alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>



Exhibit 99.1        Officer's Certificate regarding Annual Statement of
                    Compliance of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.

                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

The undersigned officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies on behalf of the Company
and on his own behalf for purposes of the WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2004-AR10, as follows:

1. I am a duly appointed and qualified First Vice President of the Company.

2. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement related to the
above-referenced series of Certificates.

3. I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate on
behalf of the Company.

4. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and performance under this Agreement has been made under my
supervision.

5. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 29, 2005.





                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.


                     By: /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann
                         -------------------------------------
                         Thomas G. Lehmann
                         First Vice President
----

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

|   | (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 results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Peter T.                Socha                                                   Peter                T. SochaPresident                and Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 60373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24335]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / 
Notices

[[Page 60373]]

AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION

Board of Directors Executive Session Meeting

    Meeting: African Development Foundation, Board of Directors 
Executive Session Meeting.
    Time: Thursday, October 11, 2012, 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
    Place: Teleconference.
    Date: Thursday, October 11, 2012.
    Status:
    1. Closed session, Thursday, October 11, 2012, 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Lloyd O. Pierson,
President & CEO, United States African Development Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2012-24335 Filed 10-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
### **CHAPTER 702—MULTIMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND INFORMATION**

Sec.
70201.
State freight advisory committees.
70202.
State freight plans.
70203.
Transportation investment data and planning tools.
70204.
Multi-State freight corridor planning.
70205.
National multimodal cooperative freight research program.
70206.
Savings provision.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2021**—Pub. L. 117–58, div. B, title I, §§21106(b), 21204(b), Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 662, 679, added items 70204 to 70206 and struck out former item 70204 "Savings provision".
#### William X. Scheinman, Respondent, v. Selvage & Lee, Inc., Appellant.

Order entered March 6, 1963, insofar as appealed from, and except as to the item of police reports which is conceded to be proper, unanimously reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant. The items stricken are objectionable in that they seek information not relevant to the matter pleaded in the affirmative defenses or because the information is evidentiary in nature and, therefore, not properly obtainable through the office of a bill of particulars. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2434

_____________________________

LEESBURG REGIONAL MEDICAL 

CENTER and CLARENDON 

NATIONAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY/CARRIER & ENSTAR (US)

INC./SA,

Appellants,

v.

PATRICIA STEPHENS,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Margaret E. Sojourner, Judge.

Date of Accident: December 5, 2000.

January 26, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and LEWIS and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized 

motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

_____________________________

Robert B. Griffis of Jones, Hurley & Hand, P.A., Orlando, for 

Appellants.

Mark N. Tipton and Daniel L. Hightower, Ocala, for Appellee.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 22 99

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Jo se So req ue -San do va l
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.
Eric H. Hold er, J r., Att or ne y Gene ral of Un it edSta te s
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lResp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Marc h 2 7, 2 01 4 Fi le d: Apri l 4 , 20 14 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, COLLOTO N, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Mex ic an ci ti zen Jo se So req ue -San do va l pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of an or de r of th e Bo ard of Im

m ig rat io n App eal s (BIA), up ho ld in g an imm ig rat io n jud ge ’s de ni al of hi s
m ot io n to reo pe n rem ov al pr oc eed in gs , a nd de nyin g hi s r e q u es t to rem an d hi s cas e to th e imm ig rat io n jud ge
. Upo n care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at we la ck juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e ag en cy ’s de ci si on no t to ex erci se it s di sc ret io na ry “ su a sp on te ”au th or it y to reo pe n th e rem ov al pr oc eed in gs
. See Tam en ut v. Mu ka se y , 52 1 F.3 d

10 00 , 10 01 , 10 04 -0 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (en ba nc ) (p er cu ria m ). W e fu rth er co nc lu de th at th e BIA di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n ei th er in up ho l d i n g t h e imm ig rat io n jud ge ’s de te rm in at io n th at So req ue -San do va l’s m ot io n to reo pe n was un ti m el y , se e Vale nc ia

v. Hol de r, 65 7 F.3 d 74 5, 74 8- 49 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (BIA di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in up ho ld in g de ni al of un ti m el y m ot io n to reo pe n) , or in de nyin g hi s req ue st fo r a
rem an d, se e Cl ift on v. Hol de r, 59 8 F.3 d 48 6, 49 0- 93 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (d en ia l of req ue st fo r rem an d is rev ie wed fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n) . Accor di ng ly, we de ny t he pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w. See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
June 4, 2008

The Board of Directors

General Communication, Inc. and Subsidiaries:

We have been furnished with a copy of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of General Communication, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2008, and have read the Company's statements contained in Note 1(h) to the interim consolidated financial statements included therein. As stated in Note 1(h), the Company changed its method of accounting for recording depreciation in the year property and equipment is placed in service from the half-year convention to the mid-month convention. The Company states that the newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances because it more precisely recognizes depreciation expense over the estimated useful life of the asset. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and discussed with Company officials the circumstances and business judgment and planning upon which the decision to make this change in the method ofaccounting was based.

