alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(LOGO)
BOk Mortgage

Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044-3562
Attention: Master Servicing

RE: Officer's Certificate

Dear Master Servicer:.

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 1998 fiscal year:

(A)I have reviewed the  activities and  performance  of the Servicer  during the
preceding  fiscal  year  under  the  terms  of the  Servicing  Agreement,  Trust
Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or  Seller/Servicer Guide and to
the best of these  Officers'  knowledge,  the Servicer has  fulfilled all of its
duties,  responsibilities or obligations under these Agreements  throughout such
year,  or if there has been a default or failure of the  servicer to perform any
of such duties,  responsibilities or obligations,  a description of each default
or failure and the nature and status  thereof has been  reported to Norwest Bank
Minnesota, N.A.;

(B) I have  confirmed  that the Servicer is currently an approved  FNMA or FHLMC
servicer in good standing;

(C) I have confirmed that the Fidelity Bond, the Errors and Omissions  Insurance
Policy and any other bonds required under the terms of the Servicing  Agreement,
Trust Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or  Seller/Servicer  Guide
are in full force and effect;

(D) All premiums for each Hazard  Insurance  Policy,  Flood Insurance Policy (if
applicable) and Primary Mortgage Insurance Policy (if applicable),  with respect
to each Mortgaged Property,  have been paid and that all such insurance policies
are in full force and effect;

(E) All real  estate  taxes,  governmental  assessments  and any other  expenses
accrued and due, that if not paid could result in a lien or  encumbrance  on any
Mortgaged  Property,  have been paid,  or if any such costs or expenses have not
been paid with respect to any Mortgaged Property, the reason for the non-payment
has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

(F) All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly funded; and

(G) All annual  reports of  Foreclosure  and  Abandonment  of Mortgage  Property
required  per  section  6050H,  6050J and 6050P of the  Internal  Revenue  Code,
respectively, have been prepared and filed.

Certified By:

Officer

Asst. Vice President
Title

3/30/99
Date
çc 0 ST. 

## I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 4 L 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901

Mr. Richard Corey Executive Officer CaliforniaAirResources Board 

## JUL 1 0 2014 1001 “I” Street Sacramento, California 95812
Re: Comp1et,ness determination for the portion ofthe March 6, 2014 submittal addressing the 2010 Nc 2 iS Deaey: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the AirResources Board (ARB) on March 6. 2014 (2014 Submittal). The SIP revision was submitted to address the requirements ofClean AirAct (CAA) sections 110(a)( 1) and 1 10(a)(2) forthe implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of

### the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), often referredto as “infrastructure” SIP requirements.
ARB previously submitted an infrastructure SIP revision for the 2010 N02 NAAQS on December 12, 2012 that addressed all section 110(a)(2) requirements, except section 110(a)(2)(A). which pertains to emission limits and othergeneral control measures. That submittal became completeby operation oflaw on June 12, 2013. ARBs 2014 Submittal, which inpart “provides additional information and clarification” on previous infrastnicture SIP submittals, addresses the outstanding submittal requirement for section 1 10(a)(2)(A) forthe 2010 N02 NAAQS. We have determined that theportion ofthe 2014 Submittal addressing section 1 10(a)(2)(A) forthe 2010 NO 2 NAAQS is complete. Given thatthe 2014 Submittal also includes foil submittals for four separate NAAQS, as well as supplemental information for otherprevious submittals, we have not yet made a formal completeness determination forthe otherportions ofthe 2014 Submittal. Ifwe do not conclude our completeness review forthe remainingportions ofthe 2014 Submittal, those portions will be deemed complete by operation oflaw on September 6, 2014. Ifyou have any questions please contact me (415-947-8715) orMatt Lakin (415-972-3851). Sincerely,

Deborah Jordan Director, AirDivision

cc: Ravi Ramalingam, ARB Gayle Sweigert, ARB

Printed nit Recyled Paper
AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR TREATMENT AND MANAGEMEN T
OF CBM PRODUCED WATER – A MICROSOFT EXCEL © -BASED TOOL
TO HELP BRING PRODUCERS AND BENEFICIAL USERS TOGETH ER

Jean Debroux* Jim Graydon Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 303 Second Street, Suite 300 South San Francisco, CA 94107
Voice: 415-243-2451
Fax: 415-896-0999 jeandebroux@kennedyjenks.com

