alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1303
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1303 appear at 89 FR 67816, Aug. 21, 2024.

§ 1303.49 Protection of federal interest in mortgage agreements. ( a ) Any mortgage agreement or other security instrument that is secured by real property or a modular unit constructed or purchased in whole or in part with federal funds or subject to renovation with federal funds must: ( 1 ) Specify that the responsible HHS official can intervene in case the grant recipient defaults on, terminates or withdraws from the agreement;
( 2 ) Designate the responsible HHS official to receive a copy of any notice of default given to the grant recipient under the terms of the agreement and include the regional grants management officer's current address;
( 3 ) Include a clause that requires any action to foreclose the mortgage agreement or security agreement be suspended for 60 days after the responsible HHS official receives the default notice to allow the responsible HHS official reasonable time to respond;
( 4 ) Include a clause that preserves the notice of federal interest and the grant recipient's obligation for its federal share if the responsible HHS official fails to respond to any notice of default provided under this section;
( 5 ) Include a statement that requires the responsible HHS official to be paid the federal interest before foreclosure proceeds are paid to the lender, unless the official's rights under the notice of federal interest have been subordinated by a written agreement in conformance with § 1303.51;
( 6 ) Include a clause that gives the responsible HHS official the right to cure any default under the agreement within the designated period to cure the default; and,
( 7 ) Include a clause that gives the responsible HHS official the right to assign or transfer the agreement to another interim or permanent grant recipient.
( b ) A grant recipient must immediately notify the responsible HHS official of any default under an agreement described in paragraph (a) of this section.
**Exhibit 33.2****Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria**     Sallie Mae, Inc., (the “Asserting Party”), as Administrator and Servicer for the Platformtrusts, is responsible for assessing compliance, as of December 31, 2006 and for the period January1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the “Reporting Period”), with the servicing criteria set forthin Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB, excluding the criteria set forth in (1) Item 1122(d)(1)(iii),(d)(2)(iii), (d)(2)(vi), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii) and (d)(4)(xiii) ofRegulation AB which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the Platform and (2)Item 1122(d)(2)(ii) of Regulation AB which the Asserting Party has concluded is applicable to thePlatform, but is not the responsibility of the Asserting Party. Such criteria, after giving effectto the exclusions identified above, are the “Applicable Servicing Criteria” related to theAsserting Party. The transactions covered by this report include all asset-backed securitiestransactions completed by the Asserting Party that were registered with the Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 where related asset-backed securities wereoutstanding during the Reporting Period (the “Platform”) as listed in Appendix A.     The Asserting Party has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria and hasconcluded that it has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria asof December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform as a whole.     PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued anattestation report on the Asserting Party’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable ServicingCriteria as of December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.Sallie Mae, Inc., as Administrator and
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6590

KENNETH LOVETTE YOUNG,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden of McCormick Corr. Inst.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (5:15-cv-00637-JFA)

Submitted: December 6, 2016 Decided: December 14, 2016

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Lovette Young, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Lovette Young seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Young has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 1801.2 Truman Scholars are selected from qualified applicants from each State. ( a ) At least one Truman Scholar is selected each year from each State in which there is a resident applicant who meets minimum eligibility criteria as established by the Foundation. These minimum eligibility criteria are stated in §§ 1801.3, 1801.21 and 1801.23.
( b ) As used in this part, *State* means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and considered as a single entity: Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (The Islands).
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

  I, Kristen Ann Cronin, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D
     required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
     on Form 10-K/A of ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series
     2006-ASAP4 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
     light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
     misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

  4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
     servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
     conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in
     this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
     in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled
     their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects;
     and

  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
     criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
     reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
     asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
     accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
     13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
     except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
     of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
     this report on Form 10-K/A.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
     information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
     Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC as Servicer.

     Dated: May 27, 2008


     /s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
     Signature

     Vice President
     (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master servicer)
##### 



Certification Pursuant to Section 302
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date: March 14, 2006/s/ David C. ChoiDavid C. ChoiChief Financial Officer
NUMBER 13-09-00174-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

F. J. K. ENTERPRISES, LTD. CO., EXPRESS 

CARRIERS, L.P., EXPRESS CARRIERS 

MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., NOLBERTO 

BLANCO, KYLE KAUPERT ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.

