alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Terra Pascarosa and Brady Owen Duff 

tp<:l_SC(ltQ_~9,@Q:l()I11Scle_a_Qai rf()rc~. ()r_g 

( 757) 291-4736 

My name is Terra Pascarosa Duff and I am from Virginia Beach, VA. I am here on behalf of 

my 22-month old son, Brady and my entire family, I want health air, water, and food for him 

today and for all of his tomorrows! All ofthose health factors stem to the Carbon Power Plan 

-we must have clean airto contribute to the clean water and food in our communities. 

In my community of Hampton Roads, we face several climate change related battles on a 

daily basis- two of which are coal dust and sea level rise! We breathe coal dust in on a 

regular basis from the nearby Norfolk Southern terminal. The coal dust is detrimental to 

our health and is a leading cause in many health ailments to include pediatric asthma and 

adult asthma. 

There were 158,500 cases of pediatric asthma and 546,874 cases of adult asthma in 2013 

in Virginia. Our nearby neighboring city, Rich·'llond, VA is the #1 asthmatic capital of the 

United States1 

Secondly, in Hampton Roads we are at risk to sea level rise< second in the country next to 

New Orleans). We do not need to experience a hurricane or Northeaster for Virginia Beach, 

Norfolk, or surrounding cites to flood. We experience sea level rise during a full moon or 

high tide due to sea level rise. Churches in our neighborhoods have to reschedule service 

according to the tide schedules due to severe reoccurring flooding and sea level rise. The 

seas are rising due to climate change and we must have a plan moving forward. Curbing 

carbon pollution must be part ofthis plan, so that we can slow down the process of sea level 

rise and climate change. 

Children are particularly vulnerable to the health impacts of climate change. We have a 

moral obligation to act to protect our children now, not just in the future, and to leave 

them a planet that's not damaged by carbon pollution. I ask that EPA reduce carbon dioxide 

emissions 40% below 2005 levels by 2020. 

Thank you 

Terra and Brady Duff
226 So.2d 519

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Gregg Alan BECK.

No. 50089.

Sept. 29, 1969.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

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

SUMMERS, J.

I believe the application of the State should be granted. The case presented is distinguishable from the authority relied upon (Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 89 S.Ct. 575, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969)) in that no formal charge by way of indictment, bill of information or affidavit has been filed against Beck. In my view a hearing should be held, giving the State an opportunity to prove its assertions.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 2, 2016

No. 04-15-00799-CR

Eric G. YZAGUIRRE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-1569-CR-C

Honorable Gary L. Steel, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due February 29, 2016, but was not filed. Because 

appellant’s counsel filed neither the brief nor a motion to extend time to file the brief, this court 

sent counsel a notice advising him the brief was past due. On March 11, 2016, in response to our 

notice, counsel filed a motion to extend time to file the brief, which this court granted. After we 

granted appellant’s first request for extension of time, his brief was due April 11, 2016 — fortytwo days from the original due date. The brief was not file by the due date, but on April 17, 

2016, appellant’s counsel filed a second motion to extend time to file his brief and a motion to 

supplement the reporter’s record. In the motion to supplement, and for the first time, appellant’s 

counsel stated certain portions of the reporter’s record had not been filed and he could not

complete the appellate brief without them. In his extension, he asked that he be allowed thirty 

days after the record is supplemented to file his brief. 

In response, on April 19, 2016, we ordered the court reporter to file those portions of the 

record requested by counsel. On June 1, 2016, the reporter filed several supplemental volumes 

of the reporter’s record. Accordingly, per our prior order, which required appellant to file his 

brief in this court on or before thirty days from the date the supplemental reporter’s record was 

