alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 260
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 260 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 260.10a-5 Eligibility of Canadian Trustees. ( a ) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, any trust company, acting as trustee under an indenture qualified or to be qualified under the Act and filed in connection with offerings on a registration statement on Form S-1 (§ 239.11 of this chapter) F-7, F-8, F-9, F-10 or F-80 (§§ 239.37 through 239.41 of this chapter) that is incorporated and regulated as a trust company under the laws of Canada or any of its political subdivisions and that is subject to supervision or examination pursuant to the Trust Companies Act (Canada), R.S.C. 1985, or the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, R.S.C. 1985 shall not be subject to the requirement of domicile in the United States under section 310(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 77jjj(a)).
( b ) Each trustee eligible for appointment under this section (17 CFR 260.10a-5) shall file as part of the registration statement for the securities to which the trusteeship relates a consent to service of process and power of attorney on Form F-X (§ 269.5 of this chapter).
[56 FR 30077, July 1, 1991, as amended at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992; 58 FR 33191, June 16, 1993; 73 FR 983, Jan. 4, 2008]
#### § 1422.15 Transfer of case to the Board; contents of record.

Upon the close of the hearing the case is transferred automatically to the Board. The record of the proceeding shall include the petition, notice of hearing, service sheet, motions, rulings, orders, official transcript of the hearing with any corrections thereto, stipulations, objections, depositions, interrogatories, exhibits, documentary evidence, and any briefs or other documents submitted by the parties.
EXHIBIT 10.14

    AGREEMENT ON TRUST OF SHARE EQUITY OF HENAN ZHONGPIN FOOD SHARE CO., LTD.
        DATED MAY 23, 2005 BETWEEN ZHU XIAN FU, BEN BAO KE, SI SHUI CHI,
           WANG QING HE, LIU ZHAO YANG AND WANG JUAN JUAN ("TRUSTORS")
                  AND HENAN ZHONGPIN FOOD CO., LTD. ("TRUSTEE")

             Zhu Xian Fu, Ben Bao Ke, Si Shui Chi, Wang Qing He, Liu Zhao Yang,
and Wang Juan Juan ("Trustors"), who jointly hold 10% equity interest of the
Henan Zhongpin Food Share Co., Ltd. (the "Operating Company"), agree to transfer
their 10% equity interest to Henan Zhongpin Food Co., Ltd.("Trustee") in trust.
Upon completion of the transfer, the Trustee shall control all the corporate
rights and interests in the Operating Company.
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, CoreyHenry, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-4 (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement inall material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included inthis report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: WilmingtonTrust, National Association. 

 
By: /s/ Corey HenryName: Corey HenryTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date: March 31, 2023**
532.7204 Suspension and disapproval of

amounts claimed.

(a) The contracting officer shall notify the appropriate contract finance office in writing when

amounts claimed for payment are—

(1) Suspended;

(2) Disapproved as not being allowable according to contract terms; or

(3) Not allocable to the contract.

(b) The contracting officer’s notice forms the basis for the contract finance office to issue GSA Form

533-1, Administrative Difference Statement. Finance will attach a copy of GSA Form 533-1 to each

copy of the invoice or voucher from which the deduction has been made, and will include an

explanation of the deduction.

Parent topic: Subpart 532.72 - Payments Under Contracts Subject to Audit
###### Editorial Note on Part 143

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 143 appear at 68 FR 51360, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 143.11 Standards.

The standards each agency uses to determine whether an age distinction or age-related term is prohibited are set out in part 90 (primarily subpart B) of 45 CFR.
§ 1508.400 May I enter into a transaction with an excluded or disqualified person? ( a ) You as an agency official may not enter into a covered transaction with an excluded person unless you obtain an exception under § 1508.120.
( b ) You may not enter into any transaction with a person who is disqualified from that transaction, unless you obtain a waiver or exception under the statute, Executive order, or regulation that is the basis for the person's disqualification.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Moe Stillman, Also Known as Moses E. Stillman, Appellant.

Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ. Motion for reargument denied. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 617.]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wallace Romero, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 17, 1976, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant raises as his sole ground for appeal that he was deprived of due process of law by the failure of his counsel to furnish him with effective legal representation by neglecting to advise him of possible defenses he might have to the crimes with which he had been charged. The minutes at the time of the change of plea makes it clear that prior to that change, the defendant was thoroughly apprised of the possible defenses, had adequate opportunity to consult with counsel thereon and made his election to plead guilty knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. It is clear, therefore, that in changing his plea the aid which he received from counsel was assistive and not so inadequate and ineffective as to render the proceeding a farce and a mockery of justice (see *People v LaBree,*34 NY2d 257). Rather, this appeal is an instance of the "penetrating hindsight” which a convicted person often develops after a period of imprisonment "as to how his counsel should have conducted the trial” *(People v LaBree, supra,*p 258; see, also, *People v Fryson,*36 Misc 2d 73, 76). Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
§ 1006.200 What is a covered transaction? A covered transaction is a nonprocurement or procurement transaction that is subject to the prohibitions of this part. It may be a transaction at— ( a ) The primary tier, between a Federal agency and a person (see appendix to this part); or
( b ) A lower tier, between a participant in a covered transaction and another person.
#### § 120.58 Subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