AND JUAN ROBERTO RAMIREZ, Appellants,

v.

HIPOLITO GONZALEZ AND ISSAC GONZALEZ, Appellees.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 365th District Court 

of Maverick County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The parties to this appeal have filed a joint motion to reverse and vacate judgment. 

By their motion, the parties ask the Court to: (1) reverse and vacate the trial court’s 
2

judgment; (2) dismiss the appeal; (3) tax costs against the party incurring same; and (4)

release the appellants’ surety, Hudson Insurance Company, from any further obligation 

on the supersedeas bond filed by appellants. 

The Court has considered the motion and it is the Court=s opinion that the motion 

should be granted in part and denied in part.1 Accordingly, without regard to the merits, 

we vacate the trial court=s judgment, and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of 

judgment in accordance with the parties= settlement agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.1(a)(2)(B); 43.2(d). 

The parties request that the Court release the appellants’ surety, Hudson 

Insurance Company, from any further obligation on the supersedeas bond filed by 

appellants. The request is GRANTED. We hereby release the appellants’ surety, 

Hudson Insurance Company, from any further obligation on the supersedeas bond filed 

by appellants.

In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party 

incurring same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

15th day of July, 2010. 

 

1

Rule 42.1(a)(2) permits the Court to render judgment effectuating the parties= agreements or to 

vacate the trial court=s judgment and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in 

accordance with the agreement; we cannot do both. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A),(B). The parties

have asked us to dismiss the appeal. We cannot both vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B); 43.2(d), (f).
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18500]

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

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Royalty Board

37 CFR Part 370

[Docket No. 14-CRB-0005 (RM)]

Notice and Recordkeeping for Use of Sound Recordings Under 
Statutory License

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Extension of Reply Comment Period.

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

DATES: Reply Comments deadline is extended to September 5, 2014.
SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges are extending the period for 
filing reply comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaKeshia Keys (202) 707-7658 or email 
at crb@loc.gov.

Background

    On May 2, 2014, the Copyright Royalty Judges (``Judges'') published 
a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPRM'') seeking comment on two 
petitions for rulemaking. Comments were due by June 2, 2014. Reply 
comments were due by June 16, 2014. On May 22, 2014, the Judges entered 
an Order extending the time for comments and reply comments to June 30, 
and August 11, 2014, respectively.
    The Judges were unable to post all of the initial comments until 
after the first week of July 2014. To afford parties adequate 
opportunity to respond to the comments, the Judges hereby extend the 
due date for reply comments to September 5, 2014.

    Dated: July 22, 2014.
Suzanne M. Barnett,
Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.

Approved by:

