alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[LETTERHEAD OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP]



                   REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We have examined management's assertion,  included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
Servicing  Criteria,  that ZC Sterling  Insurance  Agency,  Inc.  (the  Company)
complied  with  certain  servicing  criteria  set  forth in Item 1122 (d) of the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission's   Regulation  AB  for  the  ZC  Sterling
Integrated  Product  Solution  (ZIPS)  hazard  insurance   outsourcing  Platform
(Platform)  as of and for the year ended  December  31,  2006.  The  Company has
determined that only certain servicing  criteria 1122 (d) 1(iv), 1122 (d) 2(vi),
1122 (d) 4(xi),  1122 (d) 4(xii),  and 1122 (d) 4(xiii)  are  applicable  to the
activities  performed  by them with  respect  to the  Platform  covered  by this
report.  The Company has determined  that the remaining  servicing  criteria set
forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
are not  applicable  to the  activities  performed  by them with  respect to the
Platform  covered by this report.  See Appendix A of management's  assertion for
the Platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with those servicing  criteria.  Our  responsibility is to express an
opinion  on  management's  assertion  about the  Company's  compliance  with the
servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis,  evidence  about the Company's  compliance  with the applicable
servicing  criteria  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as we  considered
necessary in the  circumstances.  Our examination  included testing of less than
all of the individual  asset backed  transactions and securities that compromise
the platform,  testing of less than all of the servicing  activities  related to
the Platform,  and  determining  whether the Company  performed  those  selected
activities  in  compliance  with  the  servicing  criteria.   Furthermore,   our
procedures  were limited to the  servicing  activities  performed by the Company
during the period covered by this report.  Our  procedures  were not designed to
determine  whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our
tests that may have  affected the balances or amounts  calculated or reported by
the  Company  during the  period  covered by this  report for the  Platform.  We
believe that our examination  provides a reasonable  basis for our opinion.  Our
examination does not provide a legal  determination on the Company's  compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the  Company  complied  with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
for the ZIPS Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 20, 2007
§ 3555.206 Special requirements for community land trusts. A community land trust must meet the definition in accordance with § 3555.10 and other requirements described in this subpart. Loans may be guaranteed for dwellings on land owned by a community land trust only if: ( a ) *Rural Development review.* Rural Development reviews and accepts any restrictions imposed by the community land trust on the property or applicant before loan closing. The Agency may place conditions on the approval of restrictions on resale price and rights of first refusal.
( b ) *Foreclosure termination.* The community land trust automatically and permanently terminates upon foreclosure or acceptance by the lender of a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
( c ) *Organization.* The organization must meet the definition of a community land trust as defined in the Housing Act of 1949 and the following requirements: ( 1 ) Be organized under State or local laws.
( 2 ) Members, founders, contributors or individuals cannot benefit from any part of net earnings of the organization.
( 3 ) The organization must be dedicated to decent affordable housing for low-and moderate-income people.
( 4 ) Comply with financial accountability.
( d ) *Lender documentation.* The lender's file must contains documentation that the community land trust has community support, local market acceptance and 2 years of prior experience in providing affordable housing.
( e ) *Appraisals.* A property located on a site owned by a community land trust must be appraised as leasehold interest and meet the provisions of § 3555.203.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ROBERT H. BEVERLIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-178-AW-GRJ

L. PETERSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Having carefully considered the magistrate judge’s September 25, 2020, 

Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8), to which there has been no objection, I 

now determine the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Plaintiff has not 

stated a claim against Defendants Dr. R. Molina or Steven Wheeler. He has not 

alleged direct involvement, and he has not alleged enough to sustain a § 1983 claim 

based on supervisory liability. 

It is now ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) is adopted and 

incorporated into this order.

2. The claims against Dr. R. Molina and Steven Wheeler are dismissed 

without leave to amend for failure to state a claim for relief.

3. The matter will proceed against the remaining defendant, and the 

magistrate judge will conduct further appropriate proceedings. 