Items *subject to the EAR* are those items listed on the Commerce Control List in part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and all other items that meet the definition of that term in accordance with § 734.3 of the EAR. The EAR is found at 15 CFR parts 730 through 774.
517.502-70 Information Technology Procurements. 		    (a)  The requesting agency is responsible for the required information technology coordination and approval outlined in Federal Information and Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) (Pub L. No. 113-291) if the procurement involves information technology for the use of the requesting agency and not for GSA use. This requirement for CIO coordination by the requesting agency should be confirmed by GSA as the servicing agency by ensuring this CIO coordination requirement is documented in the interagency agreement or a separate document. 				         				         					          (b) The requesting agency is responsible for identifying any special or higher level requirements for network connectivity (e.g. security, basic connectivity and communications) beyond the minimum Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) requirements in FAR 11.002(g) for information technology that will have the capability to access the Internet or any network utilizing Internet protocol (IPv4 or IPv6). The special or higher level requirements as well as any deviation from the requirement in FAR 11.002(g) shall be documented in the interagency agreement. 	  **Parent topic:** 517.502 Procedures.
### §13523. Management plan

#### (a) Plan preparation

The Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory Board established under section 13522 of this title, shall prepare a management plan for the conduct of research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of energy technologies that is consistent with the goals stated in section 13401 of this title.

#### (b) Contents of plan

The management plan under subsection (a) shall provide for—

(1) investigation of promising energy and energy efficiency resource technologies that have been identified as potentially significant future contributors to national energy security;

(2) development of energy and energy efficiency resource technologies that have the potential to reduce energy supply vulnerability, and to minimize adverse impacts on the environment, the global climate, and the economy; and

(3) creation of opportunities for export of energy and energy efficiency resource technologies from the United States that can enhance the Nation's competitiveness.

#### (c) Energy technology inventory and status report

As part of the management plan, the Secretary, with the advice of the Advisory Board established under section 13522 of this title, shall develop an inventory and status report of technologies to enhance energy supply and to improve the efficiency of energy end uses. The inventory and status report shall include fossil, renewable, nuclear, and energy conservation technologies which have not yet achieved the status of fully reliable and cost-competitive commercial availability, but which the Secretary projects may become available with additional research, development, and demonstration. The inventory and status report shall provide, for each technology—

(1) an assessment of its—

(A) degree of technological maturity; and

(B) principal research, development, and demonstration issues, including—

(i) the barriers posed by capital, operating, and maintenance costs;

(ii) technical performance; and

(iii) potential environmental impacts;

(2) the projected time frame for commercial availability, specifying at a minimum whether the technology will be commercially available in the near-term, mid-term, or long-term, whether there are too many uncertainties to project availability, or whether it is unlikely that the technology will ever be commercial; and

(3) a projection of the future cost-competitiveness of the technology in comparison with alternative technologies to provide the same energy service.

#### (d) Public comment

The Secretary shall publish the proposed management plan for a written public comment period of at least 90 days. The Secretary shall consider such comments and include a summary thereof in the management plan.

#### (e) Plan submission

Within one year after October 24, 1992, the Secretary shall submit the first management plan under this section to Congress. Thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a revised management plan biennially, at the time of submittal of the President's annual budget submission to the Congress.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title XXIII, §2304, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3093.)
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied , Motion for Emergency Relief Denied

as Moot, and Memorandum Opinion filed October 9, 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00802

- CR NO. 14

- 14

- 00803

- CR NO. 14

- 14

- 00804

- CR

IN RE TIFFANY DAVIS AND NAYAJAH D AVIS , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1412474 , 1412475, 1412476



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 7, 2014, relator s Tiffany Davis and Nayajah Davis filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator s ask this c ourt to compel the Honorable Denise Bradley , presiding judge of the 262nd District Court of Harris County, to vacate a purported order g ranting a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum filed2

by real party in interest Harris County Precinct One Constable’s Office

. Also on
October 7, 2014 , relator s filed a motion for emergency relief , asking this c ourt to stay the trial scheduled in the unde rlying proceedings pending this c ourt’s
consideration of relator s ’ petition

. Relators have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny as moot relator s’ motion for emergency relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices McCally, Brown, and Wise.
Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47 .2(b).
### §2037. Repealed. Pub. L. 99–661, div. C, title I, §3137(c), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 4066

Section, act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, §27, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 926; amended Aug. 14, 1964, Pub. L. 88–426, title III, §305(10)(B), 78 Stat. 423, related to Military Liaison Committee, its composition and duties, and authority of Defense Department to make recommendations to Committee.
SCWC-17-0000696

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

________________________________________________________________

MJ,

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

CR,

Respondent/Defendant-Appellant,

and

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, STATE OF HAWAIʻI,

Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-17-0000696; FC-P NO. 16-1-6470)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee MJ’s application for 

writ of certiorari filed on October 18, 2021, is hereby 

rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, December 6, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-17-0000696

06-DEC-2021

12:33 PM

Dkt. 13 ODAC
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RYAN FREDELL
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 34

[ March 9, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; Dan L. Vaughn , Judge; L.T. Case No.

