alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Subpart 2101.1 - Purpose, Authority,

Issuance

Parent topic: PART 2101 - FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM

2101.101 Purpose.

(a) This subpart establishes Chapter 21, Office of Personnel Management Federal Employees' Group

Life Insurance Federal Acquisition Regulation, within title 48, the Federal Acquisition Regulations

System, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The short title of this regulation shall be LIFAR.

(b) The purpose of the LIFAR is to implement and supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) specifically for acquiring and administering a contract, or contracts, for life insurance under

the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Program.

2101.102 Authority.

(a) The LIFAR is issued by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management in accordance with

the authority of 5 U.S.C. Chapter 87 and other applicable laws and regulations.

(b) The LIFAR does not replace or incorporate regulations found at 5 CFR part 870, which provide

the substantive policy guidance for administration of the FEGLI Program under 5 U.S.C. chapter 87.

The following is the order of precedence in interpreting a contract provision under the FEGLI

Program:

(1) 5 U.S.C. chapter 87.

(2) 5 CFR part 870.

(3) 48 CFR chapters 1 and 21.

(4) The FEGLI Program contract.

2101.103 Applicability.

The FAR is generally applicable to contracts negotiated in the FEGLI Program pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

chapter 87. The LIFAR implements and supplements the FAR where necessary to identify basic and

significant acquisition policies unique to the FEGLI Program.

2101.104 Issuance.
2101.104-1 Publication and code arrangement.

(a) The LIFAR and its subsequent changes are published in:

(1) Daily issues of the Federal Register; and

(2) The Code of Federal Regulations, in cumulative form.

(b) The LIFAR is issued as chapter 21 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

2101.104-2 Arrangement of regulations.

(a) General. The LIFAR conforms with the arrangement and numbering system prescribed by FAR

1.104 and 1.303. However, when a FAR part or subpart is adequate for use without further OPM

implementation or supplementation, there will be no corresponding LIFAR part, subpart, etc. The

LIFAR is to be used in conjunction with the FAR and the order for use is:

(1) FAR;

(2) LIFAR.

(b) Citation.

(1) In formal documents, such as legal briefs, citation of Chapter 21 material that has been

published in the Federal Register will be to title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(2) In informal documents, any section of chapter 21 may be identified as “LIFAR” followed by the

section number.
§ 600.361 Closeout procedures. ( a ) Recipients must submit, within 90 calendar days after the date of completion of the award, all reports required by the terms and conditions of the award. DOE may approve extensions when requested by the recipient.
( b ) The following provisions must apply to the closeout: ( 1 ) Unless DOE authorizes an extension, a recipient must liquidate all obligations incurred under the award not later than 90 calendar days after the funding period or the date of completion of the award as specified in the terms and conditions of the award or in agency implementing instructions.
( 2 ) DOE must make prompt, final payments to a recipient for allowable reimbursable costs under the award being closed out.
( 3 ) The recipient must promptly refund any unobligated balances of cash that DOE has advanced or paid and that are not authorized to be retained by the recipient for use in other projects. OMB Circular A-129 governs unreturned amounts that become delinquent debts.
( 4 ) When authorized by the terms and conditions of the award, the contracting officer must make a settlement for any upward or downward adjustments to the Federal share of costs after closeout reports are received.
( 5 ) The recipient must account for any real property and equipment acquired with Federal funds or received from the Federal Government in accordance with §§ 600.321 through 600.325.
( 6 ) If a final audit is required and has not been performed prior to the closeout of an award, DOE retains the right to recover an appropriate amount after fully considering the recommendations on disallowed costs resulting from the final audit.
§ 611.108 Perfection of liens and preservation of collateral. ( a ) The Agreement and other documents related thereto shall provide that: ( 1 ) DOE and the Applicant, in conjunction with the Federal Financing Bank if necessary, will take those actions necessary to perfect and maintain liens, as applicable, on assets which are pledged as collateral for the loan; and
( 2 ) Upon default by the Borrower, the holder of pledged collateral shall take such actions as DOE may reasonably require to provide for the care, preservation, protection, and maintenance of such collateral so as to enable the United States to achieve maximum recovery from the pledged assets. DOE shall reimburse the holder of collateral for reasonable and appropriate expenses incurred in taking actions required by DOE.
( b ) In the event of a default, DOE may enter into such contracts as the Secretary determines are required to preserve the collateral. The cost of such contracts may be charged to the Borrower.
Subpart 1843.2—Change Orders    **Parent topic:** PART 1843—CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS1843.205 Contract clauses.       As authorized in the prefaces of clauses FAR 52.243–1, Changes—Fixed Price; FAR 52.243–2, Changes—Cost Reimbursement; and FAR 52.243–4, Changes; and in the prescription at 43.205(c) for FAR 52.243–3, Changes—Time-and-Material or Labor-Hours, the period within which a contractor must assert its right to an equitable adjustment may be varied not to exceed 60 calendar days.1843.205-70 NASA contract clauses.       The contracting officer may insert a clause substantially as stated at 1852.243–72, Equitable Adjustments, in solicitations and contracts for—          (a) Dismantling, demolishing, or removing improvements; or          (b) Construction, when the contract amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold and a fixed-price contract is contemplated.
EXHIBIT 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