Bob Raucher
Jim Henderson Stratus Consulting Boulder, CO

The Colorado School of Mines (CSM) in collaboration with the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants has launched a research p rogram entitled “An Integrated Framework for Treatment and Management of Produced Water” funded by the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA). An output of this research pro gram is a tool that allows producers, potential beneficial users, and various other stakeholders to identify the technical, logistical, regulatory, le gal, and
other institutional issues that can inhibit the ben eficial use of produced water. Due to these institu tional issues, a traditional linear problem-solving framew ork is not ideal for assisting energy companies and the water industry to develop beneficial use partnershi ps. In contrast, a bi-directional, or “matchmaking”

, approach has been developed. This approach allows t he stakeholders to consider the institutional complexity and the economic viability of multiple b eneficial uses, either locally or outside of the ba sin and/or state. This framework also identifies the pa rticipation of third parties, or “brokers”, if need ed, to help resolve key institutional issues, uncertaintie s and risk.

The tool is comprised of three parts: 1) Water Qual ity module, 2) Treatment Technology Selection module, and 3) Key Elements modules. The completed tool will allow a stakeholder to use the first two modules independently or use the overall tool, whic h entails the three modules interacting with each
other. The contents of the first two modules will b e the focus of other presentations; this presentati on will introduce the objectives and utility of the Key Ele ments module.

The Key Elements module utilizes the outputs of the first two modules (i.e., a complete estimated produced water quality profile, and preferred treat ment process trains for each beneficial use, respectively). In addition, user-specific inputs re lating to water quantity, supply timing and reliabi lity, and duration of supply are used to qualitatively determ ine the feasibility of different beneficial use sce narios. A feasibility ranking is accompanied by a listing of institutional issues that include resources for sta keholder education. Estimated capital, O&M, and life cycle cost curves are developed for preferred treatment processes and conveyance systems. Stakeholders can compare the cost of treatment and recovered cost
of beneficial use to determine traditional economic viability. Triple bottom line (TBL) benefits are a lso presented to help stakeholders recognize the comple te economic viability of the beneficial use of produced water. A hypothetic case study will be inc luded in the presentation to illustrate the outputs of the Key Elements module.

###
#### In the Matter of the Will of Eugenia C. Ely, Deceased. Marie E. E. Fallon, Appellant; Security Trust Company of Rochester et al., as Executors of and Trustees under the Will of Eugenia C. Ely, Deceased, Respondents.

Argued April 20, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*502
      *Erwin Bruce Hallett*and *H. Catherine Wagner Vaughan*for appellant.

*Charles P. Williams*for respondents.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cráne, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
[Civ. No. 1949.

Second Appellate District.

November 13, 1917.]

#### SAMUEL BRANNIGAN, Respondent, v. F. B. MILLER, etc., et al., Appellants.

Appeal—Lack op Good Faith—Penalty.—An appeal from a judgment in an action for conversion, for insufficiency of the evidence to sustain certain findings, cannot be regarded as having been made in good faith, and is a proper ease for the imposition of a penalty for the taking of a frivolous appeal, where reversal is asked merely because of a claimed preponderance of the evidence in favor of the appellant, although the findings are directly and substantially supported by other evidence.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Grant Jackson, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the' court.

*293Cleveland Schultz, for Appellants.

Amend & Amend, for Respondent.

CONREY, P. J.

Plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant on account of the unlawful conversion of personal property. The only foundation claimed for the appeal from the judgment is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain two of the findings made by the trial court. Beth of these findings of fact are directly supported by the testimony of the plaintiff. Counsel for appellant asks us to take into consideration the fact that the testimony of the plaintiff was contradicted by the testimony of several witnesses introduced by the defendant. In other words, he asks us to reverse a judgment because of a claimed preponderance of the evidence in favor of the defendant, although the findings are directly and substantially supported by other evidence.

The rulings against the contention of appellant are uniform and innumerable. Such an appeal cannot be regarded as having been made in good faith.

It appearing to the court that this appeal was taken for the purposes of delay, it is ordered that the judgment be affirmed, and that on account of such delay the respondent recover the sum of fifty dollars damages, in addition to the costs.

James, J., and Works, J., *pro tern.,*concurred.
EXHIBIT 21.1


                          COLUMBUS MCKINNON CORPORATION

                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                             (AS OF MARCH 31, 2005)


Columbus McKinnon de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
CM Insurance Company, Inc. (US-NY)
Columbus McKinnon do Brazil Ltda. (Brazil)
Crane Equipment & Service, Inc. (US-OK)
     Larco Industrial Services, Ltd. (Canada)
Societe d'Exploitation des Raccords Gautier (France)
Univeyor A/S (Denmark)
     Ejendomsselskabet Lupinvej 11 (Denmark)
     Univeyor AB (Sweden)
     Univeyor Conveying Systems Ltd. (England)
Yale Industrial Products, Inc. (US-DE)
     Egyptian-American Crane Co. (40% Joint Venture) (Egypt)
     Spreckels Water Company, Inc. (US-DE)
         Spreckels Consolidated Industries, Inc. (US-CA)
     Audubon Europe S.a.r.l. (Luxembourg)
         Columbus McKinnon Limited (Canada)
         Yale Industrial Products Ltd. (England)
         Yale Industrial Products GmbH (Germany)
              Camlok Lifting Clamps Ltd. (England)
              Hangzhou LILA Lifting and Lashing Co. Ltd. (China)
              Yale Levage (France)
              Yale Elevacion Iberica S.L. (Spain)
              Yale Hangzhou Industrial Products Ltd. (China)
              Yale Industrial Products B.V. (The Netherlands)
              Yale Industrial Products GmbH (Austria)
              Yale Industrial Products Pty. Ltd. (South Africa)
              Yale Industrial Products Asia (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (Thailand)
              Yale Lifting & Mining Products (Pty.) Ltd. (25% Financial
                 Interest) (South Africa)
              Yale Industrial Products Kft. (Hungary)




















                                     38
§ 1949.4 Procedure for payment. ( a ) Applications for Institute courses shall be submitted to the Institute Registrar's office in accordance with instructions issued by the Institute.
( b ) Private sector personnel shall, upon notification of their acceptance by the Institute, submit a check payable to “U.S. Department of Labor” in the amount indicated by the course announcement prior to the commencement of the course.
§ 1915.131 General precautions. The provisions of this section shall apply to ship repairing, shipbuilding and shipbreaking. ( a ) Hand lines, slings, tackles of adequate strength, or carriers such as tool bags with shoulder straps shall be provided and used to handle tools, materials, and equipment so that employees will have their hands free when using ship's ladders and access ladders. The use of hose or electric cords for this purpose is prohibited.
( b ) When air tools of the reciprocating type are not in use, the dies and tools shall be removed.
( c ) All portable, power-driven circular saws shall be equipped with guards above and below the base plate or shoe. The upper guard shall cover the saw to the depth of the teeth, except for the minimum arc required to permit the base to be tilted for bevel cuts. The lower guard shall cover the saw to the depth of the teeth, except for the minimum arc required to allow proper retraction and contact with the work. When the tool is withdrawn from the work, the lower guard shall automatically and instantly return to the covering position.
( d ) The moving parts of machinery on a dry dock shall be guarded.
( e ) Before use, pneumatic tools shall be secured to the extension hose or whip by some positive means to prevent the tool from becoming accidentally disconnected from the whip.
( f ) The moving parts of drive mechanisms, such as gearing and belting on large portable tools, shall be adequately guarded.
( g ) Headers, manifolds and widely spaced hose connections on compressed air lines shall bear the word “air” in letters at least 1-inch high, which shall be painted either on the manifolds or separate hose connections, or on signs permanently attached to the manifolds or connections. Grouped air connections may be marked in one location.
( h ) Before use, compressed air hose shall be examined. Visibly damaged and unsafe hose shall not be used.
[47 FR 16986, Apr. 20, 1982, as amended at 67 FR 44543, July 3, 2002]
#### Edward Infante, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 484]

—Judgment of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Alan Marin, J.), entered on or about August 31, 1998, which, after a trial on the issue of liability, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed this claim brought by a police officer pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e, alleging violations of sections 27-127 and 27-128 of the Administrative Code of the City *of*New York. There was no evidence supporting an inference that defendant had any notice of the accumulation of water on the stairs where claimant allegedly slipped *(compare, Lusenskas v Axelrod,*183 AD2d 244, 248, *appeal dismissed*81 NY2d 300). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
#### MIAMI BEACH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v FRISHMAN

Case No. 86-036 AP (County Court Case No. 85-5332CC26)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

November 2, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

John A. Ritter for appellant.

Leonard Frishman, pro se.

Before TENDRICH, FEDER, SHAPIRO, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a Summary Final Judgment entered by the lower Court. A Motion for Rehearing of this Court’s original opinion filed on November 3, 1986, was granted.

The sole issue for consideration is whether the trial court erred in entering Summary Final Judgment.

The Court file reflects that the affidavit in opposition to the motion for Summary Judgment was filed on November 6, 1985, the day after *153the Court entered its Order. At the time of hearing, the Affidavit was not contained within the pleadings or file and not considered by the Court. Accordingly, the trial court was justified in granting Plaintiffs Motion. The Summary Final Judgment is affirmed,
§ 21.123 Early termination of research support: Evaluation of applications and proposals. ( a ) The department or agency head may require that Federal department or agency support for any project be terminated or suspended in the manner prescribed in applicable program requirements, when the department or agency head finds an institution has materially failed to comply with the terms of this policy.
( b ) In making decisions about supporting or approving applications or proposals covered by this policy the department or agency head may take into account, in addition to all other eligibility requirements and program criteria, factors such as whether the applicant has been subject to a termination or suspension under paragraph (a) of this section and whether the applicant or the person or persons who would direct or has/have directed the scientific and technical aspects of an activity has/have, in the judgment of the department or agency head, materially failed to discharge responsibility for the protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects (whether or not the research was subject to federal regulation).
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

November 17, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00232

- CV

CHAMPION FOOD SERVICE, INC . and Champion Food Service 2, Inc.
, Appellant s / Cross

- Appellee s

v.

PROALAMO FOODS, L.L.C. and ProCoastal, L.L.C.
, Appellees / Cross

- Appellants

From the 57th Judicial District Court
, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019

- CI

- 10530 Honorable Antonia Arteaga , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appell ee ’ s Unopposed Se cond Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The appellee ’ s brief is due on December 2 8, 2022. Further request for extension of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 17th day of November, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ
, Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 2998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1202]


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

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review

SUMMARY:  In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted 
the following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the 
Office of Management and Budget for review and approval.

Summary of Proposals

    (1) Collection title: Employer's Quarterly Report of Contributions 
Under the RUIA.
    (2) Form(s) submitted: DC-1.
    (3) OMB Number: 3220-0012.
    (4) Expiration date of current OMB clearance: 3/31/2000.
    (5) Type of request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    (6) Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    (7) Estimated annual number of respondents: 550
    (8) Total annual responses: 2,200.
    (9) Total annual reporting hours: 917.
    (10) Collection description: Railroad employers are required to 
make contributions to the Railroad Unemployment Insurance fund 
quarterly or annually equal to a percentage of the creditable 
compensation paid to each employee. The information furnished on the 
report accompanying the remittance is used to determine correctness of 
the amount paid.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Copies of the forms and supporting 
documents can be obtained from Chuck Mierzwa, the agency clearance 
officer (312-751-3363). Comments regarding the information collection 
should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 
North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611-2092 and the OMB reviewer, 
Wendy Taylor (202-395-7316), Office of Management and Budget, Room 
10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Chuck Mierzwa,
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-1202 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12483]


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

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Environmental Impact Statement--Land Between the Lakes Public Use 
Plan, Lyon and Trigg Countries, Kentucky and Stewart County, Tennessee

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

ACTION: Cancellation Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On March 1, 1995, TVA published in the Federal Register (60 FR 
11161-11162) a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) on alternatives for public use at the Land 
Between The Lakes (LBL) National Recreation Area. On October 1, 1999, 
pursuant to the Land Between The Lakes Protection Act of 1998, LBL was 
established as a unit of the National Forest System and administrative 
responsibility was transferred from TVA to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. The 1995 NOI is hereby rescinded.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold M. Draper, NEPA Administration, 
Environmental Policy and Planning, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West 
Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499; telephone (865) 
632-6889 or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b13161f091a0b1e093b0f0d1a551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eb83868f998a9b8e99ab9f9d8ac58c849d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: May 5, 2000.
Kathryn J. Jackson,
Executive Vice President, River System Operations and Environment.
[FR Doc. 00-12483 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

#### § 20.23 Examination of records relating to the claim; opportunity for full explanation of the claim.

Following receipt of the initial demand letter specified in § 20.22, the debtor may request to examine and copy agency records pertaining to the debt.
#### W. W. Prout and Martha Prout, Appellants, v. Dade County Security Company, Appellee.

Appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for Dade County.

Appeal dismissed on praecipe of counsel for Appellants.

G. A. Worley and H. F. Atkinson, for Appellants;

Hudson & Boggs, for Appellee.