alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 431.224 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy consumption for traffic signal modules and pedestrian modules. ( a ) *Scope.* This section provides the test procedures for measuring, pursuant to EPCA, the maximum wattage and nominal wattage of traffic signal modules and pedestrian modules. For purposes of 10 CFR part 431 and EPCA, the test procedures for measuring the maximum wattage and nominal wattage of traffic signal modules and pedestrian modules shall be the test procedures specified in § 431.223(b).
( b ) *Testing and Calculations.* Determine the nominal wattage and maximum wattage of each covered traffic signal module or pedestrian module by conducting the test procedure set forth in Environmental Protection Agency, “ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Traffic Signals,” Version 1.1, section 1, “Definitions,” and section 4, “Test Criteria.” (Incorporated by reference, see § 431.223) Use a wattmeter having an accuracy of ±1% to measure the nominal wattage and maximum wattage of a red and green traffic signal module, and a pedestrian module when conducting the photometric and colormetric tests as specified by the testing procedures in VTCSH 2005.
[71 FR 71373, Dec. 8, 2006]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                       6,483,528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 14,436,891
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            56,208,012
<PP&E>                                      46,346,515
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,371,746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,587,910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,592,558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,681
<OTHER-SE>                                  71,290,377
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                93,587,910
<SALES>                                     79,563,975
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            79,563,978
<CGS>                                       34,652,227
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,652,227
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               134,541
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,919,002
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,175,701
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,743,301
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,743,301
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
1819.001 Definitions.

High-Tech as used in this part means research and/or development efforts that are within or

advance the state-of-the-art in a technology discipline and are performed primarily by professional

engineers, scientists, and highly skilled and trained technicians or specialists.

Parent topic: PART 1819—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS
2007-2100.

#### State ex rel. McClaran v. Ontario.

Richland App. No. 06-CA-99, 2007-Ohio-5254.
#### William Lawlor et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Dennis Land Development Co., Inc., Appellant-Respondent.

Cross appeals (1) from judgments of the County Court of Saratoga County, entered March 14, 1979 and *666April 3, 1979, upon a verdict at a Trial Term, and (2) from an order of said court, entered April 3, 1979, which denied cross motions to set aside the verdict. In 1970, plaintiff William Lawlor became employed by defendant, the owner and operator of McGregor Links Country Club in Wilton, New York. He was offered the position of golf professional by defendant’s president, George J. Dennis, but the terms of his engagement were never reduced to writing, although such a request was made by plaintiff. The actual employment commenced in the spring of 1971 and was terminated by plaintiff on September 17, 1974. Among other things, plaintiff was paid a salary of $3,000 per year plus 40% of the gross receipts from golf cart rentals. He was provided with a pro shop for the conduct of his business, and was supplied with a rent-free residence on which he was to pay the utilities, upkeep and repairs. He alleged that while the employment agreement was on a year-to-year basis, the occupancy of the residence included an option to purchase it when defendant exercised its option to buy the premises upon which the residence was situated. He further contended that it was the expectation of ultimately acquiring the residence which induced him to enter the contract of employment. In reliance thereon, he and his wife made substantial improvements to the premises, including considerable rewiring, the installation of closets, wall to wall carpeting, cabinets, plumbing facilities and other items beyond normal upkeep and repair, for which he sought reimbursement in this action. Defendant, on the other hand, denied there was any agreement granting plaintiff any type of option to purchase the property. At most, he would be given an opportunity to be considered as a possible buyer in the event defendant offered the premises for sale at some future date. Moreover, in its answer, it set up the affirmative defense of the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law, § 5-703, subd 1) and counterclaimed for the reasonable rental value of the premises from September 17, 1974 to the date plaintiffs surrendered possession. The jury found for the plaintiffs in the sum of $3,700, and for the defendant on its counterclaim in the sum of $900. In our view, there should be an affirmance. The jury accepted the evidence offered by plaintiffs and, by its verdict, has determined that there was an agreement between the parties as testified to by plaintiffs. It has also properly determined that plaintiffs, in reliance on the oral agreement, were entitled to be reimbursed for the improvements made by them which enhanced the value of the premises (cf. *Wilson v La Van,*22 NY2d 131, 135). Judgments and order affirmed, without costs, Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Casey, JJ., concur.
PUBLIC LAW 109–331—OCT. 12, 2006 120 STAT. 1771

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5546:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Sept. 27, considered and passed House.

Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–331

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the United States courthouse to be constructed in Greenville, South

Carolina, as the ‘‘Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. United States Courthouse’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The United States courthouse to be constructed in Greenville,

South Carolina, building number SC0017ZZ, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. United States Courthouse’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the United States courthouse

referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the

‘‘Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. United States Courthouse’’.