Case 1:20-cv-00178-AW-GRJ Document 14 Filed 11/08/20 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED on November 8, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00178-AW-GRJ Document 14 Filed 11/08/20 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 35.1
 SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 Re:
    
    Turquoise Card Backed Securities plc  Series 2006-2 and Series 2007-1
  (i)
    
    the Receivables Trust Deed and Servicing Agreement (the RTSA Agreement) dated May 23, 2006
among Turquoise Receivables Trustee Limited, as Receivables Trustee, Turquoise Funding 1
Limited, as Loan Note Issuing Entity and Series 2006-2 Investor Beneficiary, Turquoise Funding
2 Limited, as Dormant Investor Beneficiary and the Company, as Servicer,(ii)
    
    the Series 2006-2 Supplement to the RTSA Agreement (the Series 2006-2 Agreement) dated
November 22, 2007, among Turquoise Receivables Trustee Limited, as Receivables Trustee,
Turquoise Funding 1 Limited, as Loan Note Issuing Entity and Series 2006-2 Investor
Beneficiary, Turquoise Funding 2 Limited, as Dormant Investor Beneficiary and the Company, as
Servicer,(iii)
    
    the Series 2007-1 Supplement to the RTSA Agreement (the Series 2007-1 Agreement) dated
June 28, 2007, among Turquoise Receivables Trustee Limited, as Receivables Trustee, Turquoise
Funding 1 Limited, as Loan Note Issuing Entity and Series 2007-1 Investor Beneficiary,
Turquoise Funding 2 Limited, as Dormant Investor Beneficiary and the Company, as Servicer, and(iv)
    
    the Letter Supplementing Servicing Provisions from the Company, dated October 26, 2007 to and
agreed by each of Turquoise Receivables Trustee Limited, as Receivables Trustee, Turquoise
Funding 1 Limited, as Loan Note Issuing Entity and Series 2006-2 Investor Beneficiary,
Turquoise Funding 2 Limited, as Dormant Investor Beneficiary, the Law Debenture Trust Company
of New York, as Securities Trustee and the Note Trustee and the Company (the Servicing
Supplement and together with the RTSA Agreement the Series 2006-2 Agreement and the Series
2007-1 Agreement, the Agreements)
  1.
    
    a review of the activities of the Company for the calendar year ending December 31, 2007 and
of its performance under each of the Agreements has been completed under my supervision; and2.
    
    to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its
obligations under each of the Agreements in all material respects throughout the reporting
period referred to above except as set forth below:
  st
 By: 
Name:
    
    /s/ Roger K McGregor

Roger K. McGregorTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer, HSBC Bank plc
 32
# 9.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes policies, standards, and procedures pertaining to prospective contractors’ responsibility; *debarment*, *suspension*, and ineligibility; qualified *products*; *first article testing* and approval; contractor team arrangements; defense production pools and research and development pools; and organizational conflicts of interest.

**Parent topic:**Part 9 - Contractor Qualifications
Page 1 of 2

 

1 The pleading submitted for filing by Petitioner was entitled Motion for Certificate of Appealability

relating to the Report and Recommendation entered by the Magistrate Judge on March 11, 2005. The Court

has therefore construed the document as objections to the Report and Recommendation.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

BRYAN KEITH EDMONDSON,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 5:03cv99/MCR/EMT

JAMES CROSBY, JR.,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

O R D E R

This habeas action was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 11, 2005, the

Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the petition with prejudice. (Doc. 32). No

objections having been, the Court on April 14, 2005, entered an Order adopting the Report

and Recommendation and dismissing the petition. (Doc. 33). On April 15, 2005, the Clerk

docketed objections filed by Petitioner,1 which objections reflect were submitted to prison

officials for mailing on April 11, 2005. (Doc. 35). Although Petitioner’s objections are

untimely, the Court vacates its Order of April 14, 2005, and enters the instant Order in its

stead. 

This cause having come on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation dated March 11, 2005, and Petitioner’s having been furnished a

copy of the Report and Recommendation and been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), the Court has made

a de novo determination of Petitioner’s objections filed April 15, 2005. Having considered

the Report and Recommendation, and Petitioner’s objections thereto, the Court has

determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Case 5:03-cv-00099-MCR-EMT Document 36 Filed 04/18/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 5:03cv99/MCR/EMT

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The Order dated April 14, 2005, is VACATED.

2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE in the instant Order. 

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED with prejudice.