We have not audited any financial statements of the Company as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 2007, nor have we audited the information set forth in the aforementioned Note 1(h) to the interim consolidated financial statements; accordingly, we do not express an opinion concerning the factual information contained therein.

With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another acceptable method. However, for purposes of the Company's compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter.

Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management's business judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is preferable in the Company's circumstances.

Very truly yours,

(Signed) KPMG LLP

Anchorage, Alaska
----

| Entity                                        | Jurisdiction      of Organization | Name Under      Which Subsidiary Does Business                                                    |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Alaska United      Fiber System Partnership   | Alaska                            | Alaska United      Fiber System Partnership, Alaska United Fiber System, Alaska      United  |
| Alaska      DigiTel, LLC                      | Alaska                            | Alaska      DigiTel, DigiTel                                                                      |
| Alaska      Wireless Internet, LLC            | Alaska                            | Alaska      Wireless Internet, LLC, Alaska Wireless Internet                                      |
| Alaska      Wireless, LLC                     | Alaska                            | Alaska      Wireless, LLC, Alaska Wireless                                                        |
| Firelake      Partners, LLC                   | Alaska                            | Firelake      Partners, LLC                                                                       |
| GCI      Communication Corp.                  | Alaska                            | GCI, GCC,      GCICC, GCI Communication Corp.                                                |
| GCI Cable,      Inc.                          | Alaska                            | GCI Cable,      GCI Cable, Inc.                                                              |
| GCI Holdings,      Inc.                       | Alaska                            | GCI Holdings,      Inc.                                                                      |
| Potter View      Development Co., Inc.        | Alaska                            | Potter View      Development Co., Inc.                                                       |
| GCI Fiber      Communication, Co., Inc.  | Alaska                            | GCI Fiber      Communication, Co., Inc., GFCC,  Kanas                              |
| Unicom,      Inc.                             | Alaska                            | Unicom, Inc.,      Unicom                                                                         |
| United-KUC,      Inc.                         | Alaska                            | United-KUC,      Inc., United-KUC, KUC                                                            |
| United      Utilities, Inc.                   | Alaska                            | United      Utilities, Inc. United Utilities,UUI                                                  |

----
### §22906. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for capital grants under this chapter the following amounts:

(1) For fiscal year 2009, $100,000,000.

(2) For fiscal year 2010, $300,000,000.

(3) For fiscal year 2011, $400,000,000.

(4) For fiscal year 2012, $500,000,000.

(5) For fiscal year 2013, $600,000,000.

(Added Pub. L. 110–432, div. B, title III, §301(a), Oct. 16, 2008, 122 Stat. 4946, §24406; renumbered §22906, Pub. L. 115–420, §7(a)(1), Jan. 3, 2019, 132 Stat. 5445.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2019—Pub. L. 115–420 renumbered section 24406 of this title as this section.
#### Bernhard P. Takacs, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Rita Takacs, et al., Appellants, v Food Stop Markets, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. Drackett Products Company et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v Attila Takacs, Third-Party Defendant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 11, 1977, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for reargument of defendants’ prior motion for leave to serve an amended answer asserting the exclusive remedy of workmen’s compensation as an affirmative defense, and for a stay of plaintiffs’ action pending a determination by the New York Workmen’s Compensation Board of the employment status of the infant plaintiff, and which, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination granting defendants’ motion, unanimously modified, on the law and facts, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of vacating the stay and except as thus modified, affirmed. We do not interpret *O’Rourke v Long*(41 NY2d 219) as requiring a stay of a judicial proceeding, pending resolution of a plaintiff’s employment status by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, in the absence of a workmen’s compensation claim or proceeding. The infant plaintiff has never asserted a workmen’s compensation claim for the injuries which he alleges he sustained on August 6, 1971. In such circumstances, the court is a jurisdiction-ally competent forum to determine the issue of the exclusivity of workmen’s compensation as a remedy. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.
# Ovut
Cherry application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005).

