alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 34.4

[KPMG LOGO]

                         KPMG LLP
                         1601 Market Street
                         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499

             Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:

We have examined management's assessment for those customers that management has
informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included in the
accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those issuers
of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios
that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform)
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Regulus Group LLC has determined
that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the
activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with
those 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
servicing criteria specified above 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 Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company 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
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

                        /s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, PA
February 22, 2007

           KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
            member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
#### § 605.41 Application of this subpart.

Subpart E applies to postsecondary education programs or activities, including postsecondary vocational education programs or activities, that receive Federal financial assistance and to recipients that operate, or that receive Federal financial assistance for the operation of, such programs or activities.

[47 FR 8573, Mar. 1, 1982, as amended at 68 FR 51381, Aug. 26, 2003]
§ 86.58 Effect of State or local law or other requirements. ( a ) *Prohibitory requirements.* The obligation to comply with this subpart is not obviated or alleviated by the existence of any State or local law or other requirement which imposes prohibitions or limits upon employment of members of one sex which are not imposed upon members of the other sex.
( b ) *Benefits.* A recipient which provides any compensation, service, or benefit to members of one sex pursuant to a State or local law or other requirement shall provide the same compensation, service, or benefit to members of the other sex.
(Secs. 901, 902, Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, 374; 20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682)
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report of Universal Power Group, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Roger Tannery, Chief Financial 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 complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

| |                                                                                                                                                                         
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | A signed original
  of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
  retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

|                                | 
|------------------------------- | 
|Dated: March 28, 2008          
|                               
|/s/ Roger Tannery              
|                                | 
|Roger
  Tannery                
|Chief
  Financial Officer      
|(Principal
  Financial Officer)

---
§ 75.440 Exchange rates. ( a ) Cost increases for fluctuations in exchange rates are allowable costs subject to the availability of funding. Prior approval of exchange rate fluctuations is required only when the change results in the need for additional Federal funding, or the increased costs result in the need to significantly reduce the scope of the project. The HHS awarding agency must however ensure that adequate funds are available to cover currency fluctuations in order to avoid a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
( b ) The non-Federal entity is required to make reviews of local currency gains to determine the need for additional federal funding before the expiration date of the Federal award. Subsequent adjustments for currency increases may be allowable only when the non-Federal entity provides the HHS awarding agency with adequate source documentation from a commonly used source in effect at the time the expense was made, and to the extent that sufficient Federal funds are available.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0823 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-018-AD

Helicopter Model: Agusta S.p.A. Model A109A, A109A II, A109C, and A109K2 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 79 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: This superseding airworthiness directive (AD) retains the requirements of the Emergency AD 

and corrects a part number for the main rotor scissor fitting assembly. This AD requires inspecting the 

main rotor scissor fitting assembly and in certain conditions, this AD requires replacing each fixing bolt 

and installing 2 washers under the head of each fixing bolt. 

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $153

Labor per Helicopter

(15 minutes for inspection; 

3 hours for replacement 

x $85/work-hour)

$21.25 (inspection);

$255 (replacement)

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $21.25 (inspection); 

$429.25 (inspection and replacement) 

Total US Fleet Cost $4,943

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: Sharon Miles
Monaker Group, Inc. 10-K/A

Exhibit 31.3



CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO



18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, William Kerby, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A of
Monaker Group, Inc.; and



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.



|Date: June 25, 2020 | By: /s/ William Kerby        
|------------------- | -----------------------------
|                    | William Kerby                
|                    | Chief Executive Officer      
|                    | (Principal Executive Officer)
# CE2009286EN.01005701.xml

| 27.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 286/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 286/57

---

Tuesday 17 June 2008Lighting and light-signalling devices on two or three-wheel motor vehicles (codified version) ***I

P6_TA(2008)0264

European Parliament legislative resolution of 17 June 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on two or three-wheel motor vehicles (codified version) (COM(2007)0768 — C6-0449/2007 — 2007/0270(COD))

2009/C 286 E/16

(Codecision procedure — codification)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0768),

having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0449/2007),

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 — Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1),

1

having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0233/2008),

| A. | whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance,

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

1

---
#### § 79.40 Stays ordered by the Department of Justice.