American Express Travel Related Services
Company, Inc.

American Express Issuance Trust II

Reporting Period January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013

The undersigned, a duly
authorized representative of American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (TRS), as Servicer pursuant to the American Express Issuance Trust II (the Trust) Amended and Restated Servicing Agreement, dated as of
March 12, 2013 (as so amended and restated and as otherwise amended from time to time, the Agreement), among American Express Receivables Financing Corporation VIII LLC, as transferor, TRS, as servicer (in such capacity, the
Servicer), and The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly The Bank of New York), as indenture trustee (the Trustee), does hereby certify that:

1. TRS is Servicer under the Agreement.

2. The undersigned is duly authorized as required
pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate.

3. A review of the Servicers activities during the reporting period
and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

4. 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 reporting period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
20thday of March, 2014.



|                                                       |  |                
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------
|AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC.
|                                                       | 
|By:                                                    |  | /s/ Kanchan Roy
|Name:                                                  |  | Kanchan Roy    
|Title:                                                 |  | Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81331-81332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32299]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: Termination--Penn 
Millers Insurance Company

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 5 to the Treasury Department Circular 
570; 2010 Revision, published July 1, 2010, at 75 FR 38192.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Certificate 
of Authority issued by the Treasury to the above-named company under 31 
U.S.C. 9305 to qualify as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is 
terminated immediately. Federal bond-approving officials should 
annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Department Circular 570 
(``Circular''), 2010 Revision, to reflect this change.
    With respect to any bonds currently in force with this company, 
bond-approving officers may let such bonds run to expiration and need 
not secure new bonds. However, no new bonds should be accepted from 
this company, and bonds that are continuous in nature should not be 
renewed.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at 
http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570.
    Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial 
Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch,

[[Page 81332]]

3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

    Dated: December 14, 2010.
Laura Carrico,
Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Financial 
Management Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-32299 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
Exhibit 34.4A



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (the
Company), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider (the Platform), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v),
1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the
Companys compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

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

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.

February 4, 2016

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201

T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
225 So.2d 7

#### STATE ex rel. Gibson J. PERCK v C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 50000.

July 21, 1969.

In re: Gibson J. Perck applying for writ of habeas corpus.

The application is denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
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.

 June 11, 2014

p0604

Order 

Clerk

June 11, 2014

147663

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147663

COA: 312065

Berrien CC: 2011-001864-FY

CYNTHIA CHERELLE JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 9, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

cases of People v Hartwick (Docket No. 148444) and People v Tuttle (Docket No. 

148971) are pending on appeal before this Court and that the decisions in those cases 

may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that 

the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decisions in those cases.
#### David WOODY *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 07-894

262 S.W.3d 142

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered September 13, 2007

*Coy J. Rush, Jr.,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant David Woody, by and through his attorney, Coy J. Rush, Jr., has filed a motion for rule on clerk. The record reflects that appellant timely filed his notice of appeal on March 28, 2007, making his record on appeal due on or before June 26, 2007. On May 25, 2007, the circuit court entered an order extending the time for filing the transcript 120 days from the date of the order. Appellant states that when he attempted to tender the record to this court’s clerk on August 22, 2007, the clerk refused to docket the record because the order of extension did not comply with the requirements of Ark. R. App. P — Civ. 5(b). Appellant subsequently filed the present motion.

