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

I, Michael Strauss, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
10-K of American Home Mortgage Assets Trust 2006-4 (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. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in
this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the
Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their
obligations under the servicing agreement(s); 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.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., and Citibank, N.A.
Date: March 26, 2007

                                     /s/ Michael Strauss
                                     ------------------------
                                     Name: Michael Strauss
                                     Title: President
MEMORANDUM

Subject: Summary of Stakeholder Meeting

From: Martha Keating

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699

Date: August 6, 2015

On July 27, 2015, representatives of EPA attended a meeting with representatives of the 

Business Roundtable and American Electric Power. Attendees discussed the ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards rulemaking. The Business Roundtable and American Electric 

Power provided meeting materials.

The following is a list of attendees and their affiliation. 

Name Affiliation

Nick Akins Business Roundtable (BRT)

John Engler BRT

Tony Kavanagh American Electric Power

Marian Hopkins BRT

Randy Davis Stuntz, Davis & Staffler, P.C.

Gina McCarthy EPA Administrator (AO)

Micah Ragland EPA/AO

Brian Bond EPA/AO

Chris Cobbs EPA/AO

Jacklyn Mathew EPA/AO

Janet McCabe EPA/Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)

Joseph Goffman EPA/OAR
Argued and submitted February 28,1995, motion to dismiss denied,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration May 22,1996

#### JAMES T. COMBS, *Petitioner, v.*BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, *Respondent.*

(CA A83270)

917 P2d 74

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.

Robert K. Lau, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*220PER CURIAM

Following argument on this case, the Board moved to dismiss the petition on the ground of mootness. We deny the motion without discussion.

On the merits, petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision that requires him to serve 36 months of supervised parole pursuant to ORS 144.085(c). He argues that the application of ORS 144.085 to him violates constitutional prohibitions against *ex post facto*laws. We agree.

Petitioner committed the crime of murder, ORS 163.115, on October 12, 1982. The rules in effect at the time petitioner committed his crime, *former*OAR 255-90-002 (August 1982, *repealed*October 15, 1993); *former*OAR 255-90-010 (August 1982, *repealed*October 15, 1993), provided for a shorter term of parole than the three-year term imposed pursuant to ORS 144.085(c). Accordingly, the application of that provision to petitioner was error. *Thierman v. Board of*Parole, 134 Or App 304, 307, 894 P2d 1250 (1995); *Byrnes v. Board of Parole,*134 Or App 296, 894 P2d 1252 (1995).

Motion to dismiss denied. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
§ 75.309 Period of performance and availability of funds. ( a ) A non-Federal entity may charge to the Federal award only allowable costs incurred during the period of performance (except as described in § 75.461) and any costs incurred before the HHS awarding agency or pass-through entity made the Federal award that were authorized by the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Funds available to pay allowable costs during the period of performance include both Federal funds awarded and carryover balances.
( b ) A non-Federal entity must liquidate all obligations incurred under the award not later than 90 days after the end of the funding period (or as specified in a program regulation) to coincide with the submission of the final Federal Financial Report (FFR). This deadline may be extended with prior written approval from the HHS awarding agency.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1854 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 9, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

to modify an environmental infrastructure project for 

Big Bear Lake, California. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1854 RFS

1 SECTION 1. BIG BEAR LAKE, CALIFORNIA. 

2 Section 219(f)(84) of the Water Resources Develop3 ment Act of 1992 (121 Stat. 1259) is amended to read 

4 as follows: 

5 ‘‘(84) BIG BEAR LAKE, CALIFORNIA.— 

6 $9,000,000 for water supply infrastructure improve7 ments for Big Bear Lake, California.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 249 (Thursday, December 28, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 78214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9886]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, SBIR Topic 230 (Phases I and II).
    Date: February 27, 2007.
    Time: 12 pm to 4 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6130 Executive Blvd., 
Conference Room D, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Kenneth L Bielat, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division Of Extramural Activities, National Cancer 
Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 7147, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(301)496-7576, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#caa8a3afa6abbea18aa4a3a2e4ada5bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aeccc7cbc2cfdac5eec0c7c680c9c1d8">[email protected]</span></a>.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: December 20, 2006.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-9886 Filed 12-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Electronic Redesignation of ) LRA 726 

Contributions/Date of Withdrawal 

Hillary Clinton for President 

(C00431569) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Lisa Chapman, recording secretary of the Federal Election Commission, 

do hereby certify that on April 27, 2010, the Commission decided by a vote of 6-0 

to: 

1. Permit the electronic redesignations outlined in the General Counsel's 

Memorandum dated February 4,2010. 

