alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 33.2



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





REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB

SERVICING CRITERIA

PHH Mortgage
Corporation (the Asserting Party) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2015 and for the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (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, 2015 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 26, 2016



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ Glen A. Messina                   
|Glen A. Messina                       
|President                             
|                                      
|/s/ Martin L. Foster                  
|Martin L. Foster                      
|                                      
|Senior Vice President  Loan Servicing
|
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. David H. Besso, on Behalf of Daniel Green, Petitioner, v Thomas Murphy, Respondent.

[813 NYS2d 663]

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application for bail reduction upon Suffolk County indictment No. 1219D-2006.

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, was not an improvident exercise of discretion, and did not violate “constitutional or statutory standards” *(People ex rel. Klein v Krueger,*25 NY2d 497, 499 [1969]; *see People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson,*48 NY2d 230 [1979]). Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. § 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AbingtonBancorp, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of theundersigned James P. McDonough, President and Chief Executive Officer and JamesK. Hunt, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Abington Bancorp, Inc.,certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 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 P. McDonough                                    |                                                 | /s/ James K. Hunt |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|--------|
| James P. McDonough  President and Chief Executive Officer | James K. Hunt  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|                                                      |
| Date:  August 14, 2003                          |

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

1

----
#### HAYMAN v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 26, 1914.)

Action by Millie L. Hayman against the City of New York and another.

No opinion. Motions denied, without costs. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1119.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. BUCK, Respondent, v. WILLIAMS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 11, 1915.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of John S. Buck, against William Williams, as Commissioner of Water Supply, Gas, and Electricity.

PER CURIAM.

Order (of 148 N. Y. Supp. 1136) reversed, on reargument, without costs, in accord with the terms of the opinion per curiam in People ex rel. Finch v. Williams, 151 N. Y. Supp. 271, decided January 8, 1915. Settle order before the Presiding Justice. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1103.
- Page 1
- Page 2
- Page 3
- Page 4
- Page 5
- Page 6
- Page 7
- Page 8
- Page 9
- Page 10
- Page 11
- Page 12
- Page 13
- Page 14

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2022-04-13T07:57:50-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
exv10w1



 








Exhibit 10.1 — Agreement dated July 21, 2006




July 21, 2006




PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL

Board of Directors

infoUSA Inc.




Gentlemen:





     I am writing this letter to inform the Board of Director that, for a period ending on July 21,
2007 (the “Covered Period”), I will not directly or indirectly acquire any additional securities of
the infoUSA Inc. (the “Company”), except that I may exercise stock options that have been granted
to me by the Company. This letter will not apply, however, if the Company (a) announces that it
has entered into an agreement with a third party that contemplates a merger, consolidation, sale of
substantially all of the assets or business combination involving the Company, or (b) the Company
announces that it has entered into an agreement with a third party that contemplates a change of
control of the Company by tender offer, exchange offer or otherwise or the Board of Directors has
publicly recommended such a transaction.



     The Company and I acknowledge and agree that during the Covered Period, so long as I am in
compliance with my obligations under this letter, the Company shall not take any action to modify,
extend or amend the Company’s Preferred Shares Rights Agreement with Norwest Bank N.A. Minnesota,
(as amended, the “Rights Agreement”) to directly or indirectly include me in the definition of
“Acquiring Person” as such term is used in the Rights Agreement or take any action including
amending the Rights Agreement or adopting any other rights agreement, plan or other arrangement
that has the direct or indirect effect of including me within the purview of the Rights Agreement
or such other rights agreement, plan or arrangement.


Best regards,



/s/ VINOD GUPTA

Vinod Gupta




ACCEPTED AND AGREED




infoUSA Inc.

(acting on authority of the Board of Directors of the Company)




/s/ BILL L. FAIRFIELD

By:       Bill L. Fairfield

Its:       Lead Independent Director
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-1383

___________________________

 

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Dyqwon D. Brown

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

Submitted: June 28, 2022

Filed: July 1, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

 

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

 

PER CURIAM.

Dyqwon Brown received a 96-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty 

to being a felon in possession of ammunition. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 

924(a)(2). As part of the plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal his 

conviction and sentence, except for, as relevant here, ineffective assistance of

counsel. An Anders brief questions the enforceability of the plea agreement, the 
-2- 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed by the district court,

1 and 

counsel’s performance. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

The appeal waiver, which is enforceable, covers all but one of these issues. 

See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity 

of an appeal waiver de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 

2003) (en banc) (explaining that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls 

within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into 

the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a 

miscarriage of justice). For that one, ineffective assistance of counsel, it is too early 

to consider it given the state of the record. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 

449 F.3d 824, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that this type of claim is “usually 

best litigated in collateral proceedings”).

