alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.4

                        Report of Independent Accountants



To the Board of Directors of Ford Motor Credit Company:


Re: Amended and Restated Transfer and Servicing Agreement among Ford Credit
Floorplan Corporation, as Transferor, Ford Credit Floorplan Master Owner
Trust B, as Issuer, Ford Motor Credit Company, as Servicer, dated as of
December 19, 2002

We have examined management's assertion about Ford Motor Credit Company and its
subsidiaries' ("Ford Credit") compliance with the minimum servicing standards
identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP"), to the extent such procedures
are applicable as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004 included in the
accompanying management assertion (Exhibit I). Management is responsible for
Ford Credit's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about Ford
Credit's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about Ford Credit's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination of Ford Credit's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Ford Credit has complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 7, 2005

<PAGE>

                                                                       Exhibit I



Ford Motor Credit Company                                    One American Road
                                                             P.O. Box 1732
                                                             Dearborn, MI  48121




                  Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance
                     with USAP Minimum Servicing Standards


March 7, 2005


Re: Amended and Restated Transfer and Servicing Agreement among Ford Credit
Floorplan Corporation, as Transferor, Ford Credit Floorplan Master Owner
Trust B, as Issuer, Ford Motor Credit Company, as Servicer, dated as of
December 19, 2002


As of and for the year ended December 31, 2004, Ford Motor Credit Company and
its subsidiaries have complied in all material respects with the minimum
servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP"), to
the extent such procedures are applicable.





/s/ Terry Chenault
-----------------------------------------
President of Global Operations Technology




/s/ Neil Schloss
-----------------------------------------
Assistant Treasurer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

On a temporary basis, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission will be sending most issuances through electronic mail and will not be monitoring incoming physical mail or facsimile transmissions.

# DATES:

*Applicable:*                         December 9, 2020.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Sarah Stewart, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, at (202) 434-9935;                         *sstewart@fmshrc.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Until May 31, 2021, most case issuances of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC), including inter alia notices, decisions, and orders, will be sent only through electronic mail. Further, FMSHRC will not be monitoring incoming physical mail or facsimile described in 29 CFR 2700.5(c)(2). If possible, all filings should be e-filed as described in 29 CFR 2700.5(c)(1).

Authority:30 U.S.C. 823.

Dated: December 9, 2020.

Sarah L. Stewart,

Deputy General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.

[FR Doc. 2020-27490 Filed 12-14-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
#### Doreen Morelli *v.*Manpower, Inc.

*William F. Gallagher,*in support of the petition.

Decided October 22, 1992

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 29 Conn. App. 132, is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Under what circumstances, if any, is the denial of a motion to open a judgment of dismissal under Practice Book § 251 an appealable judgment?”
#### Ingvar Roberg et al., Copartners Doing Business as R. & N. Construction Co. v. Ebyan, Inc., et al.

Motion for leave to reargue denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3548 Engrossed in House (EH)]

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3548

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 on Franklin Avenue in Pearl River, New York, as the ``Heinz Ahlmeyer, 
                      Jr. Post Office Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3548

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 on Franklin Avenue in Pearl River, New York, as the ``Heinz Ahlmeyer, 
                      Jr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located on 
Franklin Avenue in Pearl River, New York, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Heinz Ahlmeyer, Jr. Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Heinz Ahlmeyer, Jr. Post 
Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 1, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
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 IMPSAT Fiber Networks, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the Report)
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Héctor Alonso, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company for the dates and periods covered by the Report.

This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by
the Chief Financial Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or
used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by
law.

|                |  |                                                       
|--------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|August 14, 2002 |  | /s/ HÉCTOR ALONSOHéctor Alonso
Chief Financial Officer
§ 553.30 How can I use an indemnity as OSFR evidence? ( a ) You may use only one indemnity issued by only one indemnitor to satisfy all or part of your obligation to demonstrate OSFR.
( b ) Your indemnitor must be your corporate parent or affiliate.
( c ) Your indemnitor must complete a Form BOEM-1018 and provide an indemnity that: ( 1 ) Includes all the information required by § 553.41; and
( 2 ) Does not exceed the amounts calculated using the net worth or unencumbered assets tests specified under §§ 553.21 through 553.28.
( d ) You must submit your application to renew OSFR using an indemnity by the first calendar day of the 5th month after the close of your indemnitor's fiscal year. You may submit to BOEM your initial application to demonstrate OSFR using an indemnity at any time.
( e ) Your indemnitor must identify a U.S. agent for service of process.
§ 48.29 Records of training. ( a ) Upon a miner's completion of each MSHA approved training program, the operator shall record and certify on MSHA form 5000-23 that the miner has received the specified training. A copy of the training certificate shall be given to the miner at the completion of the training. The training certificates for each miner shall be available at the mine site for inspection by MSHA and for examination by the miners, the miners' representative and State inspection agencies. When a miner leaves the operator's employ, the miner shall be entitled to a copy of his training certificates.
( b ) False certification that training was given shall be punishable under section 110 (a) and (f) of the Act.
( c ) Copies of training certificates for currently employed miners shall be kept at the mine site for 2 years, or for 60 days after termination of employment.
(Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*))
[43 FR 47459, Oct. 13, 1978, as amended at 47 FR 14706, Apr. 6, 1982; 60 FR 33723, June 29, 1995]
#### § 33.1 Purpose.

