alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         947,920
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,516,177
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,360,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,246,568
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        3,716,177
<PREFERRED>                                  1,250,000
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,360,879
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            59,629,604
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               59,206,252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,929,673
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,506,621)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,506,621)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,535,527)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.65)
<FN>
<F1>Unclassified balance sheet
</FN>


</TABLE>
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier: 2013** 

**- NM** 
**- 0**  **94**

**- AD** 

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### Siroon P. Shahinian, Petitioner, v Board of Higher Education of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review an order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated December 5, 1978, which affirmed a determination of the State Division of Human Rights, dated March 8, 1978, dismissing petitioner’s complaint for lack of probable cause. Order confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs or disbursements. There is substantial evidence to sustain the division’s determination dismissing petitioner’s complaint. While the challenged retrenchment program may have resulted in a disproportionate reduction in the number of personnel who were female or Armenian, the record does not indicate there was any unlawful discriminatory intent under section 296 (subd 1, par [a]) of the Executive Law. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Lawrence E. Elovich, Appellant, v. William D. Meisser et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of Nassau County, and Evans Reeder et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating respondents Reeder, Brass and Hassell as candidates in the Democratic Party Primary Election to be held on June 17, 1969 for the Party position of County Committeeman for the 8th Election District of the 14th Assembly District of the County of Nassau, and for injunctive relief, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 5, 1969, which denied the application and dismissed the petition in the proceeding. Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for (1) a hearing of the objections to the designating petitions and (2) a new determination. No questions of fact were considered on this appeal. In our opinion, petitioner Elovich, as a resident of, an enrolled' Democratic voter in, and a candidate for member of the Democratic County Committee of one election district in the assembly district, is entitled to challenge the validity of any designating petition for member of the Democratic County Committee, even though he does not reside in the election district involved *(Matter of Bergner*v. *Meisser,*10 N Y 2d 787; *Matter of Mahoney*v. *Lawley,*301 N. Y. 425). Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur; Beldoek, P. J., and Rabin, J., dissent and vote to affirm the order, with the following memorandum: In *Matter of Corn*v. *Cohen*(181 Misc. 832, affd. 267 App. Div. 891, lv. to app. den. 292 N. Y. 723) a resident of one election district (who, like appellant in the instant case, was also a candidate for County Committeeman from the district in which he resided) instituted proceedings to contest, the validity of designating petitions for County Committeemen of other election districts in the same assembly district. It was held that this could not be done. It is urged that *Matter of Mahoney*v. *Lawley*(301 N. Y. 425), in which petitioner Mahoney was a resident but not a candidate for party office, overruled *Corn.*In our opinion, *Mahoney*cited *Corn*with *796approval rather than overruled it. We follow *Corn*and *Matter of Vaccaro v. Lawley*(28 A D 2d 809, affd. 20 N Y 2d 653) in holding that the authority of an 'Objector to act is limited to the geographical area in which he runs for office, and his protests as to candidates in other election districts in, the same assembly district are not properly before the court.
EXHIBIT 33.2



Indenture Trustees Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria



Managements Assertion of Compliance



Management of the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (the Company) is responsible for providing this assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, relating to the servicing of the Franklin Auto Trust Platform, comprised of publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities (the Platform), as of September 30, 2007, and for the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007.



Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable in regards to the Platform:



Applicable Servicing Criteria:  All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by Item 1122(d) servicing criteria in regards to the activities performed by the Company, excluding the following servicing criteria: 1122(d)(1)(i) through 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d) (2)(iii) through 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(4)(i) through 1122(4)(xv) (the Applicable Servicing Criteria).



With respect to the Platform, the Companys management provides the following assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

·

The Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria, as of September 30, 2007 and for the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007.

·

The Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria, as of September 30, 2007 and for the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007.  In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.

·

Based on such assessment, other than as identified onAppendix A hereto, as of September 30, 2007 and for the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007, the Company has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to managements assertion of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria, as of September 30, 2007 and for the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007.



CITIBANK, N.A.



By:

/s/ Karen Montbach



Its:

Managing Director



Dated:

11/29/07









Appendix A

Material Instances of Non-compliance



1.

1122(d)(3)(ii) Amounts due to investors are allocated and remitted in accordance with timeframes, distribution priority and other terms set forth in the transaction agreements.  With respect to certain remittances during the reporting period, the amounts due to the Class R investor were allocated and remitted in accordance with distribution priority and other terms set forth in the transaction agreements, but were not credited to such Class R investors account until the business day next succeeding the applicable distribution date.
Dear CLerk, This letter is beingwritten for the following reason(s). I was never given notice that the Court of Criminal Appealsreceived my application for writ of Habeas Corpus Fursuant to Article 11.07Code of Criminal Rircedure. Had I received any notice that the Court of Criminal Appeals received my writ, I wouldnot be writting this letter. I never was inforriBdof the decision that the Court of Criminal Appeals handed down, therefore I am surprized of what ever decision it may 

### be. Should I be denied relief, I request to be given sore form of notice with the date in which that decision was made. Thank you for your time in advance to this matter. Ify information is as follows. Court of CriimnalAppeals WR-75,964-01 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Fllsd 3/10/2011 Best Regards; Candy H. Hughes#1596685 Hughes Unit Rt.2 Box 4400 Gatesville,Texas.76597 U.S.A 12-11-2015 A



