prices paid and the average purchase price for each quarter during that period. Affiliates need not give information for purchases made before becoming an affiliate.
3403.906 Remedies.

(a) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 3.906.

Parent topic: Subpart 3403.9—Whistleblower Protections for Contractor Employees
#### In the Matter of Robert W.A. McNair, Respondent, v Natoye M. Bennett, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Natoye M. Bennett, Appellant, v Robert W. McNair, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[819 NYS2d 838]

In related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the mother appeals, by permission, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated October 26, 2005, as granted those branches of the father’s motion which were pursuant to CPLR 2308 (a) to impose a sanction on her for her failure to comply with an order dated August 17, 2005, and so-ordered subpoenaes duces tecum, and awarded the father the sum of $350 plus a statutory penalty in the sum of $50.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Family Court properly granted those branches of the father’s motion which were to impose a sanction on the mother for her failure to comply with an order dated August 17, 2005 and so-ordered subpoenaes duces tecum. The subpoenaes duces tecum at issue were a form of compulsory process under CPLR article 23 and not a disclosure device, in that they directed the mother to bring specified documents to court for use at a hearing or trial, enabling the court to examine the items and make appropriate direction regarding their use *(see*CPLR 2301; *People v*Cortez, 149 Misc 2d 886, 888 [1990]). As such, there was no requirement that the father’s attorney provide an affirmation of a good faith effort to resolve a disclosure dispute *(see*22 NYCRR 202.7 [a] [2]; *cf. Fanelli v Fanelli,*296 AD2d 373 [2002]; *Romero v Korn,*236 AD2d 598 [1997]). Additionally, the sanction imposed by the Family Court pursuant to CPLR 2308 (a) was appropriate as, contrary to the mother’s contention, she did not comply with the order dated August 17, 2005 and the so-ordered subpoenaes duces tecum because the telephone records produced were not from her cellular telephone account and did not correspond to the time period requested, i.e., April 19, 2005 through April 21, 2005. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### § 240.6 Interstate commerce.

The term “interstate commerce” has not been precisely defined in the statute. In general, if there is any part of a business which is not wholly within one state (for example, sales or deliveries of products, their subsequent distribution or purchase, or delivery of supplies or raw materials), the business may be subject to sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Act. (The commerce standard for sections 2(d) and (e) is at least as inclusive as the commerce standard for section 2(a).) Sales or promotional offers within the District of Columbia and most United States possessions are also covered by the Act.