The regulations in this part set forth the requirements for dust collectors used in connection with rock drilling in coal mines to procure their certification as permissible for use in coal mines; procedures for applying for such certification; and fees.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 25, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133264 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133264 

 COA: 264584 

Wayne CC: 05-003549-01 

JULIAS HOLLEY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action. MCR 

7.302(G)(1). At oral argument, the parties shall address whether MCL 750.483a(1)(b) 

requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed or attempted to 

commit a crime. They may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this 

order, but they should not submit mere restatements of their application. 

p0522 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 25, 2007 

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-4586
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RANDOLPH ALBERT HENDERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-02-30) Submitted: January 9, 2003 Decided: January 21, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Robert M. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Randolph Albert Henderson appeals the district court’s judgment order sentencing him to 169 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find this appeal foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Bayerle , 898 F.2d 28 (4th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York v. James Haynes.

Order of this court entered on January 26, 1961, assigning Rita Sehechter, Esq., as counsel for the defendant-appellant, is vacated, and Jerome T. Orans, Esq., of 574 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for the purposes of the appeal in the place and stead of Rita Sehechter, Esq. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
### §1690. Loans from Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Economic Loan Fund; restrictions; guarantees

No loan or loan guarantee shall be made under sections 1688 to 1693 of this title to any applicant who does not satisfy the territorial administering agency that financing is otherwise unavailable on reasonable terms and conditions. No loan or loan guarantee shall exceed (1) the amount which can reasonably be expected to be repaid, (2) the minimum amount necessary to accomplish the purposes of sections 1688 to 1693 of this title, or 25 per centum of the funds appropriated pursuant to section 1688 of this title. No loan guarantee shall guarantee more than 90 per centum of the outstanding amount of any loan, and the reserves maintained to guarantee the loan shall not be less than 25 per centum of the guarantee.

(Pub. L. 92–257, §3, Mar. 21, 1972, 86 Stat. 87.)
§ 556.512 What bids may be disqualified? The following bids for any oil and gas lease will be disqualified and rejected in their entirety: ( a ) A joint bid submitted by two or more persons who are on the effective List of Restricted Joint Bidders; or
( b ) A joint bid submitted by two or more persons when: ( 1 ) One or more of those persons is chargeable for the prior production period with an average daily production in excess of 1.6 million barrels of crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids and has not filed a Statement of Production, as required by § 556.513 of this part for the applicable 6-month bidding period, or
( 2 ) Any of those persons have failed or refused to file a detailed report of production when required to do so under § 556.513, or
( c ) A single or joint bid submitted pursuant to an agreement (whether written or oral, formal or informal, entered into or arranged prior to or simultaneously with the submission of such single or joint bid, or prior to or simultaneously with the award of the bid upon the tract) that provides: ( 1 ) For the assignment, transfer, sale, or other conveyance of less than a 100 percent interest in the entire tract on which the bid is submitted, by a person or persons on the List of Restricted Joint Bidders, effective on the date of submission of the bid, to another person or persons on the same List of Restricted Joint Bidders; or
( 2 ) For the assignment, sale, transfer or other conveyance of less than a 100 percent interest in any fractional interest in the entire tract (which fractional interest was originally acquired by the person making the assignment, sale, transfer or other conveyance, under the provisions of the act) by a person or persons on the List of Restricted Joint Bidders, effective on the date of submission of the bid, to another person or persons on the same List of Restricted Joint Bidders; or
( 3 ) For the assignment, sale, transfer, or other conveyance of any interest in a tract by a person or persons not on the List of Restricted Joint Bidders, effective on the date of submission of the bid, to two or more persons on the same List of Restricted Joint Bidders; or
( 4 ) For any of the types of conveyances described in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), or (3) of this section where any party to the conveyance is chargeable for the prior production period with an average daily production in excess of 1.6 million barrels of crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids and has not filed a Statement of Production pursuant to § 556.513 for the applicable six-month bidding period. Assignments expressly required by law, regulation, lease or lease stipulation will not disqualify an otherwise qualified bid; or
( d ) A bid submitted by or in conjunction with a person who has filed a false, fraudulent or otherwise intentionally false or misleading detailed Report of Production.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-3055