312020CF000575A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Cynthia L. Anderson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, Assistant Attorney Genera l, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

We affirm on all arguments which the defendant has raised in his appeal from his sentence of thirty

- six months in prison, with credit for 234 days’ time served. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the

de fendant’s ability to file a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion directed to defense counsel’s lack of objection to judicial fact

finding on the issue of whether severe victim injury points should have been included in determining the range of t he defendant’s sentence. We

make no statement on whether such a motion would have merit.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN
, G ERBER and F ORST
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 10.21 Commencement of the proceeding.

An adjudicatory proceeding is commenced when a complaint and notice of hearing is filed with the Office of Proceedings.

[63 FR 55791, Oct. 19, 1998; 63 FR 68829, Dec. 14, 1998]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS RESTATED SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF THE CLOROX COMPANY, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, AS
PRESENTED IN THE CLOROX COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR SUCH PERIOD AND RESTATED HEREIN,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           62579
<SECURITIES>                                     38467
<RECEIVABLES>                                   343417
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1521
<INVENTORY>                                     170340
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                658397
<PP&E>                                         1045407
<DEPRECIATION>                                  474762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2762852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           877618
<BONDS>                                         565926
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        110844
<OTHER-SE>                                      925202
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2762852
<SALES>                                        2532651
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2532651
<CGS>                                          1123459
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2066273
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (5260)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               55623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 416015
<INCOME-TAX>                                    166573
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             249442
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    249442
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.37
        


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

 FILED: OCTOBER 16 , 2018

No. 17-1040

OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,

PETITIONER

v.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,

RESPONDENT

LSP TRANSMISSION HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.,

INTERVENORS

Consolidated with 17-1041

On Petition for Rehearing and/or Clarification

and Motion for Clarification

Before: HENDERSON**, KAVANAUGH*, and KATSAS**, CIRCUIT JUDGES

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for panel rehearing and/or

clarification filed by Intervenor-respondents Exelon Corporation, et al.,

and the motion for clarification filed by Intervenor-respondents Linden

VFT, LLC and Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, the opposition

thereto, and the reply, it is
2

ORDERED that the petition for rehearing and/or clarification

be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for clarification be

denied.

Per Curiam

 FOR THE COURT: 

 Mark J. Langer, Clerk

 BY: /s/ 

 Ken Meadows

 Deputy Clerk 

* Circuit Judge, now Justice, Kavanaugh was a member of the panel

when the case was submitted but did not participate in this matter.

** A statement by Circuit Judge Katsas, joined by Circuit Judge

Henderson, is attached.
3

KATSAS, Circuit Judge: The petition for panel rehearing or

clarification filed by intervenor Exelon Corporation and others is denied. 

The panel opinion “hold[s] only that FERC did not adequately justify its

approval of the [tariff] amendment at issue.” Old Dominion Elec. Coop.

v. FERC, 898 F.3d 1254, 1263 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Nothing in the opinion

prevents FERC on remand from attempting to “provide a better

justification for its approval of the tariff amendment,” as Exelon would

like. Pet. at 2. Accordingly, there is no need for clarification.

The motion for clarification filed by intervenors Consolidated

Edison and Linden VFT is denied. Because the panel opinion set aside

FERC’s approval of the proposed tariff amendment, the unamended tariff

remains in effect. On remand, the parties remain free to address the

appropriate treatment of low-voltage or other facilities, either under the

unamended tariff or under anyproposed tariff amendment that FERC may

now wish to consider. We express no opinion regarding the appropriate

treatment of the contested Sewaren project—an issue not addressed in the

orders under review.
----

----

| INDIANA                                  |   | 1-7160                   |   | 35-1101097          |
|------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|---------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction             |   | (Commission File Number) |   | (I.R.S. Employer    |
| of incorporation or organization)        |   |                     |   | Identification No.) |
|                                     |   |                     |   |                |
| 2831 Dexter Drive, Elkhart, Indiana      |   |                     |   | 46514               |
| (Address of Principal Executive Offices) |   |                     |   | (Zip Code)          |
|                                     |   |                     |   |                |
|                                     |   | (574) 266-2500           |   |                |
| (Registrant’s telephone number,    |
| including area code)                     |
|                                     |   |                     |   |                |
|                                     |   | N / A                    |   |                |
| (Former Name or Former Address,          |
| if Changed Since Last Report)            |

| □ | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)                  |
|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| □ | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)                 |
| □ | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
| □ | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |

----

| (d)   | The following exhibit is furnished as a part of this Report: |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| Date:  | February 16, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/ James T. Holden        |
|--------|-------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------|
|   |              |   |   |                       |
|   |              |   |   | James T. Holden, Secretary |
|   |              |   |   | Printed Name and Title     |

----

----