alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1222.85 Personal liability.

No member or employee of the Board shall be held personally responsible, either individually or jointly with others, in any way whatsoever, to any person for errors in judgment, mistakes, or other acts, either of commission or omission, as such member or employee, except for acts of dishonesty or willful misconduct.
#### Floyd O. BRITTING, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2006-7327.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 22, 2006.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of Floyd O. Brit-ting’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal in *Britting v. Nicholson,*04-1585 (Vet.App.),

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs
The Changing Transition to Adulthood 

with Richard A. Settersten, Jr., Ph.D.

■ Biography 

Richard A. Settersten, Jr., Ph.D., is Professor of Human Development and Family Sciences 

and Endowed Director of the Hallie Ford Center for Healthy Children & Families in the 

College of Public Health and Human Sciences at Oregon State University. A graduate of 

Northwestern University, he held fellowships at the Max Planck Institute for Human 

Development and Education in Berlin, the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern, and 

the Spencer Foundation in Chicago. He was a member of the MacArthur Research Network 

on Transitions to Adulthood, and his work has been supported by several divisions of the 

National Institutes of Health. Much of Dr. Settersten’s research examines how entry into 

adult life has changed historically, how it varies across populations, and how institutions and 

policies affect the life pathways of young people. He is the author or editor of many scientific 

articles and books on young adulthood, aging, and the life course, including the book Not 

Quite Adults (written with Barbara Ray). https://richardsettersten.com/
§ 1721.103 Policy. ( a ) In reviewing requests for extension of payment of principal and interest, consideration shall be given to the effect of such extensions on the security of the Government's loans, and on the ability of the Borrower to achieve program objectives. It is the policy of RUS to extend the time for payment of principal and interest on the basis of findings that such extension does not impair the security and feasibility of the Government's loans and: ( 1 ) Is essential to the effectiveness of the Borrower's operations in achieving RUS program objectives which include providing reliable, affordable electricity to RE Act beneficiaries;
( 2 ) Is necessary to help a Borrower place its operations on a more stable financial basis and thereby provide assurance of repayment of loans within the time when payments of such loans are due under the terms of the note or notes as extended; or
( 3 ) Is otherwise in the best interest of the Government.
( b ) Extensions will be given in the minimum amount to achieve the purpose of the extension.
( c ) The maximum interest rate a RUS Borrower can charge on deferments for programs relating to consumer loans, *e.g.,* energy resource conservation (ERC) program, contribution-in-aid of construction (CIAC), etc., will not be more than 300 basis points above the average interest rate on the note(s) being deferred. For example, if the RUS Borrower's average interest rate on the note(s) being deferred is 5 percent, the RUS Borrower can charge a maximum interest rate of 8 percent.
[67 FR 485, Jan. 4, 2002, as amended at 68 FR 37953, June 26, 2003]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28629]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 9:32 a.m. on 
Tuesday, November 9, 2010, the Board of Directors of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters 
related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate and resolution 
activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director 
John E. Bowman (Acting Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), 
seconded by Director John G. Walsh (Acting Comptroller of the 
Currency), concurred in by Vice Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, Director 
Thomas J. Curry (Appointive), and Chairman Sheila C. Bair, that 
Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which 
were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice 
to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; 
that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters 
in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be 
considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), 
(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the 
``Government in the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), 
(c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550--17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

    Dated: November 9, 2010.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28629 Filed 11-9-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### Agrifina C. BARO, petitioner, v. Jim NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 07M32.

Jan. 7, 2008.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.4

                                  CERTIFICATION

                          Chase Credit Card Owner Trust
                           Series 2000-3 (the "Trust")

I, Patricia M. Garvey, a vice president in charge of the reports of the
servicing function of Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association for the
above-referenced Trust, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
         Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
         of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of the
         Trust;

2.       Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
         whole, does not contain any 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
         report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the
         pooling and servicing agreement, or similar agreement, for inclusion in
         these reports is included in these reports;

4.       I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
         under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon
         my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under the
         pooling and servicing agreement, or similar agreement, and except as
         disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations
         under the pooling and servicing agreement, or similar agreement; and

5.       This annual report discloses all significant deficiencies relating to
         the servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based
         upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
         conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
         Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
         pooling and servicing agreement, or similar agreement, that is included
         in this annual report.