2. Conclude that Clinton withdrew her candidacy on June 29,2008. 

3. Direct the Office of General Counsel to draft a policy statement on 

redesignations and circulate for review. 

Conmiissioners Bauerly, Hunter, McGahn II, Petersen, Walther, and 

Weintraub voted affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

Date C/Lisa Chapman i 

Recording Secretary of the Commission
Tennessee Republican Party 

2424 21''Ave. 

Suite 200 

Nashville, TN. 37212 

08/14/2009 

To: Federal Election Commission 

Attn: Joseph F. Stoltz 

From: Troy Brewer, Controller 

In regards to the 2005-2006 election cycle audit, we will decline the opportunity to 

present any extra legal arguments to the Final Audit Report. We have previously 

explained our situation to the auditors. Thank you for the opportunity. 

Respectfully, 

Troy Brewer, Controller
Exhibit 32.1



CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

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 First Place Financial Corp. (First Place) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven R. Lewis, Chief Executive
Officer of First Place, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 First Place.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                                      
|---------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|November 5, 2004 |  | /s/ Steven R. Lewis                  
|                 |  | Steven R. Lewis                      
|                 |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



22
§ 264.73 What is an annual reconciliation? ( a ) The annual reconciliation involves the calculation, for a fiscal year, of: ( 1 ) The amount of a State's qualifying expenditures;
( 2 ) The amount by which a State's countable State expenditures, as defined in § 264.0, exceed the State's required Contingency Fund MOE level; and
( 3 ) The amount of contingency funds that the State may retain or must remit.
( b ) If a State exceeded its required Contingency Fund MOE level, it may be able to retain some or all of the contingency funds that it received.
( c ) A State determines the amount of contingency funds that it may retain by performing the following calculations: ( 1 ) From the lesser of the following two amounts: ( i ) The amount of contingency funds paid to it during the fiscal year; or
( ii ) Its countable State expenditures, as defined in § 264.0, minus its required Contingency Fund MOE level, multiplied by: ( A ) The State's Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) applicable for the fiscal year for which funds were awarded; and
( B ) 1 ⁄ 12 times the number of months during the fiscal year for which the State received contingency funds.
( 2 ) Subtract the State's proportionate remittance (as reported to the State by ACF) for the overall adjustment of the Contingency Fund for that fiscal year required by section 403(b)(6)(C) of the Act.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

FILED

APR 06 2011 

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

PIERCE O'DONNELL,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-50296

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00872-SJO-1

U.S. District Court for Central 

California, Los Angeles

MANDATE

The judgment of this Court, entered June 14, 2010, takes effect this date. 

This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 

41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

FOR THE COURT:

Molly C. Dwyer

Clerk of Court

Lee-Ann Collins

Deputy Clerk

Case: 09-50296 04/06/2011 Page: 1 of 1 ID: 7706286 DktEntry: 60
** **

**Exhibit99.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Implant Sciences Corporation (the “Company”)for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on May 20, 2003 (the “Report”), each of the undersigned ChiefExecutive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies,to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(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 ofthe Company.

 
| /s/ Anthony Armini        |   | /s/ Diane J. Ryan         |
|---------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
| Anthony Armini            |   | Diane J. Ryan             |
| Chief Executive Officer   |   | Chief Financial Officer   |
|                      |   |                      |
|                      |   |                      |
| Date:   May 20, 2003 |   | Date:   May 20, 2003 |

 

----
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of
Directors
Universal Power Group, Inc.:

We consent to
incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-142736 on Form S-8
of Universal Power Group, Inc. of our report dated March 31, 2009 relating to
the balance sheet of Universal Power Group, Inc. as of December 31, 2008 and
the related statements of operations, changes in shareholders equity and cash
flows for the year then ended, which report is included in the December 31,
2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Universal Power Group, Inc.

|                  | 
|----------------- | 
|/s/ KBA
GROUP LLP | 
|                  | 
|Dallas,
 Texas   
|March 31,
 2010  

---
Case 1:15-cv-00961-TSC   Document 6   Filed 08/27/15   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:15-cv-00961-TSC   Document 6   Filed 08/27/15   Page 2 of 2
#### Christ, appellant, v. Leice.

Appeal from a decree of the surrogate of Queens county admitting to probate the last will of Peter Christ, deceased. The appellant was George Christ, one of the next of kin of deceased, and the respondents John Leice and another, executors and legatees under said will.

