alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 33.2
                                  ------------


          ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA



The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A.
(collectively, the "Company") provides this platform-level assessment of
compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially
required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential
mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to
January 1, 2006) for which the Company provides trustee, securities
administration, paying agent or custodial services. The platform includes like
kind transactions for which the Company provided trustee, securities
administrator, paying agent or custodial services as a result of the Company's
acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s
corporate trust business, including structured finance agency and trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d), to the extent required by the related transaction agreements as to
any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii),
(iv), (4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the
following assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:

o  The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

o  The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

o  As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.



                                      1
<PAGE>


Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report with respect to the Company's foregoing
assessment of compliance.



      The Bank of New York                    The Bank of New York
      The Bank of New York Trust              The Bank of New York Trust
         Company, N.A.                           Company, N.A.


      /s/ Robert L. Griffin                   /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
      ---------------------------             ---------------------------
      Robert L. Griffin                       Patrick J. Tadie
      Authorized Signer                       Authorized Signer


March 1, 2007



                                      2
**Annual
      Statement of Compliance**


VIA:
      EMAIL




Merrill
      Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.


250
      Vesey
      Street


4
      World
      Financial Center, 10th Floor


New
      York,
      New York10080




Litton
      Loan Servicing LP


4828
      Loop
      Central Drive


Houston,
      Texas77081




Re:
      Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of September 1,
      2006, among Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., as depositor, Litton Loan
      Servicing LP, as servicer, and LaSalle Bank National Association, as trustee
      (the “Trustee”), relating to Ownit Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Loan
      Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-6




I,
      Barbara L. Marik, a First Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
      as Trustee hereby certify that:




(1) A review of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar
      year
      and of the performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under
      my
      supervision; and




(2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled
      all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout
      such
      year or a portion thereof.






Date: February
      1, 2007




LaSalle
      Bank National Association, as Trustee




/s/
      Barbara L Marik


Barbara
      L. Marik


First
      Vice President
Order entered November 17, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-22-01188-CV

IN RE CRETIC ENER GY SERVICES, LLC; CATAPULT ENERGY SERVICES GROUP LLC; NGP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-05978

ORDER

Based on our opinion of this date, we DISMISS relators’ petition for writ of

mandamus. We DENY real parties in interest’s motion for sanctions.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
JUSTICE
#### Jason MEGGS; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF BERKELEY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-15436.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 17, 2007.*

Filed April 25, 2007.

Lawrence A. Hildes, Esq., Bellingham, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Matthew J. Orebic, Office of the City Attorney, Berkeley, CA, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before: D.W. NELSON, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Salsbury, no reasonable jury could conclude that his arrest was unsupported by probable cause. Presented with the totality of circumstances known to the arresting officers, a prudent person would conclude that there was a “fair probability,” *United States v. Lopez,*482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir.2007), Salsbury had committed the crime invoked at the time of his arrest—incitement to riot under California Penal Code § 404.6. Further, the evidence *403indisputably demonstrates probable cause to believe Salsbury committed several other crimes. Therefore the arrest was lawful. *See Devenpeck v. Alford,*543 U.S. 146, 152-53, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004).

The use of force to repel Meggs and Salsbury from the skirmish line is properly analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of substantive due process and not under the Fourth Amendment because it did not occur “in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure.” *Graham v. Connor,*490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). Given the circumstances, no reasonable juror could find that the level of force used met the “shocks-the-conscience test,” *County of Sacramento v. Lewis,*523 U.S. 833, 854, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998), applicable here.

Salsbury argues that the quantum of force used to place him under arrest was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the underlying seizure was unlawful. Because the arrest was supported by probable cause, this argument fails. Further, there is no evidence that force was intentionally applied to Salsbury’s person during the transport van’s detour into lower Sproul plaza. Salsbury’s unsupported assertion to the contrary does not create a genuine issue of material fact. *See Roley v. New World Pictures, Ltd.,*19 F.3d 479, 482 (9th Cir.1994) (explaining that “naked allegations and speculation” are insufficient to preclude summary judgment).

Appellants’ remaining claims are plainly without merit and were properly dismissed by the district court.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
52.247-36 F.a.s. Vessel, Port of Shipment.       As prescribed in 47.303-8(c), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when the delivery term is f.a.s. vessel, port of shipment:          F.a.s. Vessel, Port of Shipment (Apr 1984)                                       (a) 						            The term "f.a.s. vessel, port of shipment," as used in this clause, means free of expense to the Government delivered alongside the ocean vessel and within reach of its loading tackle at the specified port of shipment.                                          (b) 						            The Contractor shall-                                                         (1)                                                                           (i) 										                    Pack and mark the shipment to comply with contract specifications; or                                                                              (ii) 										                    In the absence of specifications, prepare the shipment for ocean transportation in conformance with carrier requirements to protect the goods and to ensure assessment of the lowest applicable transportation charge;                                                                                                           (2)                                                                           (i) 										                    Deliver the shipment in good order and condition alongside the ocean vessel and within reach of its loading tackle, at the point of delivery and on the date or within the period specified in the contract; and                                                                              (ii) 										                    Pay and bear all applicable charges, including transportation costs, wharfage, handling, and heavy lift charges, if necessary, up to this point;                                                                                                           (3) 								                Provide a clean dock or ship’s receipt;                                                            (4) 								                Be responsible for any loss of and/or damage to the goods occurring before delivery of the shipment to the point specified in the contract; and                                                            (5) 								                At the Government’s request and expense, assist obtaining the documents required for-                                                                           (i) 										                    Exportation; or                                                                              (ii) 										                    Importation at destination.                                                                                                                   (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.247 [Reserved]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 ex rel. HARRY F. KNIGHT, JR., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

) Case No. 4:03cv367 SPM/AK

HEALTHSOUTH, INC., KIRK J. MAURO, )

 MICHAEL MARSHALL, and )

 ERIC MYERS, )

 )

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

 The United States having intervened in this action pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31

U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2) and (4), on October 30, 2006, and the United States and the Relator having

filed a notice of dismissal of this action against all defendants, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)(1)(i), on November 27, 2006, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. The Government's Notice of Election to Intervene, including the redacted Complaint

made an exhibit thereto, that are docketed in the case file as Item #36, including the attachments

thereto, shall be unsealed.

2. All other papers or Orders filed in this matter prior to October 30, 2006 shall remain

under seal.

3. The seal shall be lifted on all other matters filed or occurring in this action on or after

October 30, 2006.

Case 4:03-cv-00367-SPM-AK Document 38 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 2
2

 4. The United States and the Relator have entered into a written agreement with

defendants HealthSouth Corporation, Kirk Mauro, Michael Marshall and Eric Myers in full

settlement of the claims and causes of action asserted in this action against them. The United

States and the Relator agree that the amount paid in settlement and the other terms of the

settlement agreement are fair, adequate, and reasonable pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(B).

5. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) and 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), the claims

asserted in this action against all defendants are dismissed with prejudice as to the United States

and the Relator.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of February, 2007.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-00367-SPM-AK Document 38 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 2
§ 631.8 Cost-share rates. ( a ) The Federal rate may not exceed 80 percent.
( b ) The maximum Federal rate (percentage) within each state for each practice or identifiable unit shall be established by the state conservationist.
( c ) The maximum rate (percentage) for each county is established by the designated conservationist not to exceed the state rate (percentage).
( d ) The rate (percentage) established by a state conservationist or a designated conservationist shall not exceed the amount necessary and appropriate to apply conservation treatment.
# L_2014271EN.01010101.xml

| 12.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 271/101 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 271/101

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2014/451/EU of 26 May 2014 on the signing and conclusion of the Participation Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 205 of 12 July 2014
  )

On page 2, in the title:

for:

‘COUNCIL DECISION

of 26 May 2014

on the signing and conclusion of the Participation Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya)

(2014/451/EU)’

read:

‘COUNCIL DECISION 2014/451/CFSP

of 26 May 2014

on the signing and conclusion of the Participation Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya)’

---
#### § 58.918 Standardization.

The standardization of the product to obtain a finished product of a given composition shall be accomplished by the addition or removal of milkfat, milk solids-not-fat and/or water. The ingredients added to accomplish the desired composition shall be of the same hygenic quality as the product being standardized.
#### § 51.342 U.S. Cider.

