alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 712
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 712 appear at 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023.

§ 712.24 Final decision by DOE Under Secretary. ( a ) Within 10 calendar days of receipt of the written request for review, the Director, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security should forward to the cognizant Under Secretary the written request for review, the Administrative Judge's decision, and the administrative record.
( b ) Upon receipt of the written request for review, the Administrative Judge's decision, and the administrative record, the cognizant Under Secretary, in consultation with the DOE General Counsel, will issue a final written decision. The cognizant Under Secretary may delegate this authority. In issuing a final decision, the cognizant Under Secretary shall expressly state that he or she is either revoking or restoring an individual's HRP certification. A copy of this decision must be sent by certified mail (return receipt requested) to the Manager and to the individual.
( c ) The cognizant Under Secretary shall consider only that evidence and information in the administrative record at the time of the Administrative Judge's decision.
[83 FR 18200, Apr. 26, 2018, as amended at 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023]
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2012 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2012-D, does hereby certify that:

 

1.             NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

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

 

3.             This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.             A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2014 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.             To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2014.

 

6.             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 30th day of March, 2015.

 

----

 

March 30, 2015

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/   Brett D. Davis |
|--------|--------|----------------------|
|   | Name:  | Brett   D. Davis     |
|   | Title: | President            |

 

----
#### JOHNSON, Respondent, v. MOSKOWITZ et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 12, 1914.)

Application of Albert H. Johnson, against Henry Moskowitz and others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
# L_2023240EN.01007601.xml

| 28.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 240/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/76

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 211/2020

of 11 December 2020

amending Annex VII (Recognition of professional qualifications) to the EEA Agreement [2023/2013]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2019/608 of 16 January 2019 amending Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the evidence of formal qualifications and titles of training courses (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2019/608 of 16 January 2019 amending Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the evidence of formal qualifications and titles of training courses (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex VII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex VII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 1 (Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32019 D 0608: Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2019/608 of 16 January 2019 (OJ L 104, 15.4.2019, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32019 D 0608: Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2019/608 of 16 January 2019 (OJ L 104, 15.4.2019, p. 1).’

Article 2

The text of Delegated Decision (EU) 2019/608 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 12 December 2020, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 11 December 2020.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 104, 15.4.2019, p. 1.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Roderick Beham, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00174

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 5th District Court of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 14 F 0004 005 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Carter* and Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating. *Justice Carter, Sitting by Assignment. Dissenting Opinion by Justice Moseley.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment

of the court below. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court relating to the conviction is affirmed.

W e reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand th e cause for a new trial on punishment

. We note that the appellant, Roderick Beham, has adequately indicated his inability to pay

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 18 , 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
§ 603.615 Financial management standards for-profit firms. ( a ) To avoid causing needless changes in participants' financial management systems, an expenditure-based TIA will make for-profit participants that currently perform under other expenditure-based Federal procurement contracts or assistance awards subject to the same standards for financial management systems that apply to those other awards. Therefore, if a for-profit participant has expenditure-based DOE assistance awards other than a TIA, the TIA must apply the standards in 10 CFR 600.311. The contracting officer may grant an exception and allow a for-profit participant that has other expenditure-based Federal Government awards to use an alternative set of standards that meets the minimum criteria in paragraph (b) of this section, if there is a compelling programmatic or business reason to do so. For each case in which an exception is granted, the contracting officer must document the reason in the award file.
( b ) For an expenditure-based TIA, the contracting officer is to allow and encourage each for-profit participant that does not currently perform under expenditure-based Federal procurement contracts or assistance awards (other than a TIA) to use its existing financial management system as long as the system, as a minimum: ( 1 ) Complies with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
( 2 ) Effectively controls all project funds, including Federal funds and any required cost share. The system must have complete, accurate, and current records that document the sources of funds and the purposes for which they are disbursed. It also must have procedures for ensuring that project funds are used only for purposes permitted by the agreement (see § 603.625).
( 3 ) Includes, if advance payments are authorized under § 603.805, procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the payment of funds by the Government and the firm's disbursement of the funds for program purposes.
# PGI 204.1870 Procedures.

- PGI 204.1870-1 Instructions to contracting officers. 
- PGI 204.1870-2 Maintenance of the CAGE file. 

**Parent topic:**PGI 204.18 -COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENT ENTITY CODE
Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Perkins Oil & Gas, Inc.
(the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), J. Michael Page, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.


Date: October 15, 2013                By: /s/ J. Michael Page
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          J. Michael Page
                                          Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 80511)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflicts: Cognition and Perception.                    

*Date:*                         January 19-20, 2011.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 6 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Weijia Ni, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3184, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 237-9918,                         *niw@csr.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

                        Dated:                        **                         December 16, 2010.                    

