alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31992D0282 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31992D0282

**92/282/EEC: Commission Decision of 8 May 1992 approving the plan for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs submitted by Portugal (Only the Portuguese text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 150 , 02/06/1992 P. 0024 - 0024 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 8 May 1992 approving the plan for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs submitted by Portugal (Only the Portuguese text is authentic) (92/282/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/539/EEC of 15 October 1990 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (1), as last amended by Directive 91/496/EEC (2), and in particular Article 3 (2) thereof,

Whereas by letter dated 13 February 1992 Portugal transmitted a plan to the Commission;

Whereas the plan has been examined and found to meet the requirements of Directive 90/539/EEC, and in particular Annex II thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The plan submitted by Portugal for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs is hereby approved.

Article 2

Portugal shall bring into force by 1 May 1992 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to Portugal. Done at Brussels, 8 May 1992. For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 303, 31. 10. 1990, p. 6. (2) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 56.
# EUR-Lex - 31989D0274 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31989D0274

**89/274/EEC: Commission Decision of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by the United Kingdom (Only the English text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 108 , 19/04/1989 P. 0029 - 0029 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by the United Kingdom (Only the English text is authentic) (89/274/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 86/469/EEC of 16 September 1986 concerning examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas, by letter of 29 July 1988, the United Kingdom sent the Commission a plan setting out the national measures taken on the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I, Groups A.III and B to Directive 86/469/EEC;

Whereas examination of this plan, as modified, has shown that it conforms to the provisions laid down in Directive 86/469/EEC, and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1 The plan relating to the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I, Groups A.III and B to Directive 86/469/EEC submitted by the United Kingdom is hereby approved.

Article 2 The United Kingdom shall adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions for the implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom.

Done at Brussels, 30 March 1989.

For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 275, 26. 9. 1986, p. 36.
Exhibit 33.3b



|     |  |  |                                 |                                
|---- |  |  | ------------------------------- | -------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |                                 | 260 Interstate North Circle, SE
|     |  |  | Atlanta, GA 30339              
|     |  |  | T 770.763-4000
www.assurant.com

February 4, 2019

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH

§1122 (d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii)

of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD

JANUARY 1, 2018 TO DECEMBER 31, 2018

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, the Asserting Party)
is responsible for assessing compliance for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and
§1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, (the Applicable Servicing Criteria) which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs
with respect to all mortgage backed securities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the Platform Transactions). The Asserting
Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has
complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transaction.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period.

American Security Insurance Company

Standard Guaranty Insurance Company

TrackSure
Insurance Agency, Inc.



|                                                                                                                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John Frobose                                                                                                                                                     
|By: John Frobose President of American Security
Insurance Company And Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, and
Sr. Vice President of TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.
|                                                                                                                                                                     
|Date: 2/4/2019
#### DIXEY v. SAVAGE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Henry E. Dixey against Henry W. Savage.

No opinion. Motion granted, unless appellant complies with terms stated in order. Order filed.
#### § 2520.437 What method do I use to communicate to a participant the requirements described in the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.435?

To communicate to a participant the requirements described in 2 CFR 180.435 of the OMB guidance, you must include a term or condition in the transaction that requires the participant's compliance with subpart C of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by subpart C of this part, and requires the participant to include a similar term or condition in lower-tier covered transactions.
#### § 2336.332 What methods must I use to pass requirements down to participants at lower tiers with whom I intend to do business?

You as a participant must include a term or condition in lower-tier transactions requiring lower-tier participants to comply with subpart C of the OMB guidance in 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by this subpart.
§ 960.5-2-6 Socioeconomic impacts. ( a ) *Qualifying condition.* The site shall be located such that ( 1 ) any significant adverse social and/or economic impacts induced in communities and surrounding regions by repository siting, construction, operation, closure, and decommissioning can be offset by reasonable mitigation or compensation, as determined by a process of analysis, planning, and consultation among the DOE, affected State and local government jurisdictions, and affected Indian tribes; and
( 2 ) the requirements specified in § 960.5-1(a)(2) can be met.
( b ) *Favorable conditions.* ( 1 ) Ability of an affected area to absorb the project-related population changes without significant disruptions of community services and without significant impacts on housing supply and demand.
( 2 ) Availability of an adequate labor force in the affected area.
( 3 ) Projected net increases in employment and business sales, improved community services, and increased government revenues in the affected area.
( 4 ) No projected substantial disruption of primary sectors of the economy of the affected area.
( c ) *Potentially adverse conditions.* ( 1 ) Potential for significant repository-related impacts on community services, housing supply and demand, and the finances of State and local government agencies in the affected area.
( 2 ) Lack of an adequate labor force in the affected area.
( 3 ) Need for repository-related purchase or acquisition of water rights, if such rights could have significant adverse impacts on the present or future development of the affected area.
( 4 ) Potential for major disruptions of primary sectors of the economy of the affected area.
( d ) *Disqualifying condition.* A site shall be disqualified if repository construction, operation, or closure would significantly degrade the quality, or significantly reduce the quantity, of water from major sources of offsite supplies presently suitable for human consumption or crop irrigation and such impacts cannot be compensated for, or mitigated by, reasonable measures.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

WESTCORP

CERTIFICATION OF CEO

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Westcorp (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, to the best of his
knowledge and belief and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Chapter 63, Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and                          
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
of the Company.

The foregoing Certification is incorporated solely for purposes of complying
with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not
intended to be used for any other purpose.

WESTCORP

/s/ Ernest S. Rady
Ernest S. Rady
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 72

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 72.192 Operator training and certification program.

The applicant for a license under this part shall establish a program for training, proficiency testing, and certification of ISFSI or MRS personnel. This program must be submitted to the Commission for approval with the license application.
§ 609.16 Preservation of collateral. ( a ) If the Secretary exercises his or her right under the Loan Guarantee Agreement to require the holder of pledged collateral to take such actions as the Secretary (subject to any applicable Intercreditor Agreement) 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 collateral, the Secretary shall, subject to compliance with the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341 *et seq.,* reimburse the holder of such collateral for reasonable and appropriate expenses incurred in taking actions required by the Secretary (unless otherwise provided in applicable agreements). Except as provided in § 609.15, no party may waive or relinquish, without the consent of the Secretary, any such collateral to which the United States would be subrogated upon payment under the Loan Guarantee Agreement.
( b ) In the event of a default, the Secretary may enter into such contracts as he determines are required or appropriate, taking into account the term of any applicable Intercreditor Agreement, to care for, preserve, protect or maintain collateral pledged in respect of Guaranteed Obligations. The cost of such contracts may be charged to the Borrower.
#### Robinson *v.*The State.

*Indictment for Burqlaru and Grand Larceny. J J J J*

1. *Ownership of stolen property; variance.*— When the indictment alleges the larceny of property belonging to the husband, and the proof shows that it belongs to the wife’s statutory estate, there is no fatal variance, since the ownership may be laid in either, unless the Code of 1886 has changed the law in this particular; and if it has effected a change (which is not decided), this court will presume, in favor of the ruling of the lower court, that the offense was committed before the new law became operative, unless the record repels the presumption.

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Tried before Hon. S. E. Greene.

' "W. F. Johnson, for appellant,

cited Clark’s Crim. Law, §§ 881, 885; Russell on Crimes, 829; Sess. Acts, 1886-87, P 81, §7.

Thos. N, McClellan, Attorney-General, *contra.*

CLOPTON, J.

The single count in tbe indictment combines a charge of two offenses, burglary and grand larceny. Upon such indictment a conviction may be had of either offense, or there may be a general conviotion, in which event, however, only one punishment can be imposed. The ownership of the dwelling house entered, and of the personal property stolen therefrom, is laid in W. H. "Wooldridge. It is conceded that the house was his property, but the articles stolen was the property of his wife. The court instructed the jury as to the offense of larceny; if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant broke and entered into the dwelling house of W. H. Wooldridge with the intent to steal, and carried therefrom the articles described in the indictment, they are authorized to find him guilty, though the articles stolen were the property of Mrs. Wooldridge. Prior to the passage of the act of February 28, 1887, defining the rights and liabilities of husband and wife, which constitutes sections 2341-2351, of Code of 1886, we held, that in an indictment for the larceny of personal property, which was the wife’s statutory separate estate, the ownership *435may be laid in tbe husband or wife, at the election of the pleader, when they lived together and had possession of the *property.*— Ellis *v State,*76 Ala. 90; *Lavender v. State,*60 Ala. 60. The bill of exceptions does not purport to set out the entire evidence. The only statement as "to the time when the offense was committed, is, that it was within three years before the finding of the indictment, which was filed in court April 25, 1888. Were it conceded, that had the record shown that the offense was committed after the passage of the act of February 28, 1887, the charge would be erroneous, as to which we express no opinion, we must presume in support of the rulings of the court, in the absence of an affirmation otherwise, that the offense was committed before the passage of the act; in which case the ownership is properly laid in the indictment, and there is no variance between the averments of the indictment and the proof.

Affirmed.
#### § 960.3-1-2 Diversity of rock types.

Consideration shall be given to a variety of geologic media in which sites for the development of repositories may be located. To the extent practicable, and with due consideration of candidate sites characterized previously or approved for such characterization if the circumstances apply, sites recommended as candidate sites for characterization shall have different types of host rock.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 12

- 00262

- CR In re Jose Roberto Medina, Relator Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 9, 2012 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On April 30, 2012, R elator Jose Roberto Medina filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

co mplaining that the 226th Judicial District Court has failed to provide him with copies of records he claim s he requested. In 2010, R elator entered a plea bargain agreement, in district court Cause No. 2010

- CR

- 1086, and was sentenced to fifteen years’ conf inement for burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit a felony with force. On February 9, 2011, in appellate court Cause No. 04

- 10

- 00896

- CR, this court dismissed the appeal in the above criminal case for lack of jur isdiction because we concluded r elator had n o right of appeal. Therefore, R elator’s felony conviction became final.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010

- CR

- 1086 , styled State of Texas v. Jose Roberto Medina , pending in the 226th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sid L. Harle presiding.04

- 12

- 00262

- CR

- 2

- Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to post

conviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 1991); see also T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11.07 ( West Supp. 2011); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist. , 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding that “A rticle 11.07 provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction.”). Because the relief sought in R elator’s petition relates to post

- conviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction, we are without jurisdiction to consider his p etition for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, R elator’s petition is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH
#### PEOPLE ex rel. THERKATZ v. WALDO, Police Com’r.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of John R. Therkatz, against Rhinelander Waldo, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York.

No opinion. Determination confirmed, and writ quashed, with $50 costs and disbursements.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7552

MICHAEL R. CARTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-00-862)

Submitted: February 27, 2002 Decided: March 18, 2002

Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Morchower, MORCHOWER, LUXTON & WHALEY, Richmond, Virginia;

Christopher Campbell Booberg, THORSEN, MARCHANT & SCHER, L.L.P.,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael R. Carter seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Carter v. Angelone, No. CA00-862 (W.D. Va. Aug. 10, 2001). 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
GPC report

This is CBI
#### § 2000.1010 Suspending official.

The suspending official for the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the Director, Office of Administration.
#### § 2900.12 Revision of budget and program plans approval from Grant Officers.

In the DOL, unless otherwise noted in the grant agreement or cooperative agreement, prior written approval for revision of budget and program plans must come from the Grant Officer (see 2 CFR 200.308(d)).

[86 FR 22108, Apr. 27, 2021]
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capitala Finance Corp. (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph B. Alala III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 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, as amended; 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: March 8, 2016 /s/ Joseph B. Alala IIIJoseph B. Alala III Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) Capitala Finance Corp.
#### Carol Boyer, Respondent, v. Felix Kaufmann, Appellant.

Decision on appeal from order entered in Family Court December 12, 1969, held in abeyance in accord with memorandum. The order which is the subject of this appeal awards a counsel fee in this filiation proceeding to petitioner’s attorney. The fee represents a $2,000 balance on the $4,000 fee which petitioner contracted for with the attorney. There are in addition two other applications pending in this matter, namely, an order finding paternity, from which an appeal has been taken but not as yet perfected, and an order directing a hearing on the amount of support, which hearing has not yet been held. Pending the hearing the parties have stipulated for temporary support in the sum of $20 per week. To avoid the possibility of irreconcilable determinations, we find it desirable to defer decision on this appeal until the other phases are before us. If an appeal from the order awarding support is perfected, that appeal should be consolidated with this appeal. It no appeal is taken, either party may move to restore this appeal to the calendar for reference to the same bench. Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.