alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 5, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 70506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9536]


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

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

Date and Time:  Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m.

Place: Cohen Building, Room 3360, 330 Independence Ave., SW., 
Washington, DC 20237.

Closed Meeting: The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
(BBG) will meet in a special session to review and discuss budgetary 
issues relating to U.S. Government-funded non-military international 
broadcasting. This meeting is closed because if open it likely would 
either disclose matters that would be properly classified to be kept 
secret in the interest of foreign policy under the appropriate 
executive order (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would disclose information 
the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly 
frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 
552b.(c)(9)(B)) In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely 
to the internal personnel and organizational issues of the BBG or the 
International Broadcasting Bureau. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(2)and (6))

Contact Person for More Information: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Carol Booker at (202) 203-4545.

    Dated: November 29, 2006.
Carol Booker,
Legal Counsel.
[FR Doc. 06-9536 Filed 11-31-06; 10:10 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0734 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-080-AD

Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Model 222, 222B, 222U, 230, and 430 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 146 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to detect pitting or penetration of the base metal of 

the piston rod that could lead to the piston rod’s failure, the servo actuator’s failure, and the loss 

of helicopter control.

Cost:

 Inspecting the servo actuators would require 4 work-hours for a labor cost of $340 per 

helicopter, and $49,640 for the U.S. fleet.

 Overhauling the servo actuators would require 8 work-hours for a labor cost of $680. 

Parts would cost $11,900 for a total cost of $12,580 per helicopter.

 Replacing the servo actuators would require 8 work-hours for a labor cost of $680. 

Parts would cost $35,700 for a total cost of $36,380 per helicopter. 

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Matt Wilbanks
Exhibit 34.1

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors

HSBC Finance Corporation:

 

We have examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying “Report on Compliance With Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant To Item 1122 of Regulation AB Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” (Exhibit 33.1) that HSBC Finance Corporation (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB (Servicing Criteria)applicable to the servicing of asset backed securitization transactions backed by auto loan receivables, as described in Schedule I of Exhibit 33.1 (the Applicable Servicing Criteria ), as of and for the period from June 8, 2006 (date of issuance of the initial asset-backed securitization transaction covered by this report) through December 31, 2006.  Exhibit 33.1 identifies the individual asset-backed securitization transactions (the Covered Transactions) defined bymanagement as part of their assessment. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards 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 considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Covered Transactions, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Covered Transactions, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by theCompany during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the period June 8, 2006 through December 31, 2006 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 5, 2007
§ 1627.2 Definitions. ( a ) *Private attorney* has the meaning given that term in 45 CFR 1614.3(i).
( b ) *Procurement contract* means an agreement between a recipient and a third party under which the recipient purchases property or services that does not qualify as a subgrant as defined in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
( c ) *Property* means real estate or personal property.
( d ) *Recipient* as used in this part means any recipient as defined in section 1002(6) of the Act *and* any grantee or contractor receiving funds from LSC under section 1006(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
( e ) *Subgrant.* ( 1 ) Subgrant means an award of LSC funds or property or services purchased in whole or in part with LSC funds from a recipient to a subrecipient for the subrecipient to carry out part of the recipient's legal assistance activities. A subgrant has the characteristics set forth in § 1627.3(b).
( 2 ) *Subgrant* includes fee-for-service arrangements, such as those provided by a private law firm or attorney representing a recipient's clients on a contract or judicare basis, only when the cost of such arrangements exceed $60,000.
( f ) *Subrecipient* means any entity receiving a subgrant. A single entity may be a subrecipient with respect to some activities it conducts for a recipient while not being a subrecipient with respect to other activities it conducts for a recipient.
**Annual
      Statement of Compliance**








VIA:
      EMAIL





Morgan
      Stanley Capital I Inc.


1585
      Broadway


New
      York,
      New York 10036





Re:Morgan
      Stanley
      Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-10SL (the “Trust”), Mortgage Pass Through
      Certificates, Series 2006-10SL, issued pursuant to the Trust Agreement dated
      as July
      1,
      2006 (the “Agreement”), between Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.,
      as depositor
      (the “Depositor”), and LaSalle Bank National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”)





I,
      Barbara L. Marik, a First Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
      as Trustee hereby certify that:





(1)
      A
      review of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year
      and
      of the performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under my
      supervision; and





(2)
      To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all
      its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such
      year or a portion thereof.