Rule 5(b)(1), provides:

> (b) *Extension of time.*

> (1) If any party has designated stenographically reported material for inclusion in the record on appeal, the circuit court, by order entered before expiration of the period prescribed by subdivision (a) of this rule or a prior extension order, may extend the time for filing the record only if it makes the following findings:

> *531(A) The appellant has filed a motion explaining the reasons for the requested extension and served the motion on all counsel of record;

> (B) The time to file the record on appeal has not yet expired;

> (C) All parties have had the opportunity to be heard on the motion, either at a hearing or by responding in writing;

> (D) The appellant, in compliance with Rule 6(b), has timely ordered the stenographically reported material from the court reporter and made any financial arrangements required for its preparation; and

> (E) An extension of time is necessary for the court reporter to include the stenographically reported material in the record on appeal.

Ark. R. App. P. — Civ. 5(b)(1) (2007). This court has made it very clear that we expect strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 5(b) and that we do not view the granting of an extension as a mere formality. *See, e.g., Russell v. State,*368 Ark. 439, 246 S.W.3d 856 (2007) (per curiam); *Davis v. State,*368 Ark. 380, 246 S.W.3d 439 (2007) (per curiam); *Munn v. State,*368 Ark. 34, 242 S.W.3d 614 (2006) (per curiam). The order of extension in this case makes no reference to each of the findings of the circuit court required by the rule. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the circuit court for compliance with Rule 5(b).

Remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 623 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 623

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     December 17, 2005.
    Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of 
Saturday, December 17, 2005, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House 
suspend the rules relating to the following measures:
    (1) The bill (H.R. 4519) to amend the Public Health Service Act to extend 
funding for the operation of State high risk health insurance pools.
    (2) The bill (H.R. 2520) to provide for the collection and maintenance of 
human cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and research, and to 
amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize the C. W. Bill Young Cell 
Transplantation Program.
    (3) The bill (H.R. 4568) to improve proficiency testing of clinical 
laboratories.
    (4) The bill (H.R. 3402) to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
Justice for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, and for other purposes.
    (5) The bill (H.R. 4579) to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act of 1974, title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend by one year provisions requiring parity 
in the application of certain limits to mental health benefits.
    (6) The bill (H.R. 4525) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher 
Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.
    (7) The conference report to accompany the bill (S. 1281) to reauthorize the 
human space flight, aeronautics, and science programs of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and for other purposes.
    (8) The bill (S. 467) to extend the applicability of the Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Act of 2002.
    (9) A joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for the 
fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 129476 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129476 COA: 253296 Berrien CC: 2003-403328-FC COLEMAN TAV ON EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 9, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1121 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2005

Clerk
#### GOLDSBOROUGH, Respondent, v. GOLDSBOROUGH, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Matthew T. Goldsborough, Jr., against Richard F. Goldsborough.

G. G. Battle, of New York City for appellant.

H. B. Twombly, of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

IIOTCHKISS, J., not sitting.
#### § 434.521 The simulation tool.

521.1 Annual energy consumption shall be simulated with a multi-zone, 8760 hours per year building energy model. The model shall account for:

521.1.1 The dynamic heat transfer of the building envelope such as solar and internal gains;

521.1.2 Equipment efficiencies as a function of load and climate;

521.1.3 Lighting and HVAC system controls and distribution systems by simulating the whole building;

521.1.4 The operating schedule of the building including night setback during various times of the year; and

521.1.5 Energy consumption information at a level necessary to determine the Energy Cost Budget and Design Energy Cost through the appropriate utility rate schedules.

521.1.6 While the simulation tool should simulate an entire year on an hour by hour basis (8760 hours), programs that approximate this dynamic analysis procedure and provide equivalent results are acceptable.

521.1.7 Simulation tools shall be selected for their ability to simulate accurately the relevant features of the building in question, as shown in the tool's documentation. For example, a single-zone model shall not be used to simulate a large, multi-zone building, and a steady-state model such as the degree-day method shall not be used to simulate buildings when equipment efficiency or performance is significantly affected by the dynamic patterns of weather, solar radiation, and occupancy. Relevant energy-related features shall be addressed by a model such as daylighting, atriums or sunspaces, night ventilation or thermal storage, chilled water storage or heat recovery, active or passive solar systems, zoning and controls of heating and cooling systems, and ground-coupled buildings. In addition, models shall be capable of translating the Design Energy Consumption into energy cost using actual utility rate schedules with the coincidental electrical demand of a building. Examples of public domain models capable of handling such complex building systems and energy cost translations available in the United States are DOE—2.1C and BLAST 3.0 and in Canada, Energy Systems Analysis Series.

521.1.8 All simulation tools shall use scientifically justifiable documented techniques and procedures for modeling building loads, systems, and equipment. The algorithms used in the program shall have been verified by comparison with experimental measurements, loads, systems, and equipment.