Date:    March 28, 2003


     /s/ Patricia M. Garvey
----------------------------------
Name:    Patricia M. Garvey
Title:   Vice President
Company:  Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association
§ 1710.604 Amortization of principal. ( a ) Amortization of funds advanced during the first 2 years after the date of the note shall begin no later than 2 years from the date of the note. Except as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, amortization of funds advanced 2 years or more after the date of the note shall begin with the scheduled loan payment billed in the month following the month of the advance.
( b ) For advances made 2 years or more after the date of the note, the Administrator may, upon written request from the borrower, authorize deferral of amortization of principal for a period of up to 2 years from the date of the advance if the Administrator determines that failure to authorize such deferral would adversely affect either the Government's financial interest or the achievement of the purposes of the Rural Electrification Act. Such deferral shall not extend the loan maturity period.
§ 1717.155 Transitional assistance affecting new and preexisting loans. Requests for transitional assistance affecting new and preexisting loans must be received by RUS no later than 2 years after the effective date. ( a ) *Section 12 deferments.* ( 1 ) Section 12 of the RE Act (7 U.S.C. 912) allows RUS to extend the time of payment of interest or principal of RUS loans. Section 12 deferments do not extend the final maturity of the loan; lower payments during the deferment period result in higher payments later. Therefore, RUS may approve a Section 12 deferment of loan payments of up to 5 years only if such deferments will help to avoid substantial increases in retail electric rates during the transition period, without placing borrowers in financial stress after the deferment period.
( 2 ) Section 12 deferment may be available following any merger where at least one of the merging parties is an active borrower.
( b ) *Coverage ratios.* Required levels for coverage ratios are set forth in 7 CFR 1710.114 and in the loan documents. RUS may approve a plan, on a case by case basis, that provides for a phase-in period for these coverage ratios of up to 5 years from the effective date. Under such a plan the successor would be permitted to project and achieve lower levels for one or more of these coverage ratios during the phase-in period. ( 1 ) A phase-in plan for coverage ratios must provide a pro forma level for each ratio during each year of the phase-in period and be supported by a financial forecast covering a period of not less than 10 years from the effective date of the merger. The plan must demonstrate that a minimum TIER level of 1.00 will be achieved in each year, that trends will be generally favorable, that the borrower will achieve the levels required in its loan documents and RUS regulations by the end of the phase-in period, and that these levels will be maintained in subsequent years.
( 2 ) In reviewing phase-in plans for coverage ratios, RUS will review rates, rate disparity, and likely mitigating effects of the proposed phase-in plan.
( 3 ) The borrower is responsible for obtaining approvals of supplemental lenders.
( 4 ) Upon RUS approval of a phase-in plan, the levels in that plan will be substituted for the levels required in the borrower's preexisting loan documents and will be incorporated in any new loan or security documents.
( 5 ) A phase in plan for coverage ratios may be available if: ( i ) All parties to the merger are active distribution borrowers, *or*
( ii ) At least one of the merging parties is an active distribution borrower, all merging parties are either active distribution borrowers or former distribution borrowers, and the merger is effective after December 19, 1996.
#### Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, Appellant, v. George J. Brown, as Administrator of the Estate of Mabel G. Brown, Deceased, et al, Respondents.

Judgment unanimously modified in accordance with Memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, with costs to respondents. Memorandum: The trial court correctly determined that plaintiff was not entitled to a declaration in its favor but erroneously dismissed the complaint. It should have granted a declaration declaring the rights of the parties *(Hoffman*v. *City of Syracuse,*2 N Y 2d 484, 487; *Matter of Mandis*v *Gorski,*24 A D 2d 181, 184). Such a declaration will be incorporated in the order to be entered herein. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Trial Term dismissing declaratory judgment action.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.
#### §§ 15e.161-15e.169 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 1924
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1924 appear at 80 FR 9870, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1924.273 Approval or disapproval. ( a ) Claimants will be notified in writing of the decision on the claim within 60 days of the date the designated form is signed by the borrower. If the claim or any part of the claim is denied at any level, the claimant will be informed in writing of the reason(s) for the denial and advised of appeal rights in accordance with 7 CFR part 11.
( b ) [Reserved]
[56 FR 40241, Aug. 14, 1991, as amended at 67 FR 78327, Dec. 24, 2002]
#### § 1217.44 Alternates.

An alternate member of the Board, during the absence of a member from the same group (domestic manufacturer, importer, or public member) and region (as applicable) may serve in the place and stead of such member and perform such duties as assigned. In the event that both a member of the Board and the alternate are unable to attend a meeting, the Board may not designate any other alternate from a different group or region to serve in such member's or alternate's place and stead for the meeting.