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-32103 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30330

Conference Calendar

 

JERRY CARROLL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GLOBAL MARINE DRILLING COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-563

- - - - - - - - - -

February 11, 1998

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry Carroll appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment to Global Marine Drilling that dismissed his

suit alleging negligence under the Jones Act, pursuant to 46

U.S.C. § 688, and unseaworthiness. He argues that he had shown

genuine issues of material fact concerning whether Global Marine

had failed to provide him with a safe work environment and had

failed to supervise employees properly.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs, and find that as
No. 97-30330

-2-

Carroll failed to allege any facts demonstrating that Global

Marine had failed to exercise that amount of care that a

reasonable, prudent person would in similar circumstances, Global

Marine was entitled to judgment as a matter of law with regard to

the Jones Act claim. See Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107

F. 3d 331, 335, 338 (5th Cir. 1997)(en banc); Robinson v. Zapata,

664 F.2d 45, 48-49 (5th Cir. 1981). Similarly, as Carroll did

not allege any facts showing that unsafe work methods rendered

the “High Island II” an unseaworthy vessel or that

unseaworthiness played a substantial part in bringing about or

actually causing his injury, Global Marine was also entitled to

summary judgment with regard to the unseaworthiness claim. See

Phillips v. Western Co. of North America, 953 F.2d 923, 928 (5th

Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Steven Goldstein, Petitioner, v. Vincent L. Tofany, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

Proceeding dismissed on the merits and respondent’s determination dated May 16, 1968 confirmed, without costs. On the factual situation presented, it is our view that there is substantial evidence to support the finding of gross negligence. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
#### § 603.1235 Consortium.

A group of RD&D-performing organizations that either is formally incorporated or that otherwise agrees to jointly carry out a RD&D project (see definition of “articles of collaboration,” in § 603.1210).
#### § 434.518 Service water heating.

518.1 The service water loads for Prototype and Reference Buildings are defined in terms of Btu/h per person in Table 518.1.1, Service Hot Water Quantities. The service water heating loads from Table 518.1.1 are prescribed assumptions for multi-family high-rise residential buildings and default assumptions for all other buildings. The same service water heating load assumptions shall be made in calculating Design Energy Consumption as were used in calculating the Energy Cost Budget.

Table 518.1.1—Service Hot water Quantities

| Building type | Btu/person-hour1 |
| --- | --- |
| Assembly | 215 |
| Office | 175 |
| Retail | 135 |
| Warehouse | 225 |
| School | 215 |
| Hotel/Motel | 1110 |
| Restaurant | 390 |
| Health | 135 |
| Multi-family High Rise Residential | 2 1700 |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 This value is the number to be multiplied by the percentage multipliers of the Building Profile Schedules in Table 513.2.b. See Table 513.2.a for occupancy levels. | |
| 2 Total hot water use per dwelling unit for each hour shall be 3,400 Btu/h times the multi-family high rise residential building SWH system multiplier from Table 513.2.b. | |

518.2 The service water heating system, including piping losses for the Prototype Building, shall be modeled using the methods of the RS-47 (incorporated by reference, see [§ 434.701](/on/2024-09-17/title-10/section-434.701)) using a system that meets all requirements of subsection 404. The service water heating equipment for the Prototype or Reference Building shall be either an electric heat pump or natural gas, or if natural gas is not available at the site, #2 fuel oil. Exception: If electric resistance service water heating is preferable to an electric heat pump when analyzed according to the criteria of [§ 434.404.1.4](/on/2024-09-17/title-10/section-434.404.1.4) or when service water temperatures exceeding 145 °F are required for a particular application, electric resistance water heating may be used.
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 94-4984.

KOTAM ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JBL CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

Nov. 8, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Florida (No. 94-779-CIV-FAM), Federico A. Moreno,

Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion July 28, 1995, 11th Cir., 1995, 59 F.3d 1155)

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, KRAVITCH, HATCHETT, ANDERSON,

EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit

Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of this court in active service having requested a

poll on suggestion for rehearing en banc, and a majority of the

judges of this court in active service having voted in favor of

granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this

court en banc. The previous panel's opinion is hereby VACATED.
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors and Management of

Prudential Asset Resources, Inc.:

 

We haveexamined management's assertion, included in the accompanying CertificationRegarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that Prudential AssetResources, Inc. (the "Company") compliedwiththeservicingcriteriasetforthinItem1122(d)oftheSecuritiesandExchangeCommission's Regulation AB for theCommercial Mortgage-Backed Security Transactions - RegAB Portfolio (the"Platform"), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended,excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C)&(D),1122(d)(3)(ii),1122(d)(3)(iii),1122(d)(3)(iv),and1122(d)(4)(xv),whichthe Company has determined are not applicable to the activitiesperformed by it with respect to the Platform. Exhibit C to management'sassertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securitiesdefined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsiblefor the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standardsof the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company'scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such otherprocedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examinationincluded testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities thatcomprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to thePlatform, and determining whether the Company processed those selectedtransactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selectedtransactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the periodcovered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detectnoncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequentto our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated orreported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believethat our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Ourexamination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliancewith the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company compliedwith the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the yearended December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all materialrespects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP

February 22,2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP, 300 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017*

*T: (646) 471 3000, F:(646) 471 8320, www.pwc.com/us*
exv10w1



 





EXHIBIT 10.1

COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENT WITH CFO



Listed below is the salary and bonus arrangement agreed upon with Michael S. Browne, CPA, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company. In addition, Mr. Browne is entitled to standard health and
other benefits as are available to other executive officers of the Company. Mr. Browne’s salary
for 2006 has been set at $180,000, on a pro-rata basis, and at $200,000 for 2007. Mr. Brown is
eligible to receive a bonus of $50,000 for 2006, based on personal and company-wide earnings
objectives. For 2007, Mr. Browne is eligible to receive a bonus equal to 50% of his 2007 salary,
with 50% based on expense reduction milestones and 50% based on annual earnings milestones.
Bonuses are paid on February 15th of the year following in which they were earned. Mr.
Browne is eligible to receive equity grants under the Company’s option plan, although no such
awards have been granted at this time. Upon employment,
Mr. Browne received 500,000
options which vest in three equal annual installments commencing on
January 15, 2007.





4