alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 146 (Friday, July 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 38167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18310]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Notice of Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to 
OMB for Review

SUMMARY: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has 
submitted the following information collections to OMB for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of 
having their full effect if received within 30 days of this 
notification. Comments should be sent via e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ecbe839f9fb3adc2b3be99988089888b89ac83818ec289839cc28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99cbf6eaeac6d8b7c6cbecedf5fcfdfefcd9f6f4fbb7fcf6e9b7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a> fax to 202-395-6974. Copies of submission may be 
obtained by calling (202) 712-1365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Number: OMB 0412-0572.
    Form Number: N/A.
    Title: Summer Internship Application.
    Type of Submission: Renewal of Information Collection.
    Purpose: The United States Agency for International Development, 
Africa Bureau, intends to use the Summer internship Application to 
collect information from approximately 300 student applicants to its 
summer internship programs for USAID Missions in Africa and in 
Washington, DC.
    Annual Reporting Burden:

Respondents: 300.
Total annual responses: 300.
Total annual hours requested: 150 hours.

    Dated: July 27, 2009.
Cynthia Staples,
Acting Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of 
Administrative Services, Bureau for Management.
[FR Doc. E9-18310 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16

 *Certain portions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a request for
      confidential treatment which has been filed separately with the SEC.

                               (KOCH LETTERHEAD)
                                                          May 17, 2002


EOTT Energy Operating Ltd. Partnership
Attn: Mr. Dana Gibbs
P.O. Box 4666
Houston, Texas 77210-4666

         Re:Crude Oil Supply and Terminalling Agreement ("Agreement") dated
         December 1, 1998 by and between EOTT Energy Operating Limited
         Partnership ("EOTT") and Koch Supply & Trading, LP (as assignee of Koch
         Petroleum Group, L.P.) ("Koch"), EOTT Contract No. 37562, as amended

Dear Mr. Gibbs:

This letter agreement shall serve to modify and amend section 6.2(e) of the
Agreement.

Upon execution of this letter by each party, the Agreement shall be amended
to include the following provision at the end of section 6.2(e):

      [*]

Except as set forth above, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement,
as amended, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

Agreed to as of this 17th day of May, 2002.

EOTT Energy Operating Limited Partnership, by EOTT Energy Corp., on behalf
of its general partner EOTT Energy General Partner, L.L.C.

By: /s/ Dana R. Gibbs/mms
    -------------------------
    Dana R. Gibbs
    President and COO

Koch Supply & Trading, LP

By: /s/ James B. Urban
    -------------------------
    James B. Urban
    Vice President
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

YOASHIE ASHE

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 304

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AND ROBINSON HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.

,

Appellee s

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 2, 2016

Non

- Final Appeal f rom the Circuit Court for Orange County

, Keith F. White , Judge.

Yoashie Ashe, Orlando, pro se.

Shaib Y. Rios, of Brock & Scott, PLLC, Fort
Lauderdale, for U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., Appellee.

N o appearance for other Appellee.

PER CURIAM

.

Yoashi e Ashe ( “ Appellant ” ) appeals the trial court’s January 25, 2016 order

denying his motions to vacate a final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of U.S.

Bank Trust, N.A. ( “ Appellee ” ) . The trial court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on

Appellant’s motions to vacate and mailed a notice of the hearing. The notice, however,2

was mailed to an incorrect address

. The unopened envelope was returned to the

courthouse as undelivered . The hearing went forward as scheduled without Appellant.

Appellant claims that his absence was due to a lack of notice.

Appellant correctly asserts that he was entitled to notice of the hearing so that he

could attend. We express no opinion on the me rits of Appellant ’ s motions to vacate.

Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to reschedule the hearing on Appellant’s

motions to vacate with properly addressed notices of hearing being provided to all

concerned parties.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA

, BERGER and EDWARDS

, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.02








CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


REQUIRED
BY RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b)


AND
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


OF
2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Williams Controls, Inc (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December
31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Dennis E. Bunday, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, 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 result of operations of the
      Company.

















/s/ DENNIS E.
BUNDAY


Dennis E.
Bunday


Chief
Financial Officer


Williams
Controls, Inc.


February
8, 2008
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7112

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JOSHUA FREDERICK DAVIS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 2:16

- cr - 00381

- RMG

- 1; 2:20

- cv 02053

- RMG )

Submitted : November 18, 2021 Decided: November 22, 2021

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Joshua Frederick Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7112 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/22/2021 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Joshua Frederick Davis seeks to appeal th e district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Twenty

- one days after the district court issued its order d enying the motion , Davis filed a letter challenging the factual determinations of the district court, seeking subpoenas to compel the production of evidence, requesting reconsideration of the denial of the motion, and inquiring about the possibility of appointment of counsel. ∗ The district court has taken no action in response to this letter. “[I]f a post

- judgment motion is [timely] f iled

. . . and calls into question the correctness of that judgment it should be treated as a motion under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 59(e), however it may be formally styled.” MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines , 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Dove v. CODESCO , 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978))

. “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Thus, Davis ’ postjudgment motion is properly construed as a timely

- filed Rule 59(e) motion. Accordingly, we order a limited remand directing the district court to promptly docket Davis ’ letter as a Rule 59(e) motion and to consider the motion on its merits. If either party is dissatisfied after the district court disposes of the Rule 59(e) motion and timely files a notice of appeal or amends its current notice, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii), any appeal from the district court’s final order will be consolidated with t his appeal.

∗ Although Davis stated that his letter was a “request,” the substance of the pleading seeks assistance and adjudication that is redressed by way of a motion. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7112 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/22/2021 Pg: 2 of 33 Regardless of the outcome of the Rule 59(e) motion, the record, as supplemented, will be returned to this court for further consideration. In ordering this limited remand, we express no opinion as to the merits of the motion. We dispense wit h oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
REMANDED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7112 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/22/2021 Pg: 3 of 3
# I **OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEYGENERAL**  **OF TEXAS**  **AUSTIN**



### Honorable D. C. cireer State FfighwayEngineer Austin, Texas Bear Sir2 Oplnion,No. C-S%5 **A Ret**  **Rtglstrrtion of** 

**.** 

### February f? 1

A+ t 

### a8 folio

. ’ lng the Randolph oonriot8 ot a ma and Randolph F’iel theee operation8 or through mo verbally adrl read **that** 

### the *tnQe8 18 operrtompany, whloh betweea nan Atitonio 

### campBulllr. In crate between ,,e’i&F ) 

### or E&rough Hehas, therefore, in 

### with prrneng~r lioense anee **with** 

### advloe, aeooord

### ee6 of thl8 otiioe and other o these operation8 HP. Nln&es4 6, the United States and

to 

### &n&a$.phFIuld and CampBuJ.l!ie 18 oouoerned, but weare not ~oertain acIto the oorreotneer bf their raglstratlon with passenger oar Uoense plates whenthey **make** 

### chartered trips. 

### Therefore, pleaee sbrlse u6 whether or 

### not the burr8 **used** br thle 

### oarnap- in trannportlng person8 ior bfre on 

### ohaatereb trips wherein the trip would be between or through twoor mope 

### lnoorporated oltirr they should be rvf%ateret¶ with paseengepr Iloenee plate6 OFwith bus plate8. 

# 241

## 142

Honorable 

### D. c. Ckeer, pa$e 

### l?

Eeetlon iiof hrtiole 6676A-1, **Vernon ’** **8** hnuotated Civil 3lmtutee, pr0rIder aI followel

O(n) ‘Notor &II' rhall IaoluQs every rehlole **exoept** there opensted by muroular **power** or 

### l xolu8Irel~ on 

### 8tatiosary ml18 or traot8, whioh 18 **ured** In tranrportIng per8onr between 

### or **through** two or more Inoorporqted altler 

### an&/or towne anti/orvIllago for 

### ooapenea~tlon ..(or hire) whether operated over flxod routes or othonlre; 

### exoept 8UOh of r&idVehiOle8 l8 are operated 

### l $OlU8iVely within the lIaIt8 of Inoorpomted eltler 

### and/or town8 or ruburban addition8 to ruoh towns.*
We 

### are **not** lnfoned a8 **to** the p8rtiaplW faotr **bonoern** ing themethod **Of** eper%t%OA Of the bUae8 that We **U8ed On**  the chartere4 trIp8 IA qU08tlon. Newever, In the lart rentan of your letter, quoted 

### l b0Te, **JOU OOnillUde**  **tht th0**  **bU8e8 we**  **bOilt&** used t0 traarport prrrongo~r **for** hIx@e. Pil%8beIw true, you are **advieed** that under the expreB8 term8 Of 

### the **8tatute, quoted**  **above,** the burer ured in tr*nrpmtIng pereon for ain on ohartered trlpr whemIn the trip **would** be between or **through** two or 

### more inmrporateb altier 8re *Notor **h8ed** 

### ana **8houl.d** be registered vIth bu8 lioOn80 Qlate6.

**We are**  

### l

**~olo8Ing** a 

### oepy of Our 

### Opinion No. O-1430, whioh holds in erfeat that aertain operatlonr 

### 0r buror am operation8 tar hire tithln the meanlng of ArtIole Qlla, 

### Vernon’8 Annotated Civil 5tatut.8.

**We tXlZ8t**  that **we &VO**  8mt:8iWtOri~y lnnnrea Jour que8tIon. Your8 

### very truly
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). JT K / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J OR GE R OD R I GU E Z - AL ON S O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 70025 A ge nc yN o. A 093- 322- 411 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jorge R od ri gu ez -A l on so, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew o f th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n . O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w de novo c l a i m s of due 

# FI LED DE C 07 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSJ T K / Res ea r ch 07- 70025 2 p r o c e s s v io latio n s in im m ig r a tio n p r o c e e d in g s . Ibarra-Flores v. G on zales , 439 F . 3d 614, 620 ( 9th C i r . 2006) . W e di s m i s s i n partand de nyi n partthe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. T o the ext entR od ri gu ez -A l on so chal l enges the B IA ’ s Jun e 29, 20 06 , order di s m i s s i ng hi s unde r l y i ng appe a l , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on be c aus e thi s pe t i t i on f or r e v ie w is n o t tim e lya s to th a t o r d e r . Se e Si n gh v . I NS , 3 1 5 F .3 d1 1 8 6 , 1 1 8 8 ( 9 th C i r. 20 03 ). W e a lso lackjurisd icti o n to re v iew th e B IA ’s d en ial o f R o drig u ez -A lo n so ’s m ot i on t o reopen, w hi ch i ntrodu ce d further e vi dence of hardship t o h i s U ni t ed S tate s c itiz e n c h ildr e n . See Ferna ndezv. G on zales , 43 9 F . 3d59 2, 60 0 (9th C i r. 20 06 ) ( “ S ec t i on 12 52 (a )( 2)(B )( i ) . . . bars j uri sdi ct i on w here the qu es t i on pres ent ed i s e s s e n t i a l l yth e s am e d i s c r e t i o n aryi s s u e o r i g i n a l l yd e c i d e d . ” ) . I tf o l l o ws th a twe la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w R o dr ig u e z - A lo n s o ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e B I A f a ile dto e x p la in a d e qu a te lyits r e a s o n s f o rd e n y in g th e m o tio n to r e o p e n . Se e i d. a t603- 04. R odr i gue z - A l ons o’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe B I A vi ol a t e d due pr oc e s s by m is c h ar a c te r iz in g th e im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s w e ig h in g o f th e e v id e n c e is u n av a ilin g . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.
39304.

#### GOODWIN *et al.*v. ROCKETT.

Decided January 17, 1962.

*Kennedy ■& Sognier, John G. Kennedy, Jr., Anderson ■& San-*

*ders, Cohen Anderson, Faye Sanders,*for plaintiffs in error. *Neville & Neville, William J. Neville,*contra.

Custer, Judge.

In cases involving collisions between motor vehicles at street intersections, questions of comparative or contributory negligence and proximate cause are peculiarly for the jury. *Thomas v. Carroll,*97 Ga. App. 181 (102 SE2d 617). A petition alleging that the plaintiff, traveling at a legal speed of less than 25 miles per hour, had the right of way at an intersection, and that the defendant’s tractor-trailer combination, approaching on the cross street, failed to1 stop at a stop sign, but entered the highway and turned in front of plaintiff’s vehicle when the plaintiff was within only a few yards of the intersection, making it impossible for the plaintiff to avoid a collision, was not subject to' general demurrer on the ground that it failed to set out a cause of action. *Shipman v. Johnson, 87*Ga. App. 538 ( 74 SE2d 557).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
**Exhibit 34.2**

 

(logo) pwc

  

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

** **

To the Board of Directors, PNC FinancialServices Group, Inc.:

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in theaccompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, a division ofPNC Bank, National Association (“Midland” or the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forthin Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for all transactions serviced on the *Enterprise!*LoanManagement System (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii),1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), whichthe Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Managementis responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’sassertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestationstandards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprisethe Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed thoseselected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to ourtests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determinationon the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that Midland compliedwith the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for the Platform is fairlystated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 25, 2016

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106*

*T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 2181890 www.pwc.com/us*
Order entered November 20, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 01080
- CV BRETT SHIPP, Appellant
V. DR. RICHARD MALOUF , ET AL. , Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. CC
- 12
- 06268
- C 

### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s November 8, 2013 unopposed motion for leave to retain or amend his brief. We treat appellant’s motion as a motion to extend the word limit of his brief.
We GRANT appellant’s motion. App ellant’s brief was properly filed with this Court on September 18, 2013.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
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-71,262]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated in response to a petition filed on June 17, 2009, by the Glass, Molders, Pottery International Union (GMP) Local 61, on behalf of workers of Penn-Union Corporation, Edinboro, Pennsylvania.

The petition is a duplicate of petition number TA-W-70,689, filed on May 28, 2009, that is subject of an ongoing investigation. Therefore, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th of June 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-18057 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P