alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

**SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE**

Crusade Management Limited

Level 4, 4-16 Montgomery Street

Kogarah, New South Wales 2217 Australia

Re: Assessment of compliance for services provided pursuant to the Servicing Agreement dated March 19, 1998, the Supplementary Terms Notice dated September 19, 2006, between, among others, St.George Bank Limited ABN 92 055 513 070 (the “**Servicer**”), Crusade Management Limited ABN 90 072 715 916 and Perpetual Trustees Consolidated Limited ABN 42 000 001 007 and any other Transaction Document as it relates to the Crusade Global Trust No. 2 of 2006 (collectively, the “**Agreements**”).

The undersigned hereby certifies that:

|   | 1. | I, Paul Fegan, am an authorised officer of the Servicer. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period from September 21, 2006 (date of issuance of the Crusade Global Trust No. 2 of 2006) through September 30, 2006 (the “**Reporting Period**”), and of its performance under each of the Agreements has been made under my supervision. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under each of the Agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date:  20 December 2006

             /s/ Paul Fegan                     

Paul Fegan

Group Executive

St.George Bank Limited
242.1204 Applicability of novation

agreements.

(i) When a novation agreement is required and the transferee intends to incur restructuring costs as

defined at 231.205-70 , the cognizant contracting officer shall include the following provision as

paragraph (b)(7) of the novation agreement instead of the paragraph (b)(7) provided in the sample

format at FAR 42.1204(i):

“(7)(i) Except as set forth in subparagraph (7)(ii) below, the Transferor and the Transferee agree

that the Government is not obligated to pay or reimburse either of them for, or otherwise give effect

to, any costs, taxes, or other expenses, or any related increases, directly or indirectly arising out of

or resulting from the transfer or this Agreement, other than those that the Government in the

absence of this transfer or Agreement would have been obligated to pay or reimburse under the

terms of the contracts.

(ii) The Government recognizes that restructuring by the Transferee incidental to the

acquisition/merger may be in the best interests of the Government. Restructuring costs that are

allowable under Part 31 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or Part 231 of the Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) may be reimbursed under flexibly-priced

novated contracts, provided the Transferee demonstrates that the restructuring will reduce overall

costs to the Department of Defense (DoD) (and to the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA), where there is a mix of DoD and NASA contracts), and the requirements

included in DFARS 231.205-70 are met. Restructuring costs shall not be allowed on novated

contracts unless there is an audit of the restructuring proposal; a determination by the contracting

officer of overall reduced costs to DoD/NASA; and an Advance Agreement setting forth a cumulative

cost ceiling for restructuring projects and the period to which such costs shall be assigned.”

Parent topic: Subpart 242.12 - NOVATION AND CHANGE-OF-NAME AGREEMENTS
242.002 Interagency agreements.       (b)(i)  DoD requires reimbursement, at a rate set by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer), from non-DoD organizations, except for—          (A)  Quality assurance, contract administration, and audit services provided under a no-charge reciprocal agreement;          (B)  Services performed under subcontracts awarded by the Small Business Administration under FAR Subpart 19.8; and          (C)  Quality assurance performed for the Canadian Department of National Defence and pricing services performed for Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), operating as Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC).          (ii)  Departments and agencies may request an exception from the reimbursement policy in paragraph (b)(i) of this section from the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer).  A request must show that an exception is in the best interest of the Government.          (iii)  Departments and agencies must pay for services performed by non-DoD activities, foreign governments, or international organizations, unless otherwise provided by reciprocal agreements.          (S-70)(i)  Foreign governments and international organizations may request contract administration services on their direct purchases from U.S. producers.  Direct purchase is the purchase of defense supplies in the United States through commercial channels for use by the foreign government or international organization.          (ii)  PWGSC, operating as PSPC, is permitted to submit its requests for contract administration services directly to the cognizant contract administration office.          (iii)  Other foreign governments (including Canadian government organizations other than PSPC and international organizations send their requests for contract administration services to the DoD Central Control Point (CCP) at the Headquarters, Defense Contract Management Agency, International and Federal Business Team.  Contract administration offices provide services only upon request from the CCP.  The CCP shall follow the procedures at PGI                 242.002             (S-70)(iii).    **Parent topic:** Part 242 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
I,  David  E.  McComas,  certify  that:

1.   I  have  reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Eye Care Centers of
     America,  Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this 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
     report;

3.   Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and other financial
     information  included  in  this  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 report;

4.   The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  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  our
          supervision,  to  ensure  that  material  information  relating to the
          registrant,  including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us  by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which  this  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
          first  fiscal  quarter  that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely  to  materially  affect, the registrant's internal control over
          financial  reporting.

5.   The  registrant's  other  certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
     our 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  function):

     a)   All  significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation  of  internal  control  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
          control  over  financial  reporting.