Finally, we have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no 

other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel permission to withdraw. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 

the Western District of Missouri.
§ 75.7 Notification of IAEA safeguards. ( a ) The NRC, by written notice, will inform the applicant, licensee, or certificate holder of those facilities subject to the application of IAEA safeguards under the U.S.-IAEA Safeguards Agreement.
( b ) The licensee must inform the NRC in accordance with § 75.6(c): ( 1 ) Before the licensee begins an activity that may be subject to the U.S-IAEA Safeguards Agreement; or
( 2 ) Within 30 days of beginning an activity subject to the Additional Protocol.
( c ) The notice provided under paragraph (a) of this section is effective until the NRC informs the licensee or certificate holder, in writing, that its facility is no longer so designated. Whenever a previously designated facility is no longer subject to the application of IAEA safeguards under the U.S.-IAEA Safeguards Agreement, the NRC will give the licensee or certificate holder prompt notice to that effect.
[83 FR 19610, May 4, 2018]
H. Res. 563

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

November 18, 2005.

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House 

is waived with respect to any resolution reported on the legislative day of November 18, 2005, providing for consideration 

or disposition of any of the following measures: 

(1) A bill or joint resolution making general appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, 

any amendment thereto, or any conference report thereon. 

(2) A conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 

3199) to extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes. 

(3) A bill or joint resolution relating to flood insurance. 

(4) A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 

section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget 

for fiscal year 2006. 
2

•HRES 563 EH 

(5) A resolution relating to U.S. forces in Iraq. 

Attest:

Clerk.
###### Editorial Note on Part 61

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 61 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 61.61 Applicant qualifications and assurances.

Each applicant shall show that it either possesses the necessary funds or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the necessary funds, or by a combination of the two, to cover the estimated costs of conducting all licensed activities over the planned operating life of the project, including costs of construction and disposal.
#### PATTERSON, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Kate Patterson against the Oity of New York and another.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. For former decision, see 147 N.Y. Supp. 1130.
Rashawn Rich George, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region P. 0. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 June 21, 2012

Re: Federal Aviation Administration v. Coastal Air Transport, Inc. Docket No. FAA-2011-1005 Case No. 2010S0700037 Judge E. Sullivan·.
Dear Attorney George:

· This letter is to advise you that George H.· Logan, is not, 

## and has never been, the Resident Agent for Service of Process for Coastal Air Transport, Inc. Please remove Attorney Logan from your Certificate of Service. I am returning to you the "Agency's Request for Discovery and Production ofDocuments." Thank you.

bb Yours very truly,
NICHOLS NEWMAN LOGAN & GREY, P. C.

# ~k Barbara Brin Legal Assistant to George H. Logan

Enclosure

cc: Hon. 

### J. E Sullivan, Admin. Law Judge
Federal Aviation Administration Atten: Hearing Docket Clerk,**AGC~430** · ,, ' ' Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000**~** 800 Independence Ave, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 : .;;: ·

