alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1215.8 Timing and form of demands and requests. ( a ) A party seeking records, information, or testimony must submit a request and receive a rejection before making a demand for records, information, or testimony.
( b ) A demand or request to FHFA must include a detailed description of the basis for the demand or request and comply with the requirements in § 1215.7.
( c ) Demands and requests must be submitted at least 60 days in advance of the date on which the records, information, or testimony is needed. Exceptions to this requirement may be granted upon a showing of compelling need.
( d ) A demand or request for testimony also must include an estimate of the amount of time that the employee will need to devote to the process of testifying (including anticipated travel time and anticipated duration of round trip travel), plus a showing that no document or the testimony of non-agency persons, including retained experts, could suffice in lieu of the employee's testimony.
( e ) Upon submitting a demand or request seeking employee testimony, the requesting party must notify all other parties to the legal proceeding.
( f ) After receiving notice of a demand or request for testimony, but before the testimony occurs, a party to the legal proceeding who did not join in the demand or request and who wishes to question the witness beyond the scope of the testimony sought must submit a separate demand or request within 60 days of receiving the notice required under paragraph (e) of this section and must then comply with paragraph (c) of this section.
( g ) Every demand or request must include the legal proceeding's caption and docket number, the forum; the name, address, phone number, State Bar number, and, if available, electronic mail address of counsel to all parties to the legal proceeding (in the case of *pro-se* parties, substitute the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the *pro-se* party); and a statement of the demanding or requesting party's interest in the case. In addition, the demanding or requesting party must submit a clear and concise written statement that includes: a summary of the legal and factual issues in the proceeding and a detailed explanation as to how the records, information or testimony will contribute substantially to the resolution of one or more specially identified issues in the legal proceeding. A copy of the complaint or charging document may accompany—but must not be substituted for—the required statement.
June 25, 2013

VIA E-MAIL TO PATRICK AU

Mr. Michael Guzzetta, Manager

Rule Evaluation Section

Emissions Assessment Branch

Stationary Source Division

Air Resources Board

P.O. Box 2815

Sacramento, CA 95812

Subject: SIP Submittal for Recently Amended Rule 810, Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)

Dear Mr. Guzzetta:

On June 20, 2013, the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Board of Directors held a public hearing 

on adopting amended Rule 810, Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). After the public hearing, the 

Board adopted the amended rule. Transmitted with this letter is the adopted amended rule for inclusion in California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP).

On January 20, 2011, the District adopted Rule 810 as part of a suite of rules to implement the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) PSD and Title V greenhouse gas tailoring rule. Although the District 

adhered to the EPA’s model rule, EPA determined that slight changes to Rule 810 were necessary before EPA could 

incorporate the rule into the State Implementation Plan. The rule amendments made on June 20, 2013 included the 

changes suggested by EPA.

Reference Checklist Item 3, Complete Copy of the Referenced Rules: The SIP Completeness Checklist requests 

copies of all referenced rules, unless previously submitted as part of an earlier SIP submittal. Rule 810 references

Rules 102, 201, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, and 210. Our records indicate that the District has previously submitted all 

of these rules as part of earlier SIP submittals. It should also be noted that:

a. EPA had approved Rule 210 into the SIP but deleted it without replacement per 62 FR 34641 on June 27, 

1997 (40 CFR 52.220(c)(51)(xiii)(B) codifies this action);

b. EPA had approved Rules 204, 207, and 208 into the SIP but deleted them without replacement per 69 FR 

67062 on November 16, 2004 (40 CFR 52.220(c)(51)(xiii)(D) codifies this action); and

c. The District submitted current Rules 102, 201, 205, and 206 to ARB for inclusion into the SIP as shown in 

the following table:

Rule Date of Adoption Date Submitted to ARB

102 June 21, 2012 July 11, 2012

201 June 19, 2008 July 7, 2008

205 April 17, 1997 May 9, 1997

206 October 15, 1991 November 8, 1991

Reference Checklist Item 5, Resolution or Minute Order: Both of these are proved as Attachment 6.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000081008-MAY-201208:40 AM
# C_2021447EN.01001201.xml

| 4.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 447/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 447/12

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

0,00 % on 1 November 2021

Euro exchange rates (2)

3 November 2021

(2021/C 447/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1578 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,90 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4381 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84823 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,9120 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0568 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 150,20 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,8610 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,546 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 358,88 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5875 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9494 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 11,2219 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5574 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4386 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0114 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6220 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5627 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 369,05 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,8613 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4082 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5195 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 594,39 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8089 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,611 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 83,3463 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,624 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,5663 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 24,0953 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 86,2355 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1578