Date: February
      1, 2007








LaSalle
      Bank National Association, as Trustee








/s/
      Barbara L Marik


Barbara
      L. Marik


First
      Vice President
March 15, 1999


Mr. Robert Bambery
______________________
______________________

RE: OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT

Dear Mr. Bambery

         On behalf of the Company I would like to offer you the position of Vice
President of Administrative Services. In this role you will be responsible for
general office management including: management of the clerical staff;
coordination of all office documentation being sent and received; and
coordination of executive activities. Overall, you will work at the direction of
the President and Board of Directors and your job duties may change or be
expanded from time to time.

         The compensation offered you for this position is $__________ annually
with a $________ vehicle allowance. As a bonus for your acceptance of this
position, the Company will issue you 100,000 shares of its common stock which
will be subject to a voting proxy. If you wish to accept this offer, please sign
the acceptance letter and proxy enclosed herewith.

Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you.

                                             Very truly yours,


                                             /s/ Martin Kelly
                                             --------------------------
                                             Martin Kelly, President





<PAGE>



March 15, 1999


Mr. Robert Bambery
____________________
____________________

RE: ACCEPTANCE OF EMPLOYMENT

To Martin Kelly:

         By my signature below I hereby accept the position of Vice President of
Administrative Services effective April 1, 1999.

         Pursuant to my acceptance of this offer I hereby irrevocably appoint
Kelly, his nominee or nominees with full power of substitution, as proxy for the
undersigned, with respect to 100,000 shares of common stock of Re-Track USA,
Inc., issued pursuant to my employment, for a period four (4) years from the
date of the above referenced agreement and or until Re-Track USA, Inc.
successfully completes an Initial Public Offering of its securities pursuant to
an SB2 or S1 registration statement to filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, irrevocable proxy to vote at any meeting of the shareholders of
Re-Track USA, Inc., or to execute any and all consents with respect to, any and
all matters upon which action is proposed to be taken by the shareholders of
Re-Track USA, Inc., as Kelly in his sole discretion may from time to time
determine.

Dated:  March __, 1999


/s/ Robert Bambery
--------------------------
Robert Bambery
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

January 27, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00843

- CV

David V. MARTINEZ

, Appellant

v.

Clarissa Ann RODRIGUEZ

, Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- EM

- 505713 Honorable Olin B. Strauss, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On December 3 , 2013, appellant filed an Affidavit of Indigency with this court, and this court forwarded a copy to the trial court. The clerk’s record was due on January 3, 2014 , but has not been filed

. Ms. Donna Kay McKinney is the court clerk responsible for timely filing the clerk’s record in this cause. Ms. McKinney is hereby ORDERED to file the clerk’s record no later than February 11, 2014

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 27th day of January, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
§ 211.15 Nondiscrimination. ( a ) No eligible person shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation, be denied any benefits, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination of any nature or form in the provision of any benefits, under the Act.
( b ) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section precludes discrimination either in the selection of individuals to receive the benefits, in the scope of benefits, or in the manner of providing them. It extends to all facilities and services provided by the Administrator or an agency to an individual, and to the arrangements and the procedures under this part relating thereto, in connection with reception, temporary care, treatment, and assistance, and continuing hospitalization under the Act.
<PAGE>




                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Michigan Community Bancorp Limited
(the "Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as amended
(the "Report"), I, J. William Sumner, Chief Executive Officer of the
Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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/      J. William Sumner
   --------------------------------------------------
         J. William Sumner
         Chief Executive Officer
         June 18, 2003
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-01422 (CJN)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et 

al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ First Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 17, 

Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 20, Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery, 

ECF No. 29, Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Consideration of Discovery Motion, ECF No. 32, 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing, ECF No. 33, and Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 

39. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 20, is 

GRANTED; and it is further 

ORDERED that Defendants’ First Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 17, and Second Motion to 

Dismiss, ECF No. 39, are DENIED; it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery, ECF No. 29, Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Expedite Consideration of Discovery Motion, ECF No. 32, Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing, ECF 

No. 33, are DENIED as MOOT; and it is further 

ORDERED that summary judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff Heritage Action for 

America. 

Case 1:22-cv-01422-CJN Document 50 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 2
2 

This is a final appealable order.