### RECEIVED IN 

# COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS
DEC 17 2015


## AbelAcosta, Clerk
srAWMTO

DATE
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 117

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on the Budget in 

the One Hundred Ninth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2005

Mr. NUSSLE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

the Budget in the One Hundred Ninth Congress.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on the Budget 

4 (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Com5 mittee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, there 

6 shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House 

7 of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 

8 not more than $12,026,478 for the One Hundred Ninth 

9 Congress. 
2

•HRES 117 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1—

3 (1) not more than $6,013,239 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2005, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2006; and 

7 (2) not more than $6,013,239 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2006, and ending immediately 

10 before noon on January 3, 2007. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

August 30, 2007

NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE

To: ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case Style: Alston v. Askew et al

Case Number: 3:06cv00722-WKW

Referenced Pleading: Plf’s Objections to Dft’s Witness Disclosure

Docket Entry Number: 28

The referenced pleading was electronically filed on ***August 29, 2007*** in this case and is

not in compliance with the local rules and/or administrative procedures of this court. 

******This pleading is discovery and is not allowed pursuant to Local Rule 5.1 NON-FILING

OF CIVIL DISCOVERY.

The pleading is hereby STRICKEN from the record and the parties are instructed to disregard

the entry of this pleading on the court’s docket. Parties should be aware that the striking of

this entry does not affect their responsibilities as to the discovery process.

Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 29 Filed 08/30/2007 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.2 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)

I, Rod Lynam, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Gallery of
History, 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. 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being
prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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.


Date:  May 14, 2004

                                /s/  ROD LYNAM
                                _______________________
                                Rod Lynam
                                Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA OF

NORTHERN DIVISION

RALPH BROWN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-642-MEF

)

CHAMPION ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RULE 26(f) ORDER

The parties are hereby reminded of the obligation, imposed by Rule 26(f) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to confer and to develop a proposed discovery plan. The

Rule 26(f) report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable but not

later than December 21, 2007.

The longstanding practice in this district is that dispositive motions shall be filed no

later than 90 days prior to the pretrial date. If the parties seek to vary from that schedule,

they should present, in the plan, specific case related reasons for the requested variance.

This case will be set for trial before the undersigned judge during one of that judge's

regularly scheduled civil trial terms. The pretrial date is normally set within four to six

weeks of a scheduled trial term. The dates of each judge's civil trial terms are available on

the court's website located at http://almd.uscourts.gov in the civil case information section.

This court may or may not hold a scheduling conference before issuing a scheduling

order. If the court holds a scheduling conference, counsel may participate in the scheduling

Case 2:06-cv-00642-MEF-SRW Document 36 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

conference by conference call.

The scheduling order entered by the court will follow the form of the Uniform

Scheduling Order adopted by the judges of this court. The Uniform Scheduling Order is also

available on the court's website.

The report of the parties should comply with Form 35 of the Appendix of Forms to

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE this the 21st day of November, 2007.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00642-MEF-SRW Document 36 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 35.6



OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE





I, Karen Montbach, a Managing Director of Citibank,
N.A. (the “Company”), hereby certify, with respect to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of September 1,
2012 , (the “Agreement”), by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, as master servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as successor special servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor,
Citibank, N.A., as certificate Administrator (the “Certificate Administrator”), and U.S. Bank, National Association,
as trustee, the following:



1.	 A review of the Company’s activities
as Certificate Administrator during the reporting period ending December 31, 2015 and its performance under the Agreement has been
made under my supervision.



2.	To the best of my knowledge, based on
such review, as of and for the reporting period ending December 31, 2015, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under
the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.



This statement is given by the undersigned
as an authorized officer of the Company and not in the undersigned’s individual capacity.



Date:	February 26, 2016





|Citibank, N.A         
|----------------------
|                      
|                      
|By: /s/ Karen Montbach
|Name:                 
|Title:
#### COUDERT, Appellant, v. JARVIS, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 12, 1906.)

Action by Louis L. Coudert, as trustee, against Samuel M. Jarvis. W. B. Crisp, for appellant. A. H. Kohn, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Leave granted to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Settle order on notice.
Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 40 Filed 03/19/2008 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 40 Filed 03/19/2008 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 40 Filed 03/19/2008 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 40 Filed 03/19/2008 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 40 Filed 03/19/2008 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 40 Filed 03/19/2008 Page 6 of 6
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3057 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on 4,4′-Oxydianiline. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

Mr. DEWINE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on 4,4′- 

Oxydianiline. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 4,4′-Oxydianiline. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.05.12 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 4,4′-Oxydianiline) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


sroberts on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3057 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE MCNAIR, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-695-WKW

)

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the motions for Vincent R. Fitzpatrick, Stephanie Lynn Cohen and

Heather K. McDevitt to appear pro hac vice (Docs. #20, 21 & 22) filed on November 16, 2006,

it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion be GRANTED.

DONE this 17th day of November, 2006.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 23 Filed 11/17/2006 Page 1 of 1
### Paleomagnetism of the early Proterozoic Sioux Quartzite, southwestern Minnesota: Implications for correlating quartzites of the Baraboo interval

By: Val W. ChandlerG. B. Morey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1904N

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
-                                 Larger Work: This publication is Chapter                                N of                                                                              Contributions to Precambrian geology of Lake Superior region                                                                    
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

September 5, 2006

 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

To: All Counsel of Record

Re: Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Prather 

Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-00733-DRB

The above-styled case has been reassigned to Judge Myron H. Thompson.

Please note that the case number is now 3:06-cv-00733-MHT. This new case number

should be used on all future correspondence and pleadings in this action.

 

Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 5 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 1