James H. Billington,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2014-18500 Filed 8-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-72-P
```
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Art Design, Inc.(the Company") on Form
10-KSB/A for the period ended herein as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), I. Kathy Sheehan, Chief Executive and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:


(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 fully presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations or the Company.





Dated: September
18, 2008








By:
            /s/Kathy
      SheehanKathy
      Sheehan
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              Chief
      Financial Officer
§ 2105.52 When will the Agency combine or aggregate requests? ( a ) The Agency may aggregate requests and charge accordingly when it reasonably believes that you, or a group of requesters acting in concert with you, are attempting to avoid fees by dividing a single request into a series of requests on a single subject or related subjects. ( 1 ) The Agency may presume that multiple requests of this type made within a 30-day period have been made to avoid fees.
( 2 ) The Agency may aggregate requests separated by a longer period only where there is a reasonable basis for determining that aggregation is warranted in view of all the circumstances involved.
( b ) The Agency will not aggregate multiple requests involving unrelated matters.
**ANNUAL
        STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE**
 **OFFICER'S
        CERTIFICATE**
 
 RE:
        Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
        Series 2006-HQ9.
  In
        accordance with Section 13.9 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, (the
        “Agreement”) dated August 1, 2006, executed by and between Morgan Stanley
        Capital I Inc., (as "Depositor”), Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, (as
“Master Servicer“), J.E. Robert  Company,
        Inc., (as “Special Servicer”), HSBC Bank USA, National Association, (as
“Trustee“), and LaSalle Bank National Association, (as “Paying Agent",
        "Certificate Registrar”, "Authenticating Agent" and
        "Custodian"), as authorized officer of the Master Servicer I certify that
        (A) a
        review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding calendar
        year or portion thereof and of the performance of the Master Servicer under
        this
        Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and (B) to the best of
        such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
        fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects
        throughout such year or portion thereof, or, if there has been a failure
        to
        fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, specifying each such
        failure known to such officer and the nature and status thereof.
 
  Wells
        Fargo Bank, National Association
 “Master
        Servicer"
  /s/
        James
        B. Scanlon
  James
        B.
        Scanlon
 Vice
        President
 Wells
        Fargo Bank National Association
 
 March
        2007 - 752
#### § 1706.101 Purpose.

This part effectuates section 119 of the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978, which amended section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by Executive agencies or the United States Postal Service.
## A Brief Description of the 

## Three Distinct “Bi - Level” Passenger Car Designs 

## Currently in Use on the US “General System” for the 

## Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee Washington, DC, January 9
– 10, 2014 Prepared by J.D. Coran, Director of Operations and Product Development, Talgo, Inc. (Seattle)

## The Term “Bi - Level” is Used to Describe

Three Very Different Vehicles

• The Metra (Chicago area) Bi
- Level

– Also used on Cal
- Train(San Francisco area) and VRE (Northern Virginia)

– More accurately described as a “ Gallery ” Car

2

## The Term “Bi - Level” is Used to Describe

Three Very Different Vehicles

• The Metra (Chicago area) Bi
- Level

– Also used on Cal
- Train(San Francisco area) and VRE (Northern Virginia)

– More accurately described as a “ Gallery ” Car



### • The Bombardier Bi
- Level 

# ®

– Used by a dozen commuter operations in the south and west

– A low profile version is in use in the Northeast

– With three levels, better described as a “ Multi - Level ” car

3

## The Term “Bi - Level” is Used to Describe

Three Very Different Vehicles

• The Metra (Chicago area) Bi
- Level

– Also used on Cal
- Train(San Francisco area) and VRE (Northern Virginia)

– More accurately described as a “ Gallery ” Car



### • The Bombardier Bi
- Level 

# ®

– Used by a dozen commuter operations in the south and west

– A low profile version is in use in the Northeast

– With three levels, better described as a “ Multi - Level ” car


### • The Superliner

/ Surfliner /PRIIA Bi
- Level

– Superliner : used by Amtrak on all Western routes

– Surfliner : used in California (a.k.a. “California Car”)

– PRIIA 305 Next Generation Equipment Committee Bi
- Level

– More accurately described as a “ High Level ” Car 45 

# Conventional (Single Level) Car

a c

b d H istorical footnote: In 1907 the design of the “wide vestibule”, then only six years old, was modified to allow the trap door to remain closed when the side door was opened. This change made high level platforms possible on tracks that were not used by freight trains. Soon after, Manhattan’s new Pennsylvania Station (1910) and Grand Central Terminal (1913) were built with this amenity.6

a c

b 

# Gallery Car

c7

a c



# Multi - Level Car

b8 c 

# The Northeastern Multi - Level

N J Transit (NY Metro) MTA Long Island Rail Road (New York) AMT (Montreal)

MBTA (Boston)9 c



# High Level Car

a

MBTA (Boston) b
#### § 1703.601 Judicial review.

Any person may bring an action in a United States District Court to challenge or enforce the provisions of this part or the manner of their implementation. Such action may be brought prior to or within sixty days after the meeting in question, except that if proper public announcement of the meeting is not made, the action may be instituted at any time within sixty days after such announcement is made. An action may be brought where the Commission meeting was or is to be held or in the District of Columbia.