DATE: July 17, 2023 

CARL J. NICHOLS

United States District Judge 

Case 1:22-cv-01422-CJN Document 50 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 2
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

s0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140317

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140317 COA: 293690 Cheboygan CC: 06-003551-FH KENNETH RICHARD HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 30, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
§ 2508.18 What are the penalties for obtaining a record under false pretenses? The Privacy Act provides, in pertinent part that: ( a ) Any person who knowingly and willfully requests to obtain any record concerning an individual from the Corporation under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000 (5 U.S.C. 552a(I)(3)).
( b ) A person who falsely or fraudulently attempts to obtain records under the Privacy Act also may be subject to prosecution under such other criminal statutes as 18 U.S.C. 494, 495 and 1001.
§ 233.26 Retrospective budgeting; determining eligibility after the initial one or two months. ( a ) Under retrospective budgeting, there are three options for determining eligibility. The State plan shall specify that eligibility, following the initial one or two months under § 233.24, shall be determined by one of the following methods: ( 1 ) A State may consider all factors, including income retrospectively, i.e., only from the budget month. For example, if a change in circumstances occurs which affects eligibility, e.g., deprivation ceases, the change may be reported at the end of the budget month and assistance shall be terminated for the corresponding payment month. Thus, even if the agency could have terminated assistance earlier than the corresponding payment month, it shall not do so under retrospective determination of eligibility.
( 2 ) A State may consider all factors, including income, prospectively. For example, if deprivation ceases, and the family becomes ineligible, the agency shall immediately take steps to terminate assistance.
( 3 ) A State may use a combination of the options in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section by considering factors related to earned and unearned income retrospectively and all other factors prospectively. For example, if a change in income makes the family ineligible, the agency shall wait until the corresponding payment month to terminate assistance. On the other hand, if a change of circumstances other than income makes the family ineligible, the agency shall immediately take steps to terminate assistance.
[44 FR 26083, May 4, 1979; 44 FR 29065, May 18, 1979, as amended at 47 FR 47828, Oct. 28, 1982]
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Robert Fraser and William Grossholz of Lions
Gate Lighting Corp., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Lions Gate Lighting
      Corp. for the period ended February 29, 2008 (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 results of
      operations of Lions Gate Lighting Corp.                                                                   

Dated: May 29, 2008

| | /s/
      Robert Fraser                                    
| | -----------------------------------------------------------
| | Robert Fraser, President and Chief Executive
      Officer 
| | (Principal Executive Officer)                              
| |                                                            
| |                                                            
| | /s/
      William Grossholz                                
| | William Grossholz                                          
| | Secretary and Treasurer                                    
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting
| | Officer)                                                   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lions Gate
Lighting Corp. and will be retained by Lions Gate Lighting Corp. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAY 12 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JESUS JOHN HERNANDEZ

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden, Englewood FCI; UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE; and UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,

Respondents-Appellees. No. 98-1358 (D.C. 98-D-771) (District of Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, and BALDOCK , and HENRY , Circuit Judges,

Petitioner Jesus John Hernandez appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Mr. Hernandez sought release pending a parole revocation proceeding. 1 The government reports (and Mr. Hernandez2

does not dispute) that the Parole Commission held a hearing on July 20, 1998 and revoked his parole. In his appellate brief, Mr. Hernandez challenges the district court’s refusal to release him pending the parole revocation hearing on several grounds. We agree with the government that Mr. Hernandez’s appeal is moot. Because the parole revocation hearing has already been held, the question of Mr. Hernandez’s release pending the hearing is no longer live. Mr. Hernandez now lacks a legally cognizable interest in the decision whether to release him on bail before that hearing. See Murphy v.
Hunt , 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982) (per curiam) (concluding that a defendant’s claim to pretrial bail was moot once he was convicted); United States v. O’Shaughnessy , 772 F.2d 112, 113 (5 th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (observing that, after the defendant’s conviction, “[n]either pretrial detention nor release on pretrial bail may now be ordered”). Because the proceeding before us concerns only the denial of his request for bail pending the parole revocation hearing and does not concern the Parole Commission’s decision to deny parole, we conclude that the case is moot. Accordingly, Mr. Hernandez’s appeal is DISMISSED as moot.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge