alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CAR REVIEW

REVIEWER OPTIONS

Request Revision Unapprove Section

Review Tips:

 Does the state provide complete and accurate concentrator enrollment data?

 When compared to previous year's enrollment figures, does the data reflect similar characteristics, trends and patterns?

 Are the same categories of students reported this year, as compared to last year?

 Does the number of students reported in each of the categories resemble the number of students reported last year? Are there extreme cases where a student category is extremely high or low, as compared to last 

year?

 Does the data correspond to the cluster data reported in the Technical Skill Assessment section (Step 4 of the CAR)? In other words, are the clusters reported here also reflected in the Technical Skill Assessment 

section?

REPORT REVIEW

6b. Enrollment Data for CTE Concentrators

SECONDARY POSTSECONDARY ADULT

Line Concentrator Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

GRAND 

TOTAL

1 Agriculture, Food 

& Natural 

Resources

2 Architecture & 

Construction

3 Arts, A/V 

Technology & 

Communication

4 Business, 

Marketing & 

Administration
SECONDARY POSTSECONDARY ADULT

Line Concentrator Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

GRAND 

TOTAL

5 Education & 

Training

6 Finance

7 Government & 

Public 

Administration

8 Health Science

9 Hospitality & 

Tourism

10 Human Services

11 Information 

Technology

12 Law, Public Safety 

& Security

13 Manufacturing

14 Marketing Sales & 

Services

15 Science, 

Technology, 

Engineering & 
SECONDARY POSTSECONDARY ADULT

Line Concentrator Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

GRAND 

TOTAL

Math

16 Transportation, 

Distribution, & 

Logistics

17 Total

Secondary Definition for CTE Concentrators:

Postsecondary Definition for CTE Concentrators:

Additional Information:

Public Burden Statement:

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control 

number for this information collection is 1830-0569. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 174 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is required to obtain or 

retain benefit (Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV) (20 U.S. C. 2301 et seq. as amended by P.L. 109-270). If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of 

your individual submission of this APR, please contact (Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education; Director, Division of Academic and Technical Education; 550 12th Street, SW; Washington, D.C. 

20202 directly. [Note: Please do not return the completed report to this address.]
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6103(p)(2)(B)-1 Disclosure of returns and return information by other agencies. ( a ) *General rule.* Subject to the requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, returns or return information that have been obtained by a Federal, state or local agency, or its agents or contractors, in accordance with section 6103 (the first recipient) may be disclosed by the first recipient to another recipient authorized to receive such returns or return information under section 6103 (the second recipient).
( b ) *Approval by Commissioner.* A disclosure described in paragraph (a) of this section may be made if the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) determines, after receiving a written request under this section, that such returns or return information are more readily available from the first recipient than from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The disclosure authorization by the Commissioner shall be directed to the head of the first recipient and may contain such conditions or restrictions as the Commissioner may prescribe. The disclosure authorization may be revoked by the Commissioner at any time.
( c ) *Requirements and restrictions.* The second recipient may receive only returns or return information as authorized by the provision of section 6103 applicable to such second recipient. Any returns or return information disclosed may be used by the second recipient only for a purpose authorized by and subject to any conditions imposed by section 6103 and the regulations thereunder, including, if applicable, safeguards imposed by section 6103(p)(4).
( d ) *Records and reports of disclosure.* The first recipient shall maintain to the satisfaction of the IRS a permanent system of standardized records regarding such disclosure authorization described in paragraph (a) of this section and any disclosure of returns and return information made pursuant to such authorization, and shall provide such information as prescribed by the Commissioner in order to enable the IRS to comply with its obligations under section 6103(p)(3) to keep accountings for disclosures and to make annual reports of disclosures to the Joint Committee on Taxation. The information required for reports to the Joint Committee on Taxation must be provided within 30 days after the close of each calendar year. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply to the disclosure of returns and return information as provided by paragraph (a) of this section which, had such disclosures been made directly by the IRS, would not have been subject to the recordkeeping requirements imposed by section 6103(p)(3)(A).
( e ) *Effective date.* This section is applicable on January 21, 2003.
[T.D. 9036, 68 FR 2696, Jan. 21, 2003]
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (a) | A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 has been made under my supervision. |

|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period. |

|                                                                                                                          |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                          |
| /s/ Sumito Mulchandani                                                                                                   |
| Sumito MulchandaniAssistant Treasurer ofFord Motor Credit Company LLC,as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2015-C |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2114

JUDY CURRY, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus THE POCAHONTAS TIMES, County newspaper, business, located in Marlinton, WV; PAMELA PRITT, Personally and in her professional capacity as Managing Editor, The Pocahontas Times; WILLIAM P. MCNEEL, Personally and in his professional capacity as Editor and owner, The Pocahontas Times; JANE PRICE-SHARP, Personally and in her capacity as Editor Emerita and owner, The Pocahontas Times, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-106) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 14, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judy Curry, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Vaughan Saffer, Marlinton, West Virginia, for Appellees.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Judy Curry appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Curry v. Pocahontas Times , No. CA-03-106 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 4, 2004). We deny Curry’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis, to suspend the briefing order, and to expedite and transfer the case. 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.

AFFIRMED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIO SMITH PARRA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

E. K. McDANIEL; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-15720

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00913-LRHWGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 25, 2015**

Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Julio Smith Parra appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and 

due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review 

de novo, Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 4 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-15720

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Parra’s due 

process claim because Parra failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to 

whether he experienced an “atypical and significant hardship . . . in relation to the 

ordinary incidents of prison life” that would give rise to a protected liberty interest. 

See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Contrary to Parra’s contention, 

the district court was not required to address whether there was “some evidence” to 

support the disciplinary finding. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Parra’s retaliation 

claim because Parra failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 

defendant Bryant took an adverse action against Parra in response to Parra’s

protected conduct. See id. at 1269-71 (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison 

context; “a plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was the substantial or 

motivating factor behind the defendant’s conduct” (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(per curiam).

AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.7327-1 Customs laws applicable.

For regulations relating to the remission or mitigation of forfeitures, see part 172 of this chapter (Disposition of Seized Personal Property).
EX-10.15.1



 






	 	 	 	 	 



EXHIBIT 10.15.1




Citicorp North America, Inc.

450 Mamaroneck Avenue

Harrison, NY 10528




October 16, 2006




Ferro Corporation

1000 Lakeside Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44114




Ferro Electronic Materials, Inc.

1000 Lakeside Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44114




Ferro Finance Corporation

1000 Lakeside Avenue, Suite A

Cleveland, OH 44114





     Re: Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Receivables Purchase Agreement



Ladies and Gentlemen:




          We refer to that certain Amended and Restated Receivables Purchase Agreement, dated as of June
29, 2006 (the “Receivables Agreement”), among Ferro Finance Corporation (the “Seller”), as the
Seller, CAFCO, LLC (the “Investor”), as the Investor, Citicorp North America, Inc., as the Agent,
Ferro Electronic Materials, Inc. (“FEM”), as an Originator and Ferro Corporation (“Ferro Corp.”),
as the Collection Agent and an Originator. Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meanings set forth in the Receivables Agreement.




          The parties hereto have agreed that the definition of “Other Approved Jurisdiction” in Section
1.01 of the Receivables Agreement shall hereby be amended by (i) replacing the reference to an “A-”
rating by S&P with a reference to a “BBB-” rating and (ii) replacing the reference to an “A3”
rating by Moody’s with a reference to a “Baa3” rating.




          Except as herein expressly amended, the Receivables Agreement is ratified and confirmed in all
respects and shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. All references to
the Receivables Agreement in the Receivables Agreement, the Originator Purchase Agreement and the
other Transaction Documents shall mean the Receivables Agreement as amended by this letter
agreement, and as hereafter amended, restated, supplemented or modified.




          This letter agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the
State of New York.




  









 








     This letter agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties
hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original
and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Delivery of an
executed counterpart of a signature page to this letter agreement by telecopier shall be effective
as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this letter agreement.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	CITICORP NORTH AMERICA, INC.,





as Agent

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Name:  	 	 
	 	 	Title:  	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	AGREED:



FERRO FINANCE CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Name:  	 	 
	 	 	Title:  	 	 
	 
	 	FERRO ELECTRONIC MATERIALS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Name:  	 	 
	 	 	Title:  	 	 
	 
	 	FERRO CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Name:  	 	 
	 	 	Title:  	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 




 2
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4452 — SWISS RE/GE LIFE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 303/32)

On 6 December 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
Exhibit 35.1



| |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing
        D1086-120, 12th Floor
        550 South Tryon Street
        Charlotte, NC 28202
        1-800-326-1334
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is
hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2015, by and among Banc of America Merrill Lynch
Commercial Mortgage Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, A Division
of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor, U.S. Bank National Association,
as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent and Custodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C25 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall
have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to
Section 13.9 of the Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from October 1, 2015 through
December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made
under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its
obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.



|/s/ Daniel Bober                                                       | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Daniel Bober
        Executive Vice President
        Wells Fargo Bank | 
|                                                                       | 
|                                                                       | 
|                                                                       | 



|                           | 
|-------------------------- | 
|Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. |
#### § 25.2701-8 Effective dates.

Sections 25.2701-1 through 25.2701-4 and §§ 25.2701-6 and 25.2701-7 are effective as of January 28, 1992. For transfers made prior to January 28, 1992, taxpayers may rely on any reasonable interpretation of the statutory provisions. For these purposes, the provisions of the proposed regulations and the final regulations are considered a reasonable interpretation of the statutory provisions.

[T.D. 8395, 57 FR 4264, Feb. 4, 1992]
#### William FRESCHI, Jr., as Trustee of William Freschi Trust, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. GRAND COAL VENTURE, Bandler & Kass, Ground Production Corporation, William J. Werner, Jack Mitnick, Robert Sylvor, H. Jean Baker and William Sherr, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

Nos. 487, 509, 669, Docket 84-7726, 84-7740 and 84-7764.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

On Remand from the Supreme Court July 7, 1986.

Decided Sept. 4, 1986.

Before MANSFIELD, NEWMAN, and PECK,* Circuit Judges.

*

The Honorable John W. Peck of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. Following our decision, reported at 767 F.2d 1041, the Court granted Freschi’s petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of *Randall v. Loftsgaarden,*— U.S. -, 106, S.Ct. 3143, 92 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986), and *Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Company,*— U.S. -, 105 S. Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). *Freschi v. Grand Coal Venture,*— U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 3325, 92 L.Ed.2d 731 (1986). *Randall*held that damages to a defrauded investor in a tax shelter should not be reduced by tax benefits received by the investor. On our original consideration of this appeal, we had ordered the District Court’s remittitur reduced by the amount of the tax benefits resulting from the plaintiff’s investment. 767 F.2d at 1051. In making this ruling, we had adhered to Wil*306*liam Z. Salcer, Panfeld, Edelman v. Envicon Equities Corp.,*744 F.2d 935 (2d Cir.1984), which the Supreme Court rejected in *Randall. Sedima*reversed a decision of this Court that had required a civil RICO complaint to allege both “racketeering injury” and conviction of the defendants for the RICO predicate acts. *See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co.,*741 F.2d 482 (2d Cir.1984). In the instant litigation, the District Court, anticipating our decision in *Sedima,*had denied plaintiffs motion to amend to add a civil RICO cause of action for failure to plead “racketeering injury.” *Freschi v. Grand Coal Venture,*583 F.Supp. 780, 787-88 (S.D.N.Y.1984).

In light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in *Randall*and *Sedima,*our prior opinion and disposition must be modified. The re-mittitur ordered by the District Court shall stand, without reduction by the amount of the tax benefits resulting from the plaintiff’s investment. Upon remand, the District Court shall afford the plaintiff an opportunity to present a motion to amend the complaint to add a civil RICO claim, the sufficiency of which, if pursued, shall be assessed in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Sedima.*We express no views on whether such a motion, if made, should be granted.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with our prior opinion, as modified by this opinion.
§ 20.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record. ( a ) *In general.* A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of estate tax under chapter 11 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer and retain a completed copy or record in the manner stated in § 1.6107-1 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78450, Dec. 22, 2008]