Approved October 12, 2006.

Oct. 12, 2006

[H.R. 5546]
Editorial Note on Part 35
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 35.1000 Other medical uses of byproduct material or radiation from byproduct material. A licensee may use byproduct material or a radiation source approved for medical use which is not specifically addressed in subparts D through H of this part if— ( a ) The applicant or licensee has submitted the information required by § 35.12(b) through (d); and
( b ) The applicant or licensee has received written approval from the Commission in a license or license amendment and uses the material in accordance with the regulations and specific conditions the Commission considers necessary for the medical use of the material.
Subpart 846.1 - General    **Parent topic:** PART 846 - QUALITY ASSURANCE846.101 Definition.       As used in this part -          *Rejected goods* means supplies and/or equipment failing to meet contractual terms and conditions and/or generally accepted quality standards that may be returned by the Government at the contractor's risk and expense.
§ 1047.3 Definitions. ( a ) *Act* means section 161.k. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2201.k.).
( b ) *Arrest* means any act, including taking, seizing or detaining of a person, that indicates an intention to take a person into custody and that subjects the person to the control of the person making the arrest.
( c ) *Citizen's Arrest* means that type of arrest which can be made by citizens in general and which is defined in the statutory and case law of each state.
( d ) *Contractor* means contractors and subcontractors at all tiers.
( e ) *LLEA* means local law enforcement agencies: city, county; and state.
( f ) *Offender* means the person to be arrested.
( g ) *Protective Force Officer* means any person authorized by DOE to carry firearms under section 161.k. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
( h ) *Special Nuclear Material* (SNM) means: ( 1 ) Plutonium, uranium enriched in the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235, and any other material which DOE, pursuant to the provisions of Section 51 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, determines to be special nuclear material, but does not include source material; or
( 2 ) any material artificially enriched by any of the foregoing, but does not include source material.
Exhibit 33.2



|     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |                                    
|---- |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 Mortgage Way Mt. Laurel, NJ
08054

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

PHHMortgage Corporation (the Asserting Party) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2017 and for the period from
January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR), except for criteria set forth in
Section 229.1122(d)(3)(i)(c), (d)(4)(xv) and (d)(1)(iii) of the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the servicing activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report (the
Applicable Servicing Criteria). The criteria set forth in Section 229.1122 (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(4)(iv), (d)(4)(vii), (d)(4)(viii) and (d)(4)(xi) of the CFR are performed by outsource providers on behalf of the Asserting Party;
however, the Asserting Party has monitored the outsourcing of these criteria and assumes responsibility for compliance. The transactions covered by this report include all non-agency loan sale agreements
executed after January 1, 2006 as well as all re-securitization transactions after January 1, 2006 for which the Asserting Party served as servicer (the Platform).

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2017 and for the Reporting Period and has concluded that
the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

Deloitte & Touche, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.



|                               
|-------------------------------
|PHH Mortgage Corporation       
|                               
|Date: February 23, 2018        
|                               
|/s/ Robert B. Crowl            
|Robert B. Crowl                
|President                      
|                               
|/s/ Stephen Staid              
|Stephen Staid                  
|Senior Vice PresidentServicing
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1065 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1065

           Raising a question of the privilege of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2006

 Ms. Pelosi submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
             the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
           Raising a question of the privilege of the House.