:j.,

. " l Ji.**-~-** . -. /**~** \ J

### ;:·113j·~**s~t'ch~~**

# ..st Croix, 

## u.,S. ,Vitglri

### ~~~**~ :.:4~71'**  · · ·· '· · Telephane (340)**n3~3200** · TetefaX**(340)'n~3409** 

### · ·· · ,r ' ! { f(_
PGI 225.802 Procedures.       (b) Information on specific memoranda of understanding and other international agreements is available as follows:          (i) Memoranda of understanding and other international agreements between the United States and the countries listed in DFARS 225.872-1 are maintained in the Office of the Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (Contract Policy) (DPC/CP) and are available at https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/ic/reciprocal-procurement-mou.html .          (ii) Military Assistance Advisory Groups, Naval Missions, and Joint U.S. Military Aid Groups normally have copies of the agreements applicable to the countries concerned.          (iii) Copies of international agreements covering the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Western European countries, North Africa, and the Middle East are filed with the U.S. European Command.          (iv) Agreements with countries in the Pacific and Far East are filed with the U.S. Pacific Command.    **PGI 225.802-70 Contracts for performance outside the United States and Canada.****Parent topic:** PGI 225.8 -OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND COORDINATION
```

[109th Congress Public Law 397]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ397.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 2722]]

Public Law 109-397
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 167 East 124th Street in New York, New York, as the ``Tito Puente Post 
       Office Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 18, 2006 -  [H.R. 1472]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TITO PUENTE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 167 East 124th Street in New York, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Tito Puente Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tito Puente 
Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 18, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1472:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Sept. 28, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 6, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
§ 470.12 Management. ( a ) The program shall be managed by a National Program Director within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Solar Energy of DOE.
( b ) The program shall be implemented regionally, based on the 10 standard Federal regions or combinations thereof, to insure substantial consideration of the needs, resources, and special circumstances of local communities. Regions may be combined provided the requirements of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-106 entitled “Standard Federal Regulations” are met. Regional Program Managers shall design and manage the regional programs as directed by the National Program Director and shall consult, as appropriate, with State and local officials, the appropriate technology community and other interested parties.
§ 76.41 Record underlying decisions. ( a ) Any decision of the Commission or its designee under this part in any proceeding regarding an application for a certificate must be based on information in the record and facts officially noticed in the proceeding.
( b ) All public comments and correspondence in any proceeding regarding an application for a certificate must be made a part of the public docket of the proceeding, except as provided under 10 CFR 2.390.
[59 FR 48960, Sept. 23, 1994, as amended at 69 FR 2281, Jan. 14, 2004]
PGI 219.811 Preparing the contracts.

PGI 219.811-1 Sole source.

PGI 219.811-2 Competitive.

Parent topic: PGI 219.8 -CONTRACTING WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (THE

8(A) PROGRAM)
Editorial Note on Part 851
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 851 appear at 88 FR 41293, June 26, 2023.

§ 851.8 Informal requests for information. ( a ) Any person may informally request information under this section as to how to comply with the requirements of this part, instead of applying for a binding interpretive ruling under § 851.7. DOE responses to informal requests for information under this section are not binding on DOE and do not preclude enforcement actions under this part.
( b ) Inquiries regarding the technical requirements of the standards required by this part must be directed to the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
( c ) Information regarding the general statement of enforcement policy in the appendix to this part must be directed to the Office of Enterprise Assessments, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
[71 FR 6931, Feb. 9, 2006, as amended at 71 FR 68733, Nov. 28, 2006; 80 FR 5009, Jan. 30, 2015]
§ 710.27 Administrative Judge's decision. ( a ) The Administrative Judge shall carefully consider the entire record of the proceeding and shall render a decision, within 30 calendar days of the receipt of the hearing transcript, as to whether granting or restoring the individual's access authorization would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. In resolving a question concerning the eligibility of an individual for access authorization under these procedures, the Administrative Judge shall consider the factors stated in § 710.7(c) to determine whether the findings will be favorable or unfavorable.
( b ) In reaching the findings, the Administrative Judge shall consider the demeanor of the witnesses who have testified at the hearing, the probability or likelihood of the truth of their testimony, their credibility, and the authenticity and accuracy of documentary evidence, or lack of evidence on any material points in issue. If the individual is, or may be, prejudiced by the non-disclosure to the individual of undisclosed information or by lack of opportunity to cross-examine confidential informants, the Administrative Judge shall take that fact into consideration. The possible adverse impact of the loss of the individual's access authorization upon the DOE program in which the individual works shall not be considered by the Administrative Judge.
( c ) The Administrative Judge shall make specific findings based upon the record as to the validity of each instance of derogatory information contained in the notification letter and the significance which the Administrative Judge attaches to it. These findings shall be supported fully by a statement of reasons which constitute the basis for such findings.
( d ) The Administrative Judge's decision shall be based on the Administrative Judge's findings of fact. If, after considering all of the factors set forth in § 710.7(c) in light of the Adjudicative Guidelines, the Administrative Judge is of the opinion that it will not endanger the common defense and security and will be clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or reinstate access authorization for the individual, the Administrative Judge shall render a favorable decision; otherwise, the Administrative Judge shall render an unfavorable decision. Within 15 calendar days of the Administrative Judge's written decision, the Administrative Judge shall provide copies of the decision and the administrative record to the Manager and the Director.
[81 FR 71335, Oct. 17, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 59597, July 23, 2024]
No. 76-5049.

#### Bales *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cr-202-WKW

 )

EUGENE L. CLECKLER )

 

ORDER

On August 14, 2008, Defendant Eugene L. Cleckler filed a pro se Reply to the United

States’ Response to Defendant’s Motion to Suspend Execution of Forfeiture (Doc. # 131).

Prior to Defendant filing his Reply, the court entered an Order (Doc. # 130), denying

Defendant's Motion to Suspend Execution of Forfeiture (Doc. # 126), upon which

Defendant's Reply is based. The arguments proffered by Defendant in his Reply, however,

do not change the opinion of the court, as set out in its Order denying Defendant's Motion

to Suspend Execution of Forfeiture (Doc. # 130), that the court cannot suspend execution

proceedings that have not yet begun.

DONE this 21st day of August, 2008.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 132 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 1
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Kevin Keith Beard, * From the 363rd District

 Court of Dallas County,

 Trial Court No. F-1060635-W.

Vs. No. 11-13-00123-CR * August 7, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, we 

modify the judgment of the trial court to reflect that Kevin Keith Beard entered a 

plea of “NOT TRUE” to the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate. As 

modified, we affirm.