[89 FR 58251, July 18, 2024]
EXHIBIT 31.1





Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to


Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14


as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








I, Buddy Young, certify that:





1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Futura Pictures, Inc.;





2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any 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 quarterly report;





3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;





4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:





a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,  particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





c)   disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal  controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.





July 6, 2010                                                                                 By:     /s/ Buddy Young


Buddy Young


Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|                      |   | PLACE OF          |   |                    |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| SUBSIDIARY                |   | INCORPORATION     |   | D/B/A NAME              |
|                      |   |              |   |                    |
| Personics Corporation     |   | Delaware, USA     |   | Personics Corporation   |
|                      |   |              |   |                    |
| Auxilor, Inc.             |   | Delaware, USA     |   | Auxilor, Inc.           |
|                      |   |              |   |                    |
| Datawatch International   |   | England and Wales |   | Datawatch International |
| Limited                   |   |              |   | Limited                 |
|                      |   |              |   |                    |
| Datawatch Pty Ltd.*       |   | Australia         |   | Datawatch Pty Ltd.      |
|                      |   |              |   |                    |
| Datawatch Europe Limited* |   | England and Wales |   | Datawatch Europe        |
|                      |   |              |   | Limited                 |
```

[109th Congress Public Law 208]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ208.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 317]]

Public Law 109-208
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 An Act to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal 
    Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the national flood 
        insurance program. <<NOTE: Mar. 23, 2006 -  [S. 2275]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: National Flood Insurance 
Program Enhanced Borrowing Authority Act of 2006. 42 USC 4001 
note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Flood Insurance Program 
Enhanced Borrowing Authority Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN BORROWING AUTHORITY.

    The first sentence of subsection (a) of section 1309 of the National 
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)), as amended by the 
National Flood Insurance Program Further Enhanced Borrowing Authority 
Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-106; 119 Stat. 2288), is amended by striking 
``$18,500,000,000'' and inserting ``$20,775,000,000''.

SEC. 3. EMERGENCY SPENDING.

    Amendments made pursuant to this Act are designated as emergency 
spending, as provided under section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th 
Congress).

    Approved March 23, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2275:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Feb. 10, considered and passed Senate.
            Feb. 15, considered and passed House, amended.
            Mar. 16, Senate concurred in House amendment.

                                  <all>
```
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Michael L. Williams, * From the 345th District

Commissioner of Education, Court of Travis County,

 Trial Court No. D-1-GV-10-000124.

Vs. No. 11-12-00035-CV * October 16, 2014

Sterling City Independent * Opinion by Willson, J.

School District et al., (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal are taxed against Michael L. Williams, Commissioner of Education.
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**



### Misc. Docket No. 18

- 9104

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

**═**

__________________________________________________

DENIAL OF REQUEST TO

TRANSFER CASE FROM THE

SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

___________________________________________________

The Suprem e Court denies the request to transfer the following case from the Seventh

Court of Appeals District, Amarillo , Texas :

Case No. 07

- 16

- 00418

- CV

Ronald Spriggs and Levi Spriggs v. Albenita Gonz ales

ORDERED in Chambers,

With the Seal thereof affixed at the City of A ustin,

this 2 nd day of August

, 2018.

_______________________________________ BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
December 17, 1979.

M. P. No. 78-163.

#### Watch Hill Fire District *et al. v.*Harrison F. Day *et al.*

This is common-law certiorari where the petitioners seek a review of the grant by the Westerly Town Council of an application for a license to operate a parking lot for a period of one year, the period having expired on May 1, 1979. On December 7, 1979, the petitioners appeared before us in response to our order to show cause why their petition should not be dismissed on the ground of mootness because the one-year life of the license had already expired. We also questioned the insufficiency of the record that purported to show the deliberations of the council during the meeting when it approved the license application.

Despite the petitioners’ protestations to the contrary, no cause was shown. Consequently, it is hereby ordered that the petition for certiorari be dismissed. This court also suggests *903that in the event review of license issuance is sought in the future, the litigants expend every effort to compile and preserve a record that will give a reviewing authority an accurate and reasonably full recitation of what transpires, including the council’s considerations about the advisability of summertime parking lots and the applicants’ compliance with the various town and state requirements.

*Edwards <Lr Angelí, John H. Blish, Swan, Jenckes, Asquith é- Davis, Andrew H. Davis, Jr.,*for petitioners, *John H. Gentile,*for respondents.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Omer Chamberlain, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 8,250.

Opinion filed January 24, 1929.

Arthur E. Miller and William F. Smith, for plaintiff in error. Wirt Herrick, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.