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Joshua R. Berryhill,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

Submitted: June 14, 2019

Filed: August 13, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Berryhill pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm

as a previously convicted felon. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). At
sentencing, the district court1

 determined a base offense level of 20 because Berryhill

committed the instant offense after “sustaining one felony conviction of . . . a crime

of violence.” USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). The court concluded that either of Berryhill’s

two prior Missouri felony convictions—second-degree robbery, in violation of Mo.

Rev. Stat. § 569.030, or armed criminal action, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat.

§ 571.015—qualified as a “crime of violence.” See USSG § 4B1.2(a). After

calculating an advisory guideline range of 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment, the court

varied downward from the range and sentenced Berryhill to 48 months’ imprisonment.

Berryhill appeals, arguing that the court committed procedural error by finding

that he had sustained a previous conviction for a crime of violence. We have since

held, however, that Missouri second-degree robbery is indeed a crime of violence

under the sentencing guidelines, United States v. Parker, 929 F.3d 940 (8th Cir.

2019), so Berryhill’s contention is foreclosed by circuit precedent. The district court

did not err in calculating the advisory guideline range.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-
§ 556.903 Lapse of financial assurance. ( a ) If your surety, guarantor, or the financial institution holding or providing your financial assurance becomes bankrupt or insolvent, or has its charter or license suspended or revoked, any financial assurance coverage from such surety, guarantor, or financial institution must be replaced. You must notify the Regional Director within 72 hours of learning of such event, and, within 30 calendar days of learning of such event, you must provide other financial assurance from a different financial assurance provider in the amount required under §§ 556.900 and 556.901, or § 550.166 of this subchapter, or § 550.1011 of this subchapter.
( b ) You must notify the Regional Director within 72 hours of learning of any action filed alleging that you are insolvent or bankrupt or that your surety, guarantor, or financial institution is insolvent or bankrupt or has had its charter or license suspended or revoked. All surety bonds or other financial assurance instruments must require the surety, guarantor, or financial institution to timely provide this required notification both to you and directly to BOEM.
[89 FR 31595, Apr. 24, 2024]
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DEVENSON A. WALKER
, Appellant,

v.

ESTATE OF ROBERT YEE, deceased, TED YEE, and

ALLST A TE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee s

.

No. 4D2023

- 0366

[ January 10, 2024 ]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Tabitha Blackmon , Judge; L.T. Case No. COWE22

- 001495.

Dev e nson A. Walker, Sunrise, pro se.

Kansas R. Gooden and Nicholas Ryan Consalvo of Boyd & Jenerette,
P.A., Boca Raton, for appellees Estate of Robert Yee and Ted Yee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Appellant

, pro se , appeals the final order dismissing his complaint with prejudice , as well as the order denyin g his motion to vacate dismissal and motion for rehearing

, after appellant failed to appear at the hearing on the motion to dismiss. Appellant’s brief cites no legal authority and contains no citations to the record on appea l. “It is the duty of counsel to prepare appellate briefs so as to acquaint the Court wi th the material facts, the points of law involved, and the legal arguments supporting the positions of the respective parties. ” Polyglycoat Corp. v. Hirsch Distribs., Inc. , 442 So. 2d 958, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). “ When points, positions, facts and

suppo rting authorities are omitted from the brief, a court is entitled to believe that such are waived, abandoned, or deemed by counsel to be unworthy.” Id. Appellant, as a pro se litigant, was still required to adequately present his arguments on appeal. Stueber v. Gallagher , 812 So. 2d 454, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“In Florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel.”); Kohn v. City of Miami Beach

, 611 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“[I]t is a mistake to hold a pro se

liti gant to a lesser standard than a reasonably competent attorne y.”);2 Figueroa v. Kossiver , 336 So. 3d 1260, 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (applying Polyglycoat principl es to a pro se litigant’s brief). The deficiencies in appellant’s brief mandate affirmance.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., G ROSS

, and L EVINE
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.