“U.S. Cider” consists of apples which are free from decay, worm holes and internal breakdown.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JULIUS DUNMORE and ANGELA

FETCHER, on behalf of

themselves and others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

 CASE NO.: 1:05-cv-150-SPM

vs.

 

THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION,

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the “Consented Motion to

Consolidate Actions” (doc. 8) filed November 17, 2005, in which the parties state

that the instant case shares common questions of fact or law with case number

1-00-cv-210-MMP (Smith, et al., v. The Progressive, et al.), into which a number

of other cases have already been consolidated. The parties agree that

consolidation will promote the speedy and efficient resolution of this case,

especially in light of the fact that the Smith case is at an advanced stage of

settlement negotiations.

Case 1:00-cv-00210-MP-AK Document 138 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Court finds the

consolidation to be appropriate. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The motion to consolidate (doc. 8) is hereby granted.

2. Case number 1:05-cv-150-SPM is consolidated into case number

1:00-cv-210-MMP.

3. Case number 1:00-cv-210-MMP is the lead case. The parties shall

file all further documents in case number 1:00-cv-210-MMP. 

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-second day of November, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

/pao

Case 1:00-cv-00210-MP-AK Document 138 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 2
§ 7.19 Eligibility requirements of all other personnel. ( a ) The county executive director and other employees of the county committee must not have been: Dishonorably discharged from any branch of the armed services; removed for cause from any public office; or convicted of any fraud, larceny, embezzlement, or any other felony, unless any such disqualification is waived by the State committee or the Deputy Administrator.
( b ) The county executive director or any other employee of the county committee must not have been removed as a county committee member, alternate to any county office, county executive director, or other employee of the county committee for: Failure to perform the duties of the office; committing, attempting, or conspiring to commit fraud; incompetence; impeding the effectiveness of any program administered in the county; refusal to carry out or failure to comply with the Department's policy relating to equal opportunity and civil rights, including equal employment policy, or interfering with others in carrying out such policy; or for violation of official instructions, unless such disqualification is waived by the State committee or the Deputy Administrator.
( c ) The county executive director or any other employee of the county committee must not have been disqualified for future employment because of a determination by a State committee that during previous service as a county committee member, alternate to any county office, or as an employee of the county committee, the person has: Failed to perform the duties of such office or employment; committed, attempted, or conspired to commit fraud; impeded the effectiveness of any program administered in the county; refused to carry out or failed to comply with the Department's policy relating to equal opportunity and civil rights, including the equal employment policy, or interfered with others in carrying out such policy; or violated official instructions, unless such disqualification is waived by the State committee or the Deputy Administrator.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JOSE ELIAS SEPULVEDA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-265-AW-GRJ

CALEB SEPULVEDA, SR., et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

I have considered the magistrate judge’s May 21, 2021 Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 6, and I have considered de novo the Plaintiff’s 

objections, ECF No. 7. I agree with the magistrate judge that the claims are frivolous, 

and I incorporate into this order the magistrate judge’s reasoning as to that issue. 

I acknowledge that the Plaintiff is pro se, and I have liberally construed his

allegations. I nonetheless conclude the claims are without arguable merit, and I 

conclude that any amendment would be futile. 

The clerk will enter a judgment that says “This case is dismissed as frivolous.”

The clerk will then close the file. 

SO ORDERED on June 19, 2021. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge
#### § 51.1900 General.

These standards apply only to fieldgrown tomatoes and not to tomatoes grown in greenhouses.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: PETITION TO EMPANEL FIRST

INDICTING GRAND JURY

PETITION OF: THE HONORABLE FRED A. PIERANTONI, III, PRESID ING JUDGE,

LUZERNE COUNTY :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 158 MM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of November , 2016, the Petition to Empanel First

Indicting Grand Jury is GRANTED

.
# L_2014268EN.01001301.xml

| 9.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 268/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 268/13

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 8 September 2014

appointing an Estonian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

(2014/655/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Estonian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

| (2) | An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Juri GOTMANS, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Juri GOTMANS,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| — | Mr Juri GOTMANS, Mayor of Haanja Rural Municipality (change of mandate). |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Juri GOTMANS, Mayor of Haanja Rural Municipality (change of mandate).

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 8 September 2014.

For the Council

The President

S. GOZI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

2

---