filed, we ORDER appellant to file appellant’s brief in this court on or before July 1, 2016. 
We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of June, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
§ 501.3 Petitions. ( a ) *Filing of petitions.* Petitions for exemptions are to be filed with OFE at the address given in § 501.11.
( b ) *Acceptance of petition.* ( 1 ) Upon acceptance (as distinguished from filing) of the petition, OFE shall publish in the Federal Register a Notice of Acceptance of Petition or, in the case of an exemption by certification, a Notice of Acceptance and Availability of Certification, signifying that an exemption proceeding has commenced.
( 2 ) OFE will notify each petitioner in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the petition that it has been accepted or rejected and, if rejected, the reasons therefor.
( 3 ) A petition, including supporting documents, will be accepted if the information contained appears to be sufficient to support an OFE determination. Additional information may be requested during the course of the proceeding, and failure to respond to such a request may ultimately result in denial of the requested exemption.
( 4 ) Acceptance of petition does not constitute a determination that the requested exemption will be granted.
( c ) *Rejection of petition.* ( 1 ) OFE will reject a petition if it does not meet the information of certification requirements established for the relevant exemptions under parts 503 and 504 of this chapter. A written explanation of the reasons for rejection will be furnished with notification of the rejection.
( 2 ) A timely-filed petition rejected as inadequate will not be rendered untimely if resubmitted in amended form within ninety (90) days of the date of rejection.
( 3 ) OFE will, within thirty (30) days of receipt of a petition that is found to be incomplete due to minor deficiencies, notify the petitioner of the deficiencies and allow ninety (90) days from the date of notification to cure the specified deficiencies. The failure to cure the deficiencies during this time may result in denial of the requested exemption.
( d ) *Waiver of filing requirements.* Upon its own motion or at the request of a petitioner, OFE may waive some or all of the regulatory requirements if the purposes of FUA would be best achieved by doing so.
EXHIBIT 35.1

SERVICERS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Re: Assessment of compliance for services provided pursuant to the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated February 27, 2007, the Series Supplement,
dated January 8, 2013, the US$ Note Trust Deed, dated January 9, 2013, and other transaction documents relating to SMART ABS Series 2013-1US Trust (collectively, the Agreements).

The undersigned hereby certifies that:



| | 1. | I, Karleen Munns, am a Director of Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited (the Servicer).
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | A review of the Servicers activities during the period from April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015 (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: 24 June 2015           
|                             
|/s/ Karleen Munns            
|Karleen Munns Director       
|                             
|Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited
PGI 247.305-10 Packing, marking, and

consignment instructions.

Follow the procedures in DTR 4500.9-R, Defense Transportation Regulation, Part II, Chapter 208

http://www.transcom.mil/j5/pt/dtrpart2/dtr_part_ii_208.pdf.

Additional guidance for marking can be found at MIL-STD-129P (Document ID 129P) at

http://quicksearch.dla.mil/ and AR 700-15 at

http://www.apd.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r700_15/cover.asp.

Consignment locations can be found in the Transportation Facilities Guide (TFG) on the SDDC

website at https://eta.sddc.army.mil/default.asp?fa=general. Access to this site requires an

Electronic Transportation Account.

Parent topic: PGI 247.305 Solicitation provisions, contract clauses, and transportation factors.
Exhibit 32.2



                            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  Quarterly  Report  of The  Topps  Company,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended August 28, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Catherine K. Jessup, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of
the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to 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/ Catherine K. Jessup
                                                ----------------------
                                                   Catherine K. Jessup
                                              Vice President-Chief Financial
                                                  Officer and Treasurer


October 7, 2004
###### Editorial Note on Part 51

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

#### § 51.2 Subparts.

(a) The regulations in subpart A of this part implement section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
| (logo) plante moran | **Plante & Moran, PLLC**

10 South Riverside Plaza

9th floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: 312.207.1040

Fax: 312.207.1066

plantemoran.com |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search, LLC

 

We have examined National TaxSearch, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, set forth inItem 1122(d) of the Security and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forthe National Tax Search TaxQ system (the “Platform”) as of and forthe year ended December 31, 2016. The Company has determined that only certainservicing criteria, 1122(d)(l)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v),1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to theactivities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activitiesperformed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.

 

Management is responsible forthe Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliancewith the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination wasconducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included a selection of a sample of transactionsand compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination periodand determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performedthose activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our testing ofselected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations,reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered bythis report. Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may haveoccurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this reportfor the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination doesnot provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with theservicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedservicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for the Platformis fairly stated in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC

 

Chicago, IL

January 27, 2017

 

 

(logo) Praxity 

MEMBER

GLOBAL ALLIANCE OF 

INDEPENDENT FIRMS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      11,279,668
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,750,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 27,622,493
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      58,641,746
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    201,186,836
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,043,565
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             310,139,143
<DEPOSITS>                                 272,976,890
<SHORT-TERM>                                 4,564,338
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,177,499
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,527,760
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,892,656
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             310,139,143
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,428,072
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,436,446
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                28,151
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,892,669
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,509,933
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,558,846
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,333,823
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  125,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,399,706
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,473,006
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,473,006
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,032,750
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.61
<LOANS-NON>                                     20,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   221,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,986,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  101,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    34,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,044,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,884,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        160,000
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6619
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEONARD MAURICE BROOKS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CR-91-159-MU, CA-95-474-3-MU) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 21, 1997 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonard Maurice Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brooks , Nos. CR-91-159-MU; CA-95-474-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Feb. 26, 1997). We find that Appellant's claims regarding the constitutionality of the crack versus cocaine ratio and whether the prosecution met its burden of proving that the substance actually was crack are procedurally barred because Appellant failed to raise them before the district court. As to Appellant's claim that his attorney was ineffective because of a personal conflict of interest, we find that Petitioner has failed to establish both that his attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that he was prejudiced by the attorney's conduct. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of James Manitta, Petitioner, v. State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority dated November 28, 1969, which canceled petitioner’s Special On-Premises Liquor License, retroactively to February 28, 1969, on the grounds that the licensee had violated (1) subdivision 15 of rule 36 of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority (9A NYCRR 53.1 [o]) in that he had knowingly given false testimony under oath, and (2) subdivision 2 of section 102 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law in that he had knowingly employed a convicted felon in connection with his business. Determination modified, on the law, to the extent of annulling and striking out the provision therein canceling petitioner’s license and substituting therefor a provision suspending petitioner’s license for a period of 60 days with credit to be allowed for 53 days during which petitioner’s premises were closed pending a review of a previous cancellation of the license on the first above-mentioned ground (see *Matter of Manitta*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*31 A D 2d 929). As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. In our opinion there was insufficient evidence on the record as a whole to sustain the determination that petitioner had knowingly employed the alleged felon in connection with his business. Petitioner’s record for law observance since purchasing the licensed premises in 1964 is unblemished but for two letters of warning concerning minor infractions occurring nearly four years apart. Accordingly, under the circumstances appearing in the record before us, we are of the opinion that the penalty assessed against petitioner was an abuse of discretion to the extent indicated herein (CPLR 7803, subd. 3; *Matter of L’Intrigue, Inc.*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*29 A D 2d 854). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
2007-1759.

#### State v. Masters.

Crawford App. No. 3-06-20, 2007-Ohio-4229.

O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., dissent.
No. D-890.

#### In re Disbarment of Hancock.

It is ordered that Mac W. Hancock III, of Houston, Tex., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Reportof Greene County Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”), I, James E. Adams, Senior VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary of the Company,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|    |   | /s/          |   | James E. Adams                         |
|--------------|--------|--------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|    |   |    |   | James E. Adams                         |
|    |   |    |   | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial |
|    |   |    |   | Officer and Assistant Secretary        |

 

Date:  November 7, 2006

 

----
§ 1040.2 Application. ( a ) The application of this part is to any program or activity for which Federal financial assistance is authorized under laws administered by DOE. Types of Federal financial assistance to which this part applies are listed in Appendix A of this part. appendix A is to be revised from time to time by notice published in the Federal Register. This part applies to money paid, property transferred, or other Federal financial assistance including cooperative agreements extended, by way of grant, loan, or contract by DOE, or grants awarded in the performance of a contract with DOE by an authorized contractor or subcontractor, the terms of which require compliance with this part. If any statutes implemented by this part are otherwise applicable, the failure to list a type of Federal financial assistance in appendix A does not mean that a program or activity is not covered by this part.
( b ) This part does not apply to: ( 1 ) Contracts of insurance or guaranty;
( 2 ) Employment practices under any program or activity except as provided in §§ 1040.12, 1040.14, 1040.41, 1040.47 and 1040.66; or
( 3 ) Procurement contracts under title 41 CFR part 1 or part 9.
[45 FR 40515, June 13, 1980, as amended at 68 FR 51346, Aug. 26, 2003]