4. The Clerk shall re-enter judgment accordingly.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of April, 2005.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-00099-MCR-EMT Document 36 Filed 04/18/05 Page 2 of 2
#### § 4284.1002 Policy.

It is the policy of the Secretary of Agriculture to fund Centers which evidence broad support from the agricultural community in the state or region, significant coordination with end users (processing and distribution companies and regional grocers), strategic alliances with entities having technical research capabilities and a focused delivery plan for reaching out to the producer community. It is also the policy of the Secretary, using the research and technical services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to assist the grantees in establishing Centers. This program is not intended to fund scientific research.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2358

___________

David M. Deloria, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Ed Lightenberg, Director of P.N.P., *

SDSP Bd of P.N.P.; Douglas Weber, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Warden SDSP; South Dakota Board *

of Pardons and Paroles; Kay Nikolas, *

Bd. Member; Patricia Meyers, Bd. *

Member; Mr. Alders, Bd. Member; *

James Smith, Bd. Member; Dave *

Nelson, Bd. Member, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 1, 2010

Filed: November 4, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

John E. Simko, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota.

-2-

South Dakota inmate David Deloria appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal

without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint asserting that he was improperly

denied parole and good time credits, in violation of his due process rights.

Upon careful de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.

2000) (per curiam) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)); Cooper v. Schriro,

189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A),

we conclude that Deloria failed to state a claim. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S.

74, 81-82 (2005) (state prisoners may use only habeas remedies when they seek to

invalidate duration of confinement, either directly through injunction compelling

speedier release or indirectly through judicial determination that necessarily implies

unlawfulness of state’s custody); Figg v. Russell, 433 F.3d 593, 597-600 (8th Cir.

2006) (parole board members are absolutely immune from suit when considering and

denying parole questions; extending absolute immunity to parole agent where his

function was so associated with function of parole board that he was also cloaked in

immunity); cf. Zar v. S.D. Bd. of Exam’rs of Psychologists, 976 F.2d 459, 464 (8th

Cir. 1992) (board of examiners itself was not “person” within meaning of § 1983).

We also agree with the district court that, to the extent Deloria asserted an equal

protection claim related to his ineligibility for good time credits, he failed to state a

claim. Cf. Bergee v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 608 N.W.2d 636, 644 (S.D.

2000) (inmates’ equal protection rights not violated where prisoners sentenced prior

to effective date of new parole statute are required to serve out sentences under old

statute).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
+ NASA Portal 

+ Goddard Space Flight Center 

+ GSFC Earth Sciences Division 

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Station Data

In our analysis, we can only use stations with reasonably long, consistently measured time records. This is a subset of the 

of stations (copied from GHCN's website and augmented from SCAR). That subset of list of stations that contribute to the 

final products may slightly change with each update, as the number of stations that get dropped due to the shortness of their 

temperature record may decrease when new data are added.

The figures below indicate 

a. the number of stations with record length at least N years as a function of N ,

b. the number of reporting stations as a function of time,

c. the percent of hemispheric area located within 1200km of a reporting station.

Data and graphs for the individual stations can be downloaded using the form below.

Download Station Data

Note: In the tables, DJF, the Northern Hemisphere Winter mean, uses the December of the previous year, and so does metANN, 

the "meteorological annual mean", i.e. the mean over the 4 seasons (Dec-Nov mean). For a description of how the seasonal and 

annual means are computed, read on .... 

1) Select a specific data set from the pull-down menu below.

Data Set: after combining sources at same location

Note to prior users: We no longer include data adjusted by GHCN and have renamed the middle option (old name: prior to 

homogeneity adjustment).

2) Click at desired location on the map below 

or enter here a station name to search for: Search

If clicking on the map gives unexpected (bad) results, please check that you have not specified a "zoom in" or "zoom out" 

option in your web browser's View settings.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Station Data Page 1 of 2

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ 7/23/2010
Return to GISTEMP homepage

+ NASA Privacy Policy and Important Notices

GISS Website Curator: Robert B. Schmunk

Responsible NASA Official: James E. Hansen

Page updated: 2010-07-02

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Station Data Page 2 of 2

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ 7/23/2010
98-726.

#### State v. Jackson.

Franklin C.P. No. 97CR041902. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for extension of time for transmission of the record,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for extension of time for transmission of the record be, and hereby is, granted, and the time for transmitting the record is extended to October 14, 1998. No further extensions will be granted.
#### In the Matter of Philip Weinfeld, an Attorney.

of suspension entered pursuant to section 90 (subd 4, par f) of the Judiciary Law. Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Schnepp and Witmer, JJ. sion entered pursuant to sec Present—Cardamone, J. P., Si (Order entered Dec. 14, 1979.)
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:92cr4013-WS

EMERSON DAVIS, 4:04cv462-WS

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc.

1679) docketed December 9, 2005. The magistrate judge recommends that the

defendant's section 2255 motion be summarily dismissed because authorization for

filing a second or successive motion has not been granted. The defendant has filed

objections (doc. 1683) to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record in light of the defendant’s objections, the court has

determined that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 1679) is adopted

and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:92-cr-04013-WS-CAS Document 1696 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:92cr4013-WS

2. The defendant’s section 2255 motion (doc. 1676) is hereby summarily

DISMISSED.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall close Case No.

4:05cv462-WS.

DONE AND ORDERED this January 30, 2006.

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:92-cr-04013-WS-CAS Document 1696 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.3610 Rule 9.

In determining the grade of a lot of tobacco, the lot as a whole shall be considered. Minor irregularities which do not affect over one percent of the tobacco shall be overlooked.
#### Richardson *vs.*Finney.

Motion.

[Mr. Hanson for appellant: Mr. Turner for appellee.]

From the Circuit Court eor Estill County.

*April*30.

An affidavit— held insufficient to sustain a motion to set aside a default, and award a trial.

Judge Marshall

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Finney having, on the first day of the July term of the Estill Circuit Court, obtained a judgment by default, on a petition against Richardson, the latter, on the third day of the term, moved for a new trial on his own affidavit, and the motion having been overruled, he has appealed to this Court.

The affiant states that he intended to defend the suit, but believed that it was docketed for the third day, and *320¿¡d not know, until after judgment, that it was set for the first day; that there was no attorney resident in Irvine (the seat of justice for the county,) and that, on the first day of the Court, he came to town and employed an attorney; but when his attorney went to the court house to make defence to the case, judgment had been rendered; that he never executed, delivered, or acknowledged, the note sued on, and believes that he can prove it on a trial of the case; that on a fair trial, ho believes that he can defeat the plaintiff’s action, and that judgment had been previously obtained, in another court, against one of the obligors in the same note.

Taking this affidavit strictly, it may be doubted whether it discloses a sufficient defence, as the particular statement that he neither executed, delivered, nor acknowledged the note, leaves room for the inference that he may have authorized this to be done by some one for him; and it does not appear that he would have pleaded a general *non est factum.*But the affidavit is objectionable in other respects — in not showing that the defendant would have been ready for trial on' the third day, if the judgment had not been taken on the first, or that he had taken the necessary steps for procuring testimony by the day on which he expected the trial, or why he had not done so; and also, in not showing who the witnesses are, and what they would prove.

Even, if the mistake in the day of trial were itself excusable, it would not excuse the total omission to ¡mike any preparation for trial. *Cotton vs. Brashears,*2 *Marshall,*153. Ignorance of the law by which the return day of process upon petitions was changed from the third to the first day of the term, cannot be admitted as a sufficient ground for setting aside a judgment, and granting a new trial, when the party had taken no steps towards the preparation of his defence. *Brevard vs. Graham,*2 *Bibb,*177. Nor, does the fact that no attorney resided in the town or county in which the suit was brought, furnish sufficient ground for a new trial. It does not appear that he could not have employed an attorney attending on the circuit, before the case was in fact called for trial. But the contrary is to be presumed. Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Estes, 7:20cv137

Hacker, 7:20cv131

Keefer, 7:20cv104

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 7

This Order addresses Plaintiffs’ objections and counter-designations to 

Defendants’ affirmative deposition designations and Defendants’ objections to 

Plaintiffs’ counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions: 

1. Kathy Gates

2. John Merkley

3. Shane O’Brien

The Court’s rulings with respect to the above depositions are set forth in the 

attached Exhibit 1. 

SO ORDERED, on this 24th day of March, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE