alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 62.35 Limitations on and continuations of the provision of supportive services to certain participants. ( a ) *Extremely low-income veteran families.* A participant classified as an extremely low-income veteran family will retain that designation as long as the participant continues to meet all other eligibility requirements.
( b ) *Limitations on the provision of supportive services to participants classified under § 62.11(c) .* ( 1 ) A grantee may provide supportive services to a participant classified under § 62.11(c) until the earlier of the following dates: ( i ) The participant commences receipt of other housing services adequate to meet the participant's needs; or
( ii ) Ninety days from the date the participant exits permanent housing.
( 2 ) Supportive services provided to participants classified under § 62.11(c) must be designed to support the participants in their choice to transition into housing that is responsive to their individual needs and preferences.
( c ) *Continuation of supportive services to veteran family member(s).* If a veteran becomes absent from a household or dies while other members of the veteran family are receiving supportive services, then such supportive services must continue for a grace period following the absence or death of the veteran. The grantee must establish a reasonable grace period for continued participation by the veteran's family member(s), but that period may not exceed 1 year from the date of absence or death of the veteran, subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. The grantee must notify the veteran's family member(s) of the duration of the grace period.
( d ) *Referral for other assistance.* If a participant becomes ineligible to receive supportive services under this section, the grantee must provide the participant with information on other available programs or resources.
( e ) *Families fleeing domestic violence.* Notwithstanding the limitations in § 62.34 concerning the maximum amount of assistance a family can receive during defined periods of time, a household may receive additional assistance if it otherwise qualifies for assistance under this Part and is fleeing from a domestic violence situation. A family may qualify for assistance even if the veteran is the aggressor or perpetrator of the domestic violence. Receipt of assistance under this provision resets the tolling period for the limitations on the maximum amount of support that can be provided in a given amount of time under § 62.34.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2044)
[75 FR 68979, Nov. 10, 2010, as amended at 80 FR 9612, Feb. 24, 2015]
**
Exhibit 35.1 

Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation 

**NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

The undersigned, Kevin J. Cullum, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany (successor by conversion to Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such officer, as follows: 

(1) The undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2022 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 30, 2020 (as amended, the“Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Company LLC II (successor by conversion to Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II), as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2020-B Owner Trust, to be conducted under his supervision; and 

(2) To the best of theundersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forpublicly-issued asset-backed securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 27th day of June, 2022. 

 

/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 
20 

**
# Official Journal C 313/9 De

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 313 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 489 December 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 313

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 489 December 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2005/C 313/1 | Opinion No 8/2005 on a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on mutual administrative assistance for the protection of the financial interests of the Community against fraud and any other illegal activities | 1 |
| 2005/C 313/2 | Opinion No 9/2005 concerning a proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (COM(2005) 130 Final) | 6 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Court of Auditors

2005/C 313/1

Opinion No 8/2005 on a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on mutual administrative assistance for the protection of the financial interests of the Community against fraud and any other illegal activities

1

2005/C 313/2

Opinion No 9/2005 concerning a proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (COM(2005) 130 Final)

6

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.93


      COUNTERPART SIGNATURE PAGE AND JOINDER TO THE AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF
                        REORGANIZATION AND CONTRIBUTION

          The undersigned, pursuant to Section 251 of the Delaware General
Corporate Law and Section 2.1(c) of that certain Agreement and Plan of
Reorganization and Contribution by and between TeleCorp PCS, Inc., Tritel, Inc.
and AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. dated February 28, 2000 (the "Agreement"), by
execution of this counterpart signature page hereby joins in, becomes a party
to, and agrees (i) to be bound by all the terms and provisions of that
Agreement, (ii) to be subject to all of the obligations of a party to that
Agreement as set forth therein, and (iii) that all shares of common or preferred
stock of the Company now or hereafter held by the undersigned shall be subject
to the restrictions on transfer, rights of purchase and other provisions of said
Agreement.

     EXECUTED on this 31st day of May, 2000.


                          TTHC SECOND MERGER SUB, INC.


                          By:  /s/  Thomas H. Sullivan
                               ----------------------------------------------
                               Name:  Thomas H. Sullivan
                                      ---------------------------------------
                               Title: Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary
                               ----------------------------------------------
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1120 

DAVID M. KISSI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD M. KREMEN,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

DK&R COMPANY, 

Debtor - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (1:05-

cv-2414-PJM; 1-05-cv-03458-PJM; 1:05-cv-02641-PJM)

Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 4, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David M. Kissi, Appellant Pro Se. Maria Ellena Chavez-Ruark, DLA

PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY, US LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

David M. Kissi appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying his

amended motion to reconsider an award of compensation and expenses

to the trustee. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Kissi v. Kremen, Nos. 1:05-cv-2414-PJM; 1:05-cv03458-PJM; 1:05-cv-02641-PJM (D. Md. Dec. 12, 2005). We deny

Kissi’s motions for a change of venue, to consolidate cases, and to

remand, and 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
OFFICE OFTHEATTORNEYGENERAL OFTEXAS **AUSTIN** . GROVER SELLERS A,TORNEV 

## GLNEUAL Po:loroblo CoorFe N. Shcppurd _ Coqtroller 4f r’ubllo Acoounts o- 

# (347

_ ,lustJn, Texas

opinion doted Dece.%bor 29, letter 

## rr0s SiTA

H. C1888, **h** ror Siorris County, fron



## rm on !.:ok;lnney . . . .

block huvln& church bulldinr:s upon it. 'COchanfo in octuol us0 Of the cntlro half ’ block as a ~p’looeol” rel.l~lous :rwshlp by the Church has ocourred. The doclslon to tox the lown Erewout of tinaFree-mut betmen the 3hurch end ‘:r. Ccorp 5. Cohen of !;oueton , entored into in Eebruury, 133, s

.Iionoreblo C~ori;o I!. 3!%ppnrd, pa@ 2

aopy of nhlch Is aert attached. You will note

.thut thla 6Froer;nnt provided thst Llr. .Zohenmy mi;c csrtoin poymmts. Ilohs:saotually **!ade** the in?tlal. poymnt of .%70,OCG,GG, end four amual paymnts thereafter of $75,OGC.Gireach, an sgcrep,ete of .~675,OOG.CG *Our cltestlon thorarorn, is ussumlnf. thnt the lawn Is a part of the property ect%lly used for rolI(2Ious purposc8, Is It orsnpt 03% taxation?” The attsohed CO:ltrrrot is ose prcntlne to 5ohon an option to purohzoe the ontico half block for the price of ~l,E50.OOG, .$37C,GGG.00hnvlnf bean ;ald upon exeoution of the oofitreot, rnd roqulrinc tte poyzcmt of :75,CCG.G0 each year Sor ao cxtuncsion Gfthe cption for an addltlofial year. TheriGht or tha Ckuroh to c5zitimc its ~38 srid occupenoy of thn property untjl the tlze of ’ the oxocutioa of a deed to Cohen Is yresorvod.

Yoor rcqucst eroludoe fron our consbicrc~ion any cucstion of !~hethm the progorty Is a&mll.y used for religious purposm, or vihother suah use haa been abandoned, OPrhether tha property lnquirnd about I8 roosoanbly necessary for tho USCcod eujoyxsnt of the bolsEce of the :Icli block es 8 place of rcllelous worship. Therefore, tbia orlnioc shall In no *ioybo oonstrued us psosing on thsse mesfIcns,

Under Artlo13 BIff, Section 2oi tt:: Texie Coz3titctlon, sad Artiole 7150, .S;cction 1, ‘c’. 5., tho use 3n;l owierehip oi property Control the q#?stion ot exuzption,~l non. Thl3 gu?opnrty Is mncd by the First Fresbytorlsn Cimrch, and tte lettor of

.‘ jE !:. Class re?uIres that 1+3essix.0 for fho purposes of the oglnion thet seic! land Is actually &trip used by tke Church for rall~lous xorshlp. Ont!lDbEl16 Of such e%uzqtIon, ue cm ooncl.udc only thst tP.s property is exsz;t fron tzxetion.

TruStinF that the forapo?np fully enswors your in-
**Exhibit32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of The Navigators Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stanley A. Galanski, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)            The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)            The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Stanley A. Galanski |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |
| Stanley  A. Galanski     |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
| November  14, 2003       |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to The Navigators Group, Inc. and will beretained by The Navigators Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1621

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

J. LEE STURGIS,

Claimant - Appellant,

and

CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 0781, PAGE 715, IREDELL

COUNTY PUBLIC REGISTRY; GRANTEE: J. LEE

STURGIS; $2,140.00 IN U. S. FUNDS AND OTHER

PROPERTY OF J. LEE STURGIS,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Carl Horn, III, Chief

Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-81-H)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: December 29, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

J. Lee Sturgis, Appellant Pro Se. B. Frederic Williams, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

J. Lee Sturgis appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying

his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his belated motion

contesting forfeiture proceedings. We have reviewed the record and

the magistrate judge’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. United

States v. Sturgis, No. CA-94-81-H (W.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 1998). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2598 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2598

 To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify that an 
 expenditure made by a political party committee may not be considered 
  to have been made in concert or cooperation with a candidate solely 
  because the candidate has requested that the committee not make any 
    expenditures in support of the candidate or in opposition to an 
                       opponent of the candidate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 6, 2007

Mr. Shays (for himself and Mr. Price of North Carolina) introduced the 
     following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify that an 
 expenditure made by a political party committee may not be considered 
  to have been made in concert or cooperation with a candidate solely 
  because the candidate has requested that the committee not make any 
    expenditures in support of the candidate or in opposition to an 
                       opponent of the candidate.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Independent Expenditure Opt Out 
Act''.

SEC. 2. POLITICAL PARTY EXPENDITURES NOT MADE IN CONCERT OR COOPERATION 
              WITH CANDIDATE WHO REQUESTS THAT EXPENDITURES NOT BE 
              MADE.

    (a) In General.--Section 301(17) of the Federal Election Campaign 
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(17)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
        ``For purposes of subparagraph (B), an expenditure by a 
        political committee of a political party may not be considered 
        to be made in concert or cooperation with a candidate or an 
        agent or authorized committee of the candidate solely because 
        the candidate has requested that the committee not make any 
        expenditures in support of the candidate or in opposition to an 
        opponent of the candidate.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to elections occurring after December 2007.
                                 <all>
```
# Official Journal C 271A/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2011.271.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 271A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5414 September 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2011.271.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 271A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5414 September 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2011/C 271A/01 | Notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/227-228-229/11 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2011/C 271A/01

Notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/227-228-229/11

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 19 | (PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 24 | |
| 35 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 37 | (PL/RO) |
| 60 | |
| 68 | |
| 76 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 82 | |
| 91 | |
| 98 | |
| 114 | (DA) |
| 121 | (DA) |
| 122 | |
| 135 | |
| 140 | (BG/ET/HU/MT/PL/SL/SV) |
| 142 | |
| 146 | |
| 147 | (EN/IT/MT/SV) |
| 155 | (EN/ES/ET/FR/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |
| 156 | |
| 157 | |
| 162 | |
| 169 | (EN) |
| 177 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 180 | (BG/RO) |
| 181 | (DA) |
| 183 | (SL) |
| 185 | |
| 193 | (BG/RO) |
| 198 | (CS/HU/LT/MT/PL/SK) |
| 206 | (CS/ES/LV/MT/SV) |
| 208 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 221 | |
| 222 | (BG/RO) |
| 223 | |
| 229 | |
| 257 | |
| 258 | |
| 270 | |
| 271 | |

19

(PL)

24

35

(DE/EN/FR)

37

(PL/RO)

60

68

76

(DE/EN/FR)

82

91

98

114

(DA)

121

(DA)

122

135

140

(BG/ET/HU/MT/PL/SL/SV)

142

146

147

(EN/IT/MT/SV)

155

(EN/ES/ET/FR/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

156

157

162

169

(EN)

177

(DE/EN/FR)

180

(BG/RO)

181

(DA)

183

(SL)

185

193

(BG/RO)

198

(CS/HU/LT/MT/PL/SK)

206

(CS/ES/LV/MT/SV)

208

(DE/EN/FR)

221

222

(BG/RO)

223

229

257

258

270

271

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50563 

Conference Calendar

__________________

JESSE LEE WASHINGTON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PAUL L. FRANKS ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-95-CV-88

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 17, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesse Lee Washington appeals the district court's dismissal

as frivolous of his pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) complaint

in which he argued that the defendants violated his civil rights

by disciplining him. An IFP claim that has no arguable basis in

law or fact may be dismissed as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); 
No. 95-50563

-2-

Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993). This court's

review is for an abuse of discretion. Booker, 2 F.3d at 115.

 Although the Constitution mandates that a prisoner receive

due process at a disciplinary proceeding, it does not guarantee

error-free decision-making. See McCrae v. Hankins, 720 F.2d 863,

868 (5th Cir. 1983). In the context of prison disciplinary

proceedings, a finding of guilt requires only the support of

"some facts" or "any evidence at all." See Gibbs v. King, 779

F.2d 1040, 1044 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1117 (1986).

Further, Washington was not constitutionally entitled to have the

officer who wrote the disciplinary report present at the hearing. 

See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Nor was it

constitutionally mandated that Washington be represented by

counsel at the hearing. Id. at 570. Thus, the allegedly

ineffective performance of Washington's counsel substitute does

not implicate due process.

 Washington's remaining claims are frivolous. Washington

does not have standing to challenge Sergeant Lamb's alleged use

of a racial slur to one of his witnesses. See Murray v. City of

Austin, Tex., 947 F.2d 147, 151 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied,

112 S. Ct. 3028 (1992). Washington's assertion that the

magistrate judge participated in an "injustice conspiracy"

because he was drinking and eating donuts with TDCJ officials is

utterly without merit. See Liteky v. United States, 114 S. Ct.

1147, 1157 (1994). Finally, the district court did not err by

dismissing Washington's complaint without holding an evidentiary

hearing. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d at 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). 
No. 95-50563

-3-

Washington's motion to file a supplemental brief is DENIED. 

Washington's motion for injunctive relief also is DENIED. The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
§ 74.22 What are the procedures for cancellation? ( a ) *General.* When CVE believes that a participant's verified status should be cancelled prior to the expiration of its eligibility term, CVE will notify the participant in writing. The Notice of Proposed Cancellation Letter will set forth the specific facts and reasons for CVE's findings and will notify the participant that it has 30 days from the date CVE sent the notice to submit a written response to CVE explaining why the proposed ground(s) should not justify cancellation.
( b ) *Recommendation and decision.* Following the 30-day response period, the Director, CVE, will consider any information submitted by the participant. Upon determining that cancellation is not warranted, the Director, CVE, will notify the participant in writing. If cancellation appears warranted, the Director, CVE, will make a decision whether to cancel the participant's verified status.
( c ) *Notice requirements.* Upon deciding that cancellation is warranted, the Director, CVE, will issue a Notice of Verified Status Cancellation. The Notice will set forth the specific facts and reasons for the decision, and will advise the concern that it may re-apply after it has met all eligibility criteria.
( d ) *Effect of verified status cancellation.* After the effective date of cancellation, a participant is no longer eligible to appear as “verified” in the VetBiz VIP database. However, such concern is obligated to perform previously awarded contracts to the completion of their existing term of performance.
( e ) *Appeals.* A participant may file an appeal with OHA concerning the Notice of Verified Status Cancellation decision in accordance with 13 CFR part 134. The decision on the appeal shall be final.
[75 FR 6101, Feb. 8, 2010, as amended at 83 FR 48232, Sept. 24, 2018]