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

 

**MANAGEMENT’S ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

Management of the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (or “Company”) is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

Management has determined that the servicing criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are applicable in regard to the servicing platform as of and for the period as follows:

 

Platform:  Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) equipment loan-backed securities issued by CNH Equipment Trust, as listed in Appendix A, for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services (the “Platform”).

 

Applicable Servicing Criteria:  All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by Item 1122(d) servicing criteria in regards to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform, except for the following servicing criteria: 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(v), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities the Company performs with respect to the Platform (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”).  With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relates to remittances.

 

Period:  Twelve months ended December 31, 2016 (the “Period”).

 

With respect to the Platform as of and for the Period, the Company’s management provides the following assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

 

The Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

 

The Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.

 

Based on such assessment, the Company has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

 

KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to management’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.

 
|                            | **CITIBANK,   N.A.** |
|---------------------------------|----------------------|
|                            |                 |
|                            | By:                  | /s/Karen   Montbach |
|                            |                 |   |
|                            | Its:                 | Managing   Director |
|                            |                 |
| Dated: February 24,   2017 |                 |

 

----

 

Appendix A

 

CNH Transactions and Securities Constituting the Platform

 

**DEAL NAME**

 

CNH Equipment Trust 2014-C

CNH Equipment Trust 2015-C

CNH Equipment Trust 2016-A

CNH Equipment Trust 2016-C

 

----
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

March 21, 2001

Before

Hon. Joel M. Flaum, Chief Judge

Hon. Richard D. Cudahy, Circuit Judge

Hon. Terence T. Evans, Circuit Judge

No. 99-4082

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States 

Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

v.

No. 97 C 8887

5 S 351 TUTHILL ROAD, NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS,

Defendant, James F. Holderman,

Judge.

Appeal of: JOHN BOCHNEWYCH,

Claimant.

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the PETITION FOR REHEARING, filed on January 19, 2001,

by the United States,

IT IS ORDERED that the petition is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the slip opinion in this case issued December 5, 2000,

is amended as follows:

Following the last sentence on page 15, the following sentence is inserted: “We emphasize

that this opinion does not purport to resolve the issue of innocent ownership in any of its

dimensions.”
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Questions on Monetary Policy and Debt Management

              																	United States. Congress. Joint Economic Committee, 1956-					 and 	Eighty-Sixth Congress, 1959-1961. 						*Questions on Monetary Policy and Debt Management : Prepared for the Study of Employment, Growth, and Price Levels, Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States*,												Washington: 								Government Printing Office, 										1959,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1243,			accessed on September 18, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
EXHIBIT 32.a



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 American Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 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 Partnership.



|                  |     |                            
|----------------- | --- | ---------------------------
|Date:             |     |                            
|February 14, 2011 | By: | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                  |     |                            
|                  |     | John P. Manning            
|                  |     | Principal Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 1.144-2 Remedial actions.

The remedial action rules of § 1.142-2 apply to qualified small issue bonds issued under section 144(a) and to qualified redevelopment bonds issued under section 144(c), for this purpose treating those bonds as exempt facility bonds and the qualifying purposes for those bonds as exempt facilities.

[T.D. 8712, 62 FR 2303, Jan. 16, 1997]
NUMBER 13-15-00513-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

KEVIN LOZANO A/K/A 

KEVIN LOZAWO, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 357th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on the record and appellant’s brief. Appellant’s 

brief was filed on April 5, 2018. The State has not filed a brief. The Court, having fully 

examined the record and appellant’s brief hereby ORDERS the State to file its brief with 

this Court on or before November 26, 2018. Further motions for extension of time will 
2

not be favorably entertained by the Court.

The State’s first motion for extension of time to file its appellate response brief is 

DISMISSED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

23rd day of October, 2018.
Amended and Restated Revolving Note



Exhibit 10.76 
 
AMENDED AND RESTATED REVOLVING NOTE 
 

	 $13,500,000
	  	 	  	 February 3, 2003


 
For
value received, the undersigned, RF MONOLITHICS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Borrower”), hereby promises to pay on the Termination Date under the Credit Agreement (defined below), to the order of WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CREDIT, INC., a
Minnesota corporation (the “Lender”), at its main office in Minneapolis, Minnesota, or at any other place designated at any time by the holder hereof, in lawful money of the United States of America and in immediately available funds, the
principal sum of Thirteen Million Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($13,500,000.00) or, if less, the aggregate unpaid principal amount of all Revolving Advances made by the Lender to the Borrower under the Credit Agreement (defined below)
together with interest on the principal amount hereunder remaining unpaid from time to time, computed on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed and a 360-day year, from the date hereof until this Note is fully paid at the rate from time to
time in effect under the Amended and Restated Credit and Security Agreement of even date herewith (as the same may hereafter be amended, supplemented or restated from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”) by and between the Lender and the
Borrower. The principal hereof and interest accruing thereon shall be due and payable as provided in the Credit Agreement. This Note may be prepaid only in accordance with the Credit Agreement. 
 
This Note is issued pursuant, and is subject, to the Credit
Agreement, which provides, among other things, for acceleration hereof. This Note is the Revolving Note referred to in the Credit Agreement. This Note is secured, among other things, pursuant to the Credit Agreement and the Security Documents as
therein defined, and may now or hereafter be secured by one or more other security agreements, mortgages, deeds of trust, assignments or other instruments or agreements. 
 
The Borrower hereby agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorneys’ fees and legal expenses
in the event this Note is not paid when due, whether or not legal proceedings are commenced. 
 
Presentment or other demand for payment, notice of acceleration, notice of intent to accelerate, notice of dishonor and protest and all other notices of any kind are expressly waived. 
 
This Note is given in amendment, restatement and modification,
but not in extinguishment or novation, of the indebtedness evidenced by that certain Revolving Note in the principal amount of $13,500,000.00, dated December 8, 2000, executed by the Borrower and payable to the order of the Lender. 
 

	 RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

	
	 By:
	 	 /s/ David M. Kirk


	 	 	 David M. Kirk
 President
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63273-63274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24807]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

 Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits

    Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) during the Week Ending September 28, 2013. The 
following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2007-28567.
    Date Filed: September 26, 2013.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: October 17, 2013.

[[Page 63274]]

    Description: Application of United Airlines, Inc. requesting 
renewal of its certificate authority to provide scheduled air 
transportation of persons, property, and mail between Newark Liberty 
and Shanghai on Segment 2 of United's certificate for Route 821.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register 
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2013-24807 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
§ 1.414(r)-4 Qualified separate line of business—fifty-employee and notice requirements. ( a ) *In general.* This section sets forth the rules for determining whether a separate line of business (as determined under § 1.414(r)-3) satisfies the 50-employee and notice requirements of § 1.414(r-1(b)(2)(iv) (B) and (C), respectively.
( b ) *Fifty-employee requirement.* A separate line of business satisfies the 50-employee requirement of § 1.414(r)-1(b)(2)(iv)(B) for a testing year only if on each day of the testing year there are at least 50 employees who provide services to the separate line of business for the testing year and do not provide services to any other separate line of business of the employer for the testing year within the meaning of § 1.414(r)-3(c)(5). For this purpose, all employees of the employer are taken into account (including collectively bargained employees), except employees described in § 1.414(q)-1, Q&A-9(g)(i.e., the same employees, subject to certain modifications, who are excluded in determining the number of employees in the top-paid group under section 414(q)(4)).
( c ) *Notice requirement* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* A separate line of business satisfies the notice requirement of § 1.414(r)-1(b)(2)(iv)(C) for a testing year only if the employer notifies the Secretary that it treats itself as operating qualified separate lines of business for the testing year in accordance with § 1.414(r)-1(b). The employer's notice for the testing year must specify each of the qualified separate lines of business operated by the employer and the section or sections of the Code to be applied on a qualified-separate-line-of-business basis. See § 1.414(r)-1(c). The employer's notice must take the form, must be filed at the time and the place, and must contain any additional information prescribed by the Commissioner in revenue procedures, notices, or other guidance of general applicability. No other notice, whether actual or constructive, satisfies the requirement of this paragraph (c).
( 2 ) *Effect of notice.* Once an employer has provided the notice prescribed in this paragraph (c) for a testing year, and the time for filing the notice for the testing year has expired without its being modified, withdrawn, or revoked, the employer is deemed to have irrevocably elected to apply the requirements of the section or sections of the Code specified in the notice separately with respect to the employees of each qualified separate line of business specified in the notice for all plan years that begin in the testing year. The Commissioner may, in revenue procedures, notices, or other guidance of general applicability, provide for exceptions to the rule in this paragraph (c)(2) as well as for the effect that will be given to the employer's notice for purposes of any future testing year.
[T.D. 8376, 56 FR 63446, Dec. 4, 1991, as amended by T.D. 8548, 59 FR 32919, June 27, 1994]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20