Appellant claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearing, for failing to move to sever the trial from his co-defendant's trial, for failing to file a motion to suppress the eyewitness identification, and because there was an irreconcilable conflict between counsel and appellant. Appellant failed to provide this court with any of the necessary documents in order to review his claims. Appellant did not provide this court with any transcripts of trial, sentencing, or other hearings at the trial court level, nor did appellant provide this court with the co-defendant's motion to sever. The burden is on the appellant to provide an adequate record enabling this court to review assignments of error. Thomas v. State, 120 Nev. 37, 43 n.4, 83 P.3d 818, 822 n.4 (2004); see also Greene v. State, 96 Nev. 555, 558, 612 P.2d 686, 688 (1980). As appellant failed to meet that burden, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

# 4 4.4 cistat i , J. Hardesty

es 

# ;e74 1
Douglas

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 J.

J.

(0) 1947A

### cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge Story Law Group Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 

### 3
(0) 1947A
#### § 18.23 Limitation of external surface temperatures.

The temperature of the external surfaces of mechanical or electrical components shall not exceed 150 °C. (302 °F.) under normal operating conditions.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement No. 333-166185 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 30, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of CB Richard Ellis Realty Trust and subsidiaries (the“Company”), which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s adoption of ASC Topic 805, *Business Combinations*, as of January 1, 2009, and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CB Richard Ellis Realty Trust for the year endedDecember 31, 2010. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Los Angeles, California 

March 30, 2011
### §70124. Regulations

Unless otherwise provided, the Secretary may issue regulations necessary to implement this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 111–281, title VIII, §820(a), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 3001.)
§ 92.551 Corrective and remedial actions. ( a ) *General.* HUD will use the procedures in this section in conducting the performance review as provided in § 92.550 and in taking corrective and remedial actions.
( b ) *Performance review.* ( 1 ) If HUD determines preliminarily that the participating jurisdiction has not met a requirement of this part, the participating jurisdiction will be given notice of this determination and an opportunity to demonstrate, within the time prescribed by HUD (not to exceed 30 days) and on the basis of substantial facts and data, that it has done so.
( 2 ) If the participating jurisdiction fails to demonstrate to HUD's satisfaction that it has met the requirement, HUD will take corrective or remedial action in accordance with this section or § 92.552.
( c ) *Corrective and remedial actions.* Corrective or remedial actions for a performance deficiency (failure to meet a provision of this part) will be designed to prevent a continuation of the deficiency; mitigate, to the extent possible, its adverse effects or consequences; and prevent its recurrence. ( 1 ) HUD may instruct the participating jurisdiction to submit and comply with proposals for action to correct, mitigate and prevent a performance deficiency, including: ( i ) Preparing and following a schedule of actions for carrying out the affected activities, consisting of schedules, timetables, and milestones necessary to implement the affected activities;
( ii ) Establishing and following a management plan that assigns responsibilities for carrying out the remedial actions;
( iii ) Canceling or revising activities likely to be affected by the performance deficiency, before expending HOME funds for the activities;
( iv ) Reprogramming HOME funds that have not yet been expended from affected activities to other eligible activities;
( v ) Reimbursing its HOME Investment Trust Fund in any amount not used in accordance with the requirements of this part;
( vi ) Suspending disbursement of HOME funds for affected activities; and
( vii ) Establishing procedures to ensure compliance with HOME requirements;
( viii ) Making matching contributions as draws are made from the participating jurisdiction's HOME Investment Trust Fund United States Treasury Account and establishing a remedial plan to make up the matching contributions deficit; and
( ix ) If the participating jurisdiction is a metropolitan city, forming a consortium with the urban county if the urban county is willing to carry out the HOME program in the metropolitan city.
( 2 ) HUD may also change the method of payment from an advance to reimbursement basis and may require supporting documentation to be submitted for HUD review for each payment request before payment is made; determine the participating jurisdiction to be high risk and impose special conditions or restrictions on the next year's allocation in accordance with 2 CFR 200.207; and take other remedies that may be legally available, including remedies under 2 CFR 200.338.
[61 FR 48750, Sept. 16, 1996, as amended at 78 FR 44683, July 24, 2013; 80 FR 75935, Dec. 7, 2015]
MANUEL R. RAMIREZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4472

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 4, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge.

Manuel R. Ramirez, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SWANSON, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
### Matagorda: Corrected APCA excel file Dick Karp to: Erik Snyder 03/27/2012 04:50 PM Cc: "Zarena Post"
From: "Dick Karp" <Dick.Karp@tceq.texas.gov> To: Erik Snyder/R6/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Zarena Post" <Zarena.Post@tceq.texas.gov> History: This message has been forwarded. 1 attachment



### Erik:
As we discussed, I attached a 2nd version of the corrected excel file. And as you surmised the correction reduced the maximum contribution from Matagorda to the N orthwest Harris County monitor.

THANKS!!
best,

Dick