*Robert Johnstone,*for appellant.

*John J. Armstrong,*for respondents.

*677Tappen, J.

The decree of the surrogate was sustained upon the facts of the case.

*Decree affirmed.*
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on December 6, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME” has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, since August 25, 2005, ASME has published several standards and initiated several new standards activities within the general nature and scope of ASME's standards development activities, as specified in its original notification. More details regarding these changes can be found at                     *http://www.asme.org.*

                    On September 15, 2004, AMSE filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 13, 2004 (69 FR 60895).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 28, 2006. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b0 of the Act on September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53133).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 06-9911 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### § 75.473 Transportation costs.

Costs incurred for freight, express, cartage, postage, and other transportation services relating either to goods purchased, in process, or delivered, are allowable. When such costs can readily be identified with the items involved, they may be charged directly as transportation costs or added to the cost of such items. Where identification with the materials received cannot readily be made, inbound transportation cost may be charged to the appropriate indirect (F&A) cost accounts if the non-Federal entity follows a consistent, equitable procedure in this respect. Outbound freight, if reimbursable under the terms and conditions of the Federal award, should be treated as a direct cost.
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED FIRST CONGRESS 

Convened January 3, 1989 

FIRST SESSION { 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Wednesday, May 3, 1989 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WALTER J.STEWART, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Gerald A. Hackett, Executive Clerk 
1 

NOMINATIONS 

Calendar Message Nominee. Office, And Predecessor Reported 

* 

No. No. Bv 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

63 240 William G. Rosenberg, of Michigan, to be an Apr 18, 89 Mr. Burdick, 

Assistant Administrator of the Committee on Environment 

Environmental Protection Agency. vice J. and Public Works, without 

Craie: Potter. resimed. Printed reoort .. *Sign1f1es nommee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly 

constituted committee of the Senate.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. De Forest Grant et al., Respondents, *v.*Atlantic Terra Cotta Company et al., Appellants.

*People ex rel. Grant*v. *Atlantic Terra Cotta Co.,*133 App. Div. 890, affirmed.

(Argued October 6, 1909;

decided October 26, 1909.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 14, 1909, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel defendants to permit relators to examine the books of the defendant corporation.

*Graham Sumner*for appellants.

*John M. Perry*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion in *People ex rel. Leach*v. *Central Fish Co.*(117 App. Div. 77).

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscocic and Chase, JJ.
#### Martin *v.*Pattillo.

Submitted July 16,

Decided August 9, 1906.

Injunction. Before Judge Reagan. Henry superior court. May *12.*1906.

Evans, J.

1. Where, after proeessioners have duly made out and certified a plat as required by law, a protest to their action is filed by an adjoining landowner and the same is returned to the superior court, where a verdict is rendered sustaining the return of the proeessioners, and such return is made the judgment of the court, the judgment unappealed from is conclusive as against the protestant and his privies in title. *Howland*v. *Brown,*92 *Ga.*513.

2. After such judgment, the true line between the coterminous proprietors is that marked by the proeessioners, and any invasion thereafter across, the line thus established and upon the land,of the adjacent owner by the protestant in the processioning proceeding would amount to a trespass.

3. If repeated acts of wrong are done or threatened, so as to make the trespass a continuous one, they may be repressed in equity by injunction.

4. There was no error in'the allowance and rejection of evidence, and the. court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*

*437Upon, the application, of Pattillo the line around his land was ■run and marked by processioners. To their return Martin filed a protest on the ground that they, instead of following the real line dividing his land from that of Pattillo, had run a new line .so as to put about one and a half acres of his land on Patillo’s side of the line so run. Upon the trial of the issue thus made a .jury found in favor of Pattillo, and judgment in his favor was ■■entered, which has not been reversed or set aside. Martin disregarded the processioners’ return, and repeatedly entered on the one .and a half acres, tearing down a fence built by Patillo, cutting and removing timber, etc. An injunction was granted, restraining him from further trespassing; and he excepted, contending that the ■court erred in admitting in evidence the record of the processioning proceedings, over his objection that it was not a muniment of title and did not show possession; and in not allowing him and ■other witnesses to testify to the length of time and character of his possession of the land in dispute; and in granting the injunction, which operated as a writ of possession and a mandatory order, when the plantiff had an ample and adequate remedy at law by .action of ejectment.

*B. M. Smith*and *Brown & Brown,*for plaintiff in error.

*George*W. *Bryan,*contra.