Whereas for more than 150 years, parents from across the country have sent their 
        children to be pages in the U.S. Capitol, the Page School is a national 
        treasure, and the children who attend it and work in the Congress are 
        our special trust;
Whereas, according to press reports, Representative Mark Foley (R-FL) reportedly 
        engaged in highly inappropriate and explicit communications with a 
        former underage page;
Whereas these allegations were so severe that Representative Foley immediately 
        resigned his seat;
Whereas the page worked for Congressman Rodney Alexander (R-FL) and, according 
        to press reports, Representative Alexander learned of the emails ``10 to 
        11 months ago'' (AP, September 29, 2006);
Whereas Rep. Alexander has said, ``We also notified the House leadership that 
        there might be a potential problem'', and the Democratic leadership was 
        not informed (AP, September 29, 2006);
Whereas all Members of Congress have a responsibility to protect their 
        employees, especially young pages who serve this institution;
Whereas these charges demand immediate investigation, including when the emails 
        were sent, who knew of the emails, whether there was a pattern of 
        inappropriate activity by Mr. Foley involving email or other contacts 
        with pages, when the Republican leadership was notified, and what 
        corrective action was taken once officials learned of any improper 
        activity; and
Whereas given the serious nature of these charges, the pages, their parents, the 
        public, and our colleagues must be assured that such egregious behavior 
        is not tolerated and will never happen again: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That--
            (1) the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on 
        Standards of Official Conduct are directed to immediately 
        appoint a Subcommittee, pursuant to Rule 19 of the Rules of the 
        Committee, to fully and expeditiously determine the facts 
        connected with Representative Foley's conduct and the response 
        thereto; and
            (2) the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 
        Committee on Standards are further directed to make a 
        preliminary report within ten days.
                                 <all>
```
Subpart 1504.6 - Contract Reporting

Parent topic: PART 1504 - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

1504.670 [Reserved]
34.003 Responsibilities.

(a) The DISA Component Acquisition Executive (CAE) is the designee.

Parent topic: SUBPART 34.0 –– GENERAL
Exhibit 32



Certification

Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of FNB Corp., a North Carolina corporation (the Corporation), does hereby certify that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the
Form 10-Q) of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



|                  |  |                        
|----------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 6, 2005 |  | /s/ Michael C. Miller  
|                  |  | Michael C. Miller      
|                  |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                  | 
|Date: May 6, 2005 |  | /s/ Jerry A. Little    
|                  |  | Jerry A. Little        
|                  |  | Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate
disclosure document.
1232.7005 Contract clause.       The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1252.232–70, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests, in solicitations and contracts exceeding the micro-purchase threshold, except those for which the contracting officer has directed or approved otherwise under 1232.7002, and those paid with a Governmentwide commercial purchase card.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1232.70—Electronic Invoicing Requirements
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Criminal Case No. 2:06-mj-069-DRB

)

ROSA E. RINCON )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW Jay Lewis, attorney at law, to enter his appearance on behalf of Defendant

herein and would pray that the Court and all parties serve him with process and all needful

papers.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this __19th__ day of July, 2006.

/s/ JAY LEWIS

Law Offices of Jay Lewis, L.L.C.

P.O. Box 5059

Montgomery, Alabama 36103

(334) 263-7733 (Voice)

(334) 832-4390 (Fax)

J-Lewis@JayLewisLaw.com

ASB-2014-E66J

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 14 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the _24_ day of February, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing

to the following parties or counsel:

Terry Moorer

Office of the United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, AL 36104

/s/ JAY LEWIS

Law Offices of Jay Lewis, L.L.C.

P.O. Box 5059

Montgomery, Alabama 36103

(334) 263-7733 (Voice)

(334) 832-4390 (Fax)

J-Lewis@JayLewisLaw.com

ASB-2014-E66J

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 14 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 31, 2014

h0127

Order 

Clerk

January 31, 2014

147510

AMY M. OGILVIE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147510

COA: 310935

Alpena CC: 11-004212-DM

ERIC ARLINGTON OGILVIE,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 26, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The defendant’s motions 

to adjourn the case until transcript is obtained, to allow for supplemental pleadings of 

application for appeal, to allow for corrections to the record, and to provide other relief 

are DENIED.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-1 for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2015 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 16, 2013, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander
Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-1 and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC./s/ Jennifer M. DavisName:

Jennifer M. DavisTitle:

Deputy Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 29, 2016/s/ Rich MorrinName:

Rich MorrinTitle:

Chief Operating OfficerDate:

March 29, 2016
#### Etoy CALHOUN *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 07-566

259 S.W.3d 455

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered June 21, 2007

*F. Wilson Bynum, Jr.,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Etoy Calhoun, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion for rule on clerk. His attorney, F. Wilson Bynum, Jr., Public Defender for the Eleventh Judicial District-West, states in the motion that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

*370Because Bynum has admitted fault, this motion is granted pursuant to *McDonald v. State,*356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883 (2004). A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.
18.270 Head of contracting activity determinations.    The DLA Acquisition Director has delegated authority to the contracting officer to make the determinations at—       (a) 18.201(b) and (c);       (b) 18.202(a)-(d); and       (c) 18.204(b). **Parent topic:** SUBPART 18.2 – EMERGENCY ACQUISITION FLEXIBILITIES
Editorial Note on Part 35
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 35.18 License issuance. ( a ) The Commission shall issue a license for the medical use of byproduct material if— ( 1 ) The applicant has filed NRC Form 313 “Application for Material License” in accordance with the instructions in § 35.12;
( 2 ) The applicant has paid any applicable fee as provided in Part 170 of this chapter;
( 3 ) The Commission finds the applicant equipped and committed to observe the safety standards established by the Commission in this Chapter for the protection of the public health and safety; and
( 4 ) The applicant meets the requirements of Part 30 of this chapter.
( b ) The Commission shall issue a license for mobile medical service if the applicant: ( 1 ) Meets the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section; and
( 2 ) Assures that individuals or human research subjects to whom unsealed byproduct material or radiation from implants containing byproduct material will be administered may be released following treatment in accordance with § 35.75.