Date:  August  10,  2004
/S/  David  E.  McComas
-----------------------
David  E.  McComas
President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer
Exhibit 32

 

**CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Osage Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Mark S. White, Chief Executive Officer, and Sue Allen Smith, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| /s/ Mark S. White       |   | /s/ Sue Allen Smith     |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| Mark S. White           |   | Sue Allen Smith         |
| Chief Executive Officer |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|                    |   |                    |

 

| Date: | September 25, 2009 |
|-------|--------------------|
Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 36-2 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 36-2 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 36-2 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 36-2 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 36-2 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 5 of 5
J ,,tSO srqT

~

s 

y2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

o ~~~ Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

~M~Io 

yTqC PROS,G? _ 

Jut - g 2014 

OFFICE OF 

Mr. J. R. Stroble AIR AND RADIATION 

Manager, National TRU Program 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, New Mexico 88221-3090 

Dear Mr. Stroble: 

On January 7, 2014 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO), requested the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's approval to add contact-handled (CH) solids and sludge 

(Summary Category Group S3000) to the approved CH Transuranic (TRU) waste categories 

characterized by the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

(ORNL). EPA conducted a continued compliance inspection at ORNL in February 2014 and confirmed 

that the site remained in compliance with 40 CFR 194 (see EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49: II-A4-186 for 

details). With this letter EPA approves the requested Tier 1(T1) change to include S3000 waste in the 

EPA-approved program. 

If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462 or 

Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422. 

Sincerely, 

~ 

~ 

om Peake, Director 

Center for Waste Management and Regulations 

Enclosure 

cc: Electronic Distribution 

Joe Franco, CBFO 

Norma Castaneda, CBFO 

Tom Morgan, CBFO 

Mike Brown, CBFO QA 

Site Documents 

Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyctable 9 Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, John B. Stedman, Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of TSB Financial Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issueras of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the smallbusiness issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize,and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe small business issuer’s internal controls over financialreporting.        Date:  March 23, 2007 By:  /s/ John B. Stedman, Jr.    John B. Stedman, Jr.    President and
159 So.2d 290

#### Joseph F. MOLLIERE, individually and as administrator of the estate of the minor child, Wayne Moliiere, v. AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP et al.

No. 47074.

Jan. 22, 1964.

In re: Joseph F. Moliiere, individually and as administrator of the estate of the minor child Wayne Moliiere, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Ascension. 158 So.2d 279.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04360A130
| Updated 1/14/98**Healthy    People 2000     Statistical Notes**
Statistical Notes most    recent issue to 11     Statistical Notes Numbers 10 to 1 
**[textline.htm]** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
(163 App. Div. 495)

#### CITY OF NEW YORK v. BEERS.

(No. 6005.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

Domicile (§ 4*)—Evidence.

One who for about ten years lived in a town from May until November in each year and then moved to a city with his family, and occupied a rented house for the season, and who has for about ten years voted at the town at both state and local elections, and for for the last ten years has been assessed for personal property taxes there, and who in a judicial proceeding to which he was a party within the ten years treated the county in which the town was located as his legal domicile, is a legal resident of the town.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Domicile, Cent. Dig. §§ 5-23; Dec. Dig. § 4.*]

Appeal from- Trial Term, New York County. _ '

Action by the City of New York against Lucius H. Beers, trustee of the estate of Robert Stewart. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed, and complaint dismissed.

Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.

Franklin B. Lord, of New York City, for appellant.

William H. King, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

*439HOTCHKISS, J.

Defendant claims to have been a resident of Westhampton since July, 1910. It appears that since 1904 he has lived at Westhampton from May until November in each year. In November, it is his custom to move with his family to New York City, where he rents a house for the season. Since 1903, he has voted at Westhampton at both state and local elections, and he is and for the last ten years past has been assessed for personal taxes in the town of Southhampton, which includes the village of Westhampton. In certain judicial proceedings to which he was a party, he has, within the period last referred to, treated Suffolk as the county of his legal domicile. In 1901 the defendant obtained a writ of certiorari to review his personal assessment in this city for the year 1901. The writ was dismissed, the court holding on the record before it that the defendant was a resident of this city and liable to taxation here. It appeared in the certiorari proceedings that defendant’s course of life with respect to his several domiciles in Westhampton and New York City and the period of his use of each was practically the same as appears upon the record before us. It further appeared, however, that the defendant had voted in the city of New York at the election in 1900, and on this ground defendant was held to have elected to consider this city as his place of residence, and so was liable to be assessed here. People ex rel. Beers v. Feitner, 40 Misc. Rep. 368, 82 N. Y. Supp. 258.

I think that inasmuch as defendant has since the period involved in the certiorari proceedings elected to adopt Westhampton as his voting place; and has by other acts shown an unequivocal intention to adopt Westhampton as his legal residence, these facts must be accepted as determinative of his intent, and that the judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. All concur.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

NELSON RIVERA,

D.O.C. # X73975,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv532–WS/MAF

J. KYER, et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

No. 24) docketed August 30, 2021. The magistrate judge recommends that

Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies be denied. Defendant has filed no objections to the report and

recommendation.

Having considered the record, the court finds that Defendant’s motion to

dismiss (ECF No. 19) must be denied as recommended by the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Case 4:20-cv-00532-WS-MAF Document 25 Filed 10/12/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 24) is

hereby ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies is DENIED.

3. The clerk shall return the case to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of October , 2021.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00532-WS-MAF Document 25 Filed 10/12/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 70.11 [Reserved]
§ 789.34 Types of allocations orders. ( a ) The three types of allocations orders that may be used for allocations actions are: ( 1 ) Set-asides;
( 2 ) Directives; and
( 3 ) Allotments.
( b ) [Reserved]