JPY

Japanese yen

131,90

DKK

Danish krone

7,4381

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84823

SEK

Swedish krona

9,9120

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0568

ISK

Iceland króna

150,20

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,8610

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,546

HUF

Hungarian forint

358,88

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5875

RON

Romanian leu

4,9494

TRY

Turkish lira

11,2219

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5574

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4386

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0114

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6220

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5627

KRW

South Korean won

1 369,05

ZAR

South African rand

17,8613

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4082

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5195

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 594,39

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8089

PHP

Philippine peso

58,611

RUB

Russian rouble

83,3463

THB

Thai baht

38,624

BRL

Brazilian real

6,5663

MXN

Mexican peso

24,0953

INR

Indian rupee

86,2355

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.211 Death. Death should be established by one of the following types of evidence: ( a ) ( 1 ) A copy of the public record of the State or community where death occurred.
( 2 ) A copy of a coroner's report of death or a verdict of a coroner's jury of the State or community where death occurred, provided such report or verdict properly identified the deceased.
( b ) Where death occurs in a hospital or institution under the control of the United States Government: ( 1 ) A death certificate signed by a medical officer; or
( 2 ) A clinical summary or other report showing fact and date of death signed by a medical officer.
( c ) An official report of death of a member of a uniformed service from the Secretary of the department concerned where death occurs while deceased was on the retired list, in an inactive duty status, or in the active service.
( d ) Where death occurs abroad: ( 1 ) A United States consular report of death bearing the signature and seal of the United States consul; or
( 2 ) A copy of the public record of death authenticated (see § 3.202(b)(4) for exception) by the United States consul or other agency of the State Department; or
( 3 ) An official report of death from the head of the department concerned, where the deceased person was, at the time of death, a civilian employee of such department.
( e ) If the foregoing evidence cannot be furnished, the reason must be stated. The fact of death may then be established by the affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the fact of death, have viewed the body of the deceased, know it to be the body of the person whose death is being established, setting forth all the facts and circumstances concerning the death, place, date, time, and cause thereof.
( f ) If proof of death, as defined in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section cannot be furnished, a finding of fact of death, where death is otherwise shown by competent evidence, may be made by an official authorized to approve such findings. Where it is indicated that the veteran died under circumstances which precluded recovery or identification of the body, the fact of death should be established by the best evidence, which from the nature of the case must be supposed to exist.
( g ) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a finding of fact of death made by another Federal agency will be accepted for the purposes of paragraph (f) of this section.

Cross Reference:
Evidence of dependents and age. See § 3.204. [26 FR 1573, Feb. 24, 1961, as amended at 27 FR 1899, Feb. 28, 1962; 52 FR 19349, May 22, 1987; 59 FR 46338, Sept. 8, 1994]
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00270

- CV

JAMES S. AGOSTINI, J EANINE A.

BODIE, PATRICK P. BU RGESS, S.

STANLEY HILL, ROBERT S.

PASCHAL, III, JEB S. ZOLLER,

STEPHEN E. SIMMONS A ND

BRADFORD J. WILSON APPELLANTS

V.

F IRST COMMAND FINANCI AL

SERVICES, INC., AND FIRST

COMMAND FINANCIAL PL ANNING,

INC. APPELLEES

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

FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellants ’ motion to dismiss appeal . It is the court = s

opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant s , for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 6 , 2012
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions 10th Cir. R. 36.3.



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 12/17/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

HAROLD GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. KATIE BAXTER, Law Librarian CCF; ANNETTE PORTER, Law Librarian CCF; BRAD ROCKWELL, Staff Attorney, Director of Legal Services CDOC; MARK MICKINNA, Warden, CTCF, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-1241 (D.C. No. 96-B-625) (D. Colo.)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, KELLY and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ause is1 Proceedings in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 191 5 were amended by

the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. N o. 104-134 § 804, 110 Stat. 1321-73 to 1321-75 (Apr. 26, 1996). We cite in thi s order to the amended version now in effect. -2- therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Harold Graham filed this civil rights action claimi ng that defendants violated his constitutional rights by refusing to c opy a 38-page transcript which he allegedly needed to file as evidence in his pend ing habeas action. The district court dismissed the action as legally frivolous. I t then denied Mr. Graham informa pauperis status on appeal on the ground that he failed to submit a certified copy of his prison trust fund account as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). 1 On appeal, Mr. Graham renewed his motion to proceed informa pauperis and filed a certified copy of his prison trust acco unt. That account shows that he has had an average monthly balance of a negative $8 80.95 for the previous six months period. He has therefore shown a financial inability to pay a filing fee.
See § 1915(b)(4). However, in order to succeed on his motion, Mr. Graham must show bothan inability to pay the fee and the existence of anonfrivolous issue that states a claim on which relief can be granted. § 1 915(e)(2). In a careful and thorough opinion, the district cou rt analyzed Mr. Graham’s contention that he was being denied access to the c ourts because of defendants’-3-

refusal to copy a transcript Mr. Graham allegedly n eeds as evidence in his habeas case. The district court correctly concluded that Mr. Graham has recourse in his habeas action for procuring the transcript if he ca n establish its necessity. Mr. Graham has thus failed to show actual injury from t he alleged deprivation, which is required to establish a constitutional claim fordenial of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey , 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2180 (1996). Because Mr. Graham has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted, we de ny his motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fe es. Appeal dismissed.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge
(logo) BERKADIA®

 

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Year EndedDecember 31, 2021 (the “Reporting Period”)

 

*Benchmark 2021-B26 Mortgage TrustCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,*

*Series 2021-B26*

 

Pursuant to Section 3.01 (f) of theSubservicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction (the “ServicingAgreement”), as an authorized officer of BerkadiaCommercial Mortgage LLC (“Berkadia”), I hereby attest that:

 

        i.           Areview of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the (‘reporting period”) hasbeen made under my supervision.

 

      ii.           To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer hasfulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this SubservicingAgreement throughout the period and no default by the Subservicer under theSubservicing Agreement has occurred and is continuing.

 

BerkadiaCommercial Mortgage LLC, 

 

 

/s/ Mark E. McCool

 

Mark E. McCool

President

February 10, 2022
§ 1011.20 Unlawful sales practices—regulatory provisions. In selling, leasing or offering to sell or lease any lot in a subdivision it is an unlawful sales practice for any developer or agent, directly or indirectly, to: ( a ) Give the Property Report to a purchaser along with other materials when done in such a manner so as to conceal the Property Report from the purchaser.
( b ) Give a contract to a purchaser or encourage him to sign anything before delivery of the Property Report.
( c ) Refer to the Property Report or Offering Statement as anything other than a Property Report or Offering Statement.
( d ) Use any misleading practice, device or representation which would deny a purchaser any cancellation or refund rights or privileges granted the purchaser by the terms of a contract or any other document used by the developer as a sales inducement.
( e ) Refuse to deliver a Property Report to any person who exhibits an interest in buying or leasing a lot in the subdivision and requests a copy of the Property Report.
( f ) Use a Property Report, note, contract, deed or other document prepared in a language other than that in which the sales campaign is conducted, unless an accurate translation is attached to the document.
( g ) Deliberately fail to maintain a sufficient supply of restrictive covenants and financial statements or to deliver a copy to a purchaser upon request as required by §§ 1010.109(f), 1010.112(d), 1010.209(g), and 1010.212(i).
( h ) Use, as a sales inducement, any representation that any lot has good investment potential or will increase in value unless it can be established, in writing, that: ( 1 ) Comparable lots or parcels in the subdivision have, in fact, been resold by their owners on the open market at a profit, or;
( 2 ) There is a factual basis for the represented future increase in value and the factual basis is certain, and;
( 3 ) The sales price of the offered lot does not already reflect the anticipated increase in value due to any promised facilities or amenities. The burden of establishing the relevancy of any comparable sales and the certainty of the factual basis of the increase in value shall rest upon the developer.
( i ) Represent a lot as a homesite or building lot unless: ( 1 ) Potable water is available at a reasonable cost;
( 2 ) The lot is suitable for a septic tank operation or there is reasonable assurance that the lot can be served by a central sewage system;
( 3 ) The lot is legally accessible; and
( 4 ) The lot is free from periodic flooding.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7599

WARREN RAYVON SANDERS, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cv-00069-NCT-WWD)

Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 22, 2009

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Rayvon Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Warren Rayvon Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Sanders’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sanders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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
§ 1272.3 New business activity notice requirement. Prior to undertaking an NBA, a Bank shall submit a written notice of the proposed NBA that provides a thorough, meaningful, complete, and specific description of the activity such that FHFA will be able to make an informed decision regarding the proposed activity. At a minimum, the notice should include the following information: ( a ) A written opinion of counsel identifying the specific statutory, regulatory, or other legal authorities under which the NBA is authorized and, for submissions raising legal questions of first impression, a reasoned analysis explaining how the cited authorities can be construed to authorize the new activity;
( b ) A full description of the proposed activity, including, when applicable, infographics and definitions of key terms. In addition, the Bank shall indicate whether the proposed activity represents a modification to a previously approved activity in which the Bank is engaged or is an activity that FHFA has approved for any other Banks, if known to the requesting Bank, and if applicable;
( c ) A discussion of why the Bank proposes to engage in the new activity and how the activity supports the housing finance and community investment mission of the Bank;
( d ) A discussion of the risks presented by the new activity and how the Bank will manage these risks; and
( e ) A good faith estimate of the anticipated dollar volume of the activity, and the income and expenses associated with implementing and operating the new activity, over the initial three years of operation.