If at any time the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General designated by the Attorney General transmits to the authority head a written finding that continuation of the administrative process described in this part with respect to a claim or statement may adversely affect any pending or potential criminal or civil action related to such claim or statement, the authority head shall stay the process immediately. The authority head may order the process resumed only upon receipt of the written authorization of the Attorney General.
# Assignment of Certain Functions Relating to Procurement Sanctions on Persons Engaging in Export Activities that Contribute to Proliferation

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State[,] the Secretary of the Treasury[,] the Secretary of Defense[,] the Secretary of Commerce[, and] the Director of National Intelligence

 By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, the functions of the President under section 821 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 6301) are assigned to the Secretary of State, except that the function of the President under section 821(c)(2)(A) is assigned to the Secretary of Defense.

In the performance of their respective functions under this memorandum, the Secretaries of State and Defense shall, as appropriate, consult each other, the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce, and the heads of other departments and agencies.

                    The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

[FR Doc. 07-1195

Billing code 4710-10-P
§ 2556.420 What are termination for cause proceedings? ( a ) Termination for cause proceedings remove a VISTA from a project assignment due to an alleged deficiency, or alleged deficiencies, in conduct or performance, and are initiated by AmeriCorps.
( b ) AmeriCorps, to the extent practicable, communicates the matter, and the administrative procedures as set forth in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, with the VISTA who is removed from a VISTA project.
( c ) The VISTA Case Manager will notify the VISTA in writing of AmeriCorps' proposal to terminate for cause. The written proposal to terminate the VISTA for cause must give them the reason(s) for the proposed termination, and notify them that they have 10 calendar days within which to submit a written answer to the proposal to terminate them cause and to furnish any accompanying statements or written material. The VISTA must submit their answer to the VISTA Case Manager by the deadline identified in the written proposal to terminate for cause.
( d ) Within 10 calendar days of the expiration of the VISTA's deadline to answer the proposal to terminate for cause, AmeriCorps will issue a written decision regarding the proposal to terminate for cause. ( 1 ) If AmeriCorps decides to terminate the VISTA for cause, its written decision will set forth the reasons for the determination and the effective date of termination (which may be on or after the date of the decision).
( 2 ) If AmeriCorps decides not to terminate the VISTA for cause, the written decision will indicate that the proposal to terminate for cause is rescinded.
( e ) A VISTA who does not submit a timely answer to the appropriate VISTA Case Manager, as set forth in paragraph (c) of this section, is not entitled to appeal the decision regarding the proposal to terminate for cause. In such cases, AmeriCorps may terminate the VISTA for cause, on the date identified in the decision, and the termination action is final.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# ACTION:

Announcement of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the 13th meeting of the American Health Information Community Consumer Empowerment Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.).

# DATES:

January 10, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. EST.

# ADDRESSES:

Marcy C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090 (please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

*http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic/​ce_​main.html.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Workgroup members will continue its discussion about potential recommendations to the AHIC addressing the broad charge to the Workgroup, and hear about recent research on interoperability issues.

                    The meeting will be available via internet access. For additional information, go to                     *http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic/​ce_​instruct.html.*

Dated: December 14, 2006.

Judith Sparrow,

Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

[FR Doc. 06-9808 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
#### § 63.22 Cost sharing.

Policy Research funds shall not be used to pay any recipient of a grant for the conduct of a research project an amount equal to as much as the entire cost of the project.
§ 75.409 Special considerations. In addition to the basic considerations regarding the allowability of costs highlighted in this subtitle, other subtitles in this part describe special considerations and requirements applicable to states, local governments, Indian tribes, and IHEs. In addition, certain provisions among the items of cost in this subpart are only applicable to certain types of non-Federal entities, as specified in the following sections: ( a ) Direct and Indirect (F&A) Costs (§§ 75.412 through 75.415);
( b ) Special Considerations for States, Local Governments and Indian Tribes (§§ 75.416 and 75.417); and
( c ) Special Considerations for Institutions of Higher Education (§§ 75.418 and 75.419).
[79 FR 75889, Dec. 19, 2014, as amended at 81 FR 3017, Jan. 20, 2016]
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-5264 September Term, 2016

1:15-cv-01217-TSC

Filed On: September 26, 2016 [1637558]

Pursuing America's Greatness,

 Appellant

v.

Federal Election Commission, Office of

General Counsel, 

 Appellee

M A N D A T E

In accordance with the judgment of August 2, 2016, and pursuant to Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 41, this constitutes the formal mandate of this court.

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Ken R. Meadows

Deputy Clerk

Link to the judgment filed August 2, 2016

USCA Case #15-5264 Document #1637558 Filed: 09/26/2016 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

LAURA HOLMES, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 14-1243 (RMC)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

)

)

)

Defendant. )

)

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion filed simultaneously with this 

Order, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. 6, is 

DENIED, and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall show cause, no later than November 3, 2014, as 

to why the Court should not convert this Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary 

Injunction into a final appealable Order denying Plaintiffs’ request to certify the constitutional 

issues to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for en banc

consideration. 

DATE: October 20, 2014

 /s/ 

ROSEMARY M. COLLYER

United States District Judge

Case 1:14-cv-01243-RMC Document 16 Filed 10/20/14 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

** **

** **

Audit Committee,Board of Directors and Stockholders

Universal Power Group, Inc.:

Dallas, Texas

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration StatementNo. 333-142736 on Form S-8 of Universal Power Group, Inc. of our report dated March 31, 2011 relating to the consolidated balancesheets of Universal Power Group, Inc as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and the related consolidated statements of operations,changes in shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, which report is included in the December 31, 2010Annual Report on Form 10-K of Universal Power Group, Inc.

 

 

**/s/ BKD LLP**

Dallas, Texas

March 31, 2011

----
§ 79.7 Complaint. ( a ) On or after the date the Department of Justice approves the issuance of a complaint in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3803(b)(1), the reviewing official may serve a complaint on the defendant, as provided in § 79.8.
( b ) The complaint shall state— ( 1 ) The allegations of liability against the defendant, including the statutory basis for liability, an identification of the claims or statements that are the basis for the alleged liability, and the reasons why liability allegedly arises from such claims or statements;
( 2 ) The maximum amount of penalties and assessments for which the defendant may be held liable;
( 3 ) Instructions for filing an answer to request a hearing, including a specific statement of the defendant's right to request a hearing by filing an answer and to be represented by a representative; and
( 4 ) That failure to file an answer as set forth in § 79.9 will result in the imposition of the maximum amount of penalties and assessments without right to appeal, as provided in § 79.10.
( c ) At the same time the reviewing official serves the complaint, he or she shall serve the defendant with a copy of these regulations.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11059-11060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1175]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Time and Date: 10 a.m., Thursday, March 15, 2007.

Place: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

Status: Open.

Matter To Be Considered:
    1. NCUSIF Dividend and Insurance Premium.
    2. Appeals from Cinfed Federal Credit Union and Emergy Federal 
Credit union of the Regional Director's Denials of Conversion from 
Multiple Common Bonds to Community Charters.
    3. Proposed Rule: Parts 748, 749, and 750 of NCUA's Rules and 
Regulations, Disaster Preparedness and Records Preservation Program.
    4. Proposed Rule: Part 716 of NCUA's Rules and Regualtions, Model 
Privacy Form.

[[Page 11060]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 07-1175 Filed 3-8-07; 3:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 29, 2014

p0721 

# Order

Clerk July 29, 2014

148248(60)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148248

COA: 310706

Wayne CC: 11

- 004936

- FC

PAUL ANTHONY DAVIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 28,

2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.