- 0364 Filed September 22, 2021

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

ERIC JOSEPH RYAN , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Daniel Kitchen
, District Associate Judge.

The defendant appeals his conviction s for two counts of indecent contact

with a child by raising ineffective assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey
, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer , Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester , Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J. , and Greer and Badding, JJ.2

GREER , Judge

. After a jury convicted Eric Ryan of two counts of indecent contact with a
child, he appeals. But
, his appeal focuses only on his trial counsel’s alleged

ineffective assistance. 1 As judgment was not entered in Ryan’s case until
February 2020, t his court has no authority to decide a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See Iowa Code § 814.7 (20 20 ); State v.

Tucker , 959 N.W.2d 140, 1 54 (Iowa 2021). While Ryan raises reasons we should
still review his claims, none win the day. 2 Accordingly, we affirm without further
opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (c), (e).

AFFIRMED.

1 The ineffective

- assistance claims involve allegations trial counsel (1) did not object to comments made by the State during closing and opening, (2) failed to move for mistrial when the jury observed the witnesses crying and refusing to enter the courtroom
, and (3) failed to strike the comments of law enforcement that children do not lie about sexual abuse. 2 Ryan argues Iowa Code section 814.7 violates the E qual P rotection clause, denies him due process and the right to effective counsel on appeal
, and improperly restricts the role of the appellate courts. See State v. Treptow, 960 N.W.2d 98, 104

- 08 (Iowa 2021) (finding unsuccessful the appellant’s challenges to 814.7 on separation

- of

- powers, equal protection, right to effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal
, and due proces s grounds).
#### §§ 1.45L-1-1.45L-2 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATE



As required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, (as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002), I certify that:



(1)        The Quarterly Report of Laser Recording Systems, Inc. for the quarter ending April 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, 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 that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Carl Lanzisera

Carl Lanzisera

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

June 10, 2004
§ 1.401(a)-2 Impossibility of diversion under qualified plan or trust. ( a ) *General rule.* Section 401(a)(2) requires that in order for a trust to be qualified, it must be impossible under the trust instrument (in the taxable year and at any time thereafter before the satisfaction of all liabilities to employees or their beneficiaries covered by the trust) for any part of the trust corpus or income to be used for, or diverted to, purposes other than for the exclusive benefit of those employees or their beneficiaries. Section 1.401-2, a pre-ERISA regulation, provides rules under section 401(a)(2) and that regulation is applicable except as otherwise provided.
( b ) *Section 415 suspense account.* Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a plan, or trust forming part of a plan, may provide for the reversion to the employer, upon termination of the plan, of amounts contributed to the plan that exceed the limitations imposed under section 415(c), to the extent set forth in rules prescribed by the Commissioner in revenue rulings, notices, or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter).
[T.D. 7748, 46 FR 1696, Jan. 7, 1981, as amended by T.D. 9319, 72 FR 16894, Apr. 5, 2007]
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-71,429]

Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on June 26, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by workers of Teradyne, Inc., Richardson, Texas.

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition (TA-W-71,397) filed on June 26, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of July 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-18059 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P