alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.3





COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


OF


THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, AS SERVICER


The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly elected and acting Vice President and Treasurer of The Toledo Edison Company, as servicer (the “ Servicer ”) under the Phase-In-Recovery Property Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 20, 2013 (the “ Servicing Agreement ”), between the Servicer and TE Funding LLC, as Bond Issuer, and further certifies on behalf of the Servicer that:


|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement during the period that commenced January 1, 2016 and ended December 31, 2016 has been made under the supervision of the undersigned pursuant to Section 3.03 of the Servicing Agreement; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | To the undersigned’s knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the Servicing Agreement throughout the period that commenced January 1, 2016 and ended December 31, 2016.

Executed as of this 31 st day of March 2017.





THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANYBy:/s/ Steven R. StaubName:Steven R. StaubTitle:Vice President and Treasurer
May 1, 2015

Office of Regulations and Interpretations 

Employee Benefits Security Administration

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Ave., NW, Room N-5655

Washington, D.C. 20210

Re: Comment Period for Conflict of Interest Rule (Proposal) – RIN 1210-AB32

On behalf of the Bond Dealers of America (“BDA”), I write to request a 45-day 

extension of the comment period applicable to the Department of Labor’s Conflict of 

Interest Rule Proposal. BDA is the only Washington, D.C. based group representing the 

interests of middle-market securities dealers and banks focused on the United States fixed 

income markets.

The Proposal was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2015 and 

currently includes a 75-day comment period. BDA strongly urges the Department to 

extend the comment period to a total of 120 days—a comment period of similar length to 

the 104-day-comment period applicable to the Department’s shorter and less complex

2010 proposal. Given the scope of the Proposal and the importance of crafting a rule that 

does not hinder the provision of retirement advice to investors, BDA believes a 

reasonable extension of the comment period is appropriate. 

The Proposal contains significant new exemptions, including the Best Interest 

Contract Exemption, and several new amendments to existing prohibited transaction 

exemptions (PTEs). Extending the comment period by 45 days would allow BDA 

member firms, especially smaller broker-dealers, to have some crucial additional time to 

assess the implications of the Proposal on their retirement businesses, contemplate how 

the Proposal interacts with existing Securities and Exchange Commission and Financial 

Industry Regulatory Authority rules, and to assess the aggregate burden of the new 

compliance requirements contained in the Proposal.

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit these comments.

Sincerely,

Michael Nicholas

Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-8079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LEONEL ROMEO CAZACO, a/k/a Jimmy Fingers,

a/k/a Frank Nisbett, a/k/a James Romeo Nelson,

a/k/a Phil, a/k/a Pod Supervisor Scott,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District

Judge. (3:96-cr-0066-REP; 3:06-cv-00729-REP)

Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 26, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leonel Romeo Cazaco, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, David

John Novak, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Leonel Romeo Cazaco seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions as successive 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motions, and dismissing them on that basis.

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

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

(2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cazaco has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Cazaco’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
- 3 -

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Cazaco’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Performanceand accountability report [electronic resource].**** 
SuDoc:HS 1.1/3-2:
ItemNumber:0520-B-17(online)
CGPsystem Number:000593038
 
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
 
 **
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsGenesis lunar outpost criteria and designThis design study--the third in the space architecture series--focused on the requirements of an early stage lunar outpost. The driving assumptions of the scenario was that the base would serve as a research facility and technology testbed for future Mars missions, a habitat supporting 12 persons for durations of up to 20 months, and would sustain the following five experimental facilities: Lunar surface mining and production analysis facility, construction technology and materials testbed, closed environmental life support system (CELSS) test facility, lunar farside observatory, and human factors and environment-behavior research facility. Based upon the criteria set forth in a previous programming document, three preliminary lunar base designs were developed. Each of the three schemes studied a different construction method and configuration. The designs were then evaluated in terms of environmental response, human habitability, transportability, constructability, construction dependability and resilience, and their suitability in carrying out the desired scientific research. The positive points of each scheme were then further developed by the entire project team, resulting in one integrated lunar outpost design.Document ID19900017183Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsHansmann, Timothy*(Wisconsin Univ. Milwaukee, WI, United States)*Moore, Gary T.*(Wisconsin Univ. Milwaukee, WI, United States)*Baschiera, Dino J.*(Wisconsin Univ. Milwaukee, WI, United States)*Fieber, Joe Paul*(Wisconsin Univ. Milwaukee, WI, United States)*Moths, Janis Huebner*(Wisconsin Univ. Milwaukee, WI, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 11, 1990Publication InformationISBN: 0-938744-69-0Subject CategoryMan/System Technology And Life SupportReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-186831R90-1NAS 1.26:186831Accession Number90N26499Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NASW-4435Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017183.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 236.564 Acknowledging time.

Acknowledging time of intermittent automatic train-stop device shall be not more than 30 seconds.
IB

Union Calendar No. 275

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2464

[Report No. 104–562]

To amend Public Law 103–93 to provide additional lands within the State

of Utah for the Goshute Indian Reservation, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 11, 1995

Mr. HANSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

MAY 7, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To amend Public Law 103–93 to provide additional lands

within the State of Utah for the Goshute Indian Reservation, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2464 RH

1 SECTION 1. ADDITION OF CERTAIN UTAH STATE LANDS TO

2 GOSHUTE INDIAN RESERVATION.

3 The Utah Schools and Lands Improvement Act of

4 1993 (107 Stat. 995) is amended—

5 (1) by redesignating section 11 as section 12;

6 and

7 (2) by inserting after section 10 the following

8 new section:

9 ‘‘SEC. 11. ADDITIONAL GOSHUTE INDIAN RESERVATION

10 LANDS.

11 ‘‘(a) FURTHER ADDITIONS TO GOSHUTE RESERVA12 TION.—In addition to the lands described in section 3, for

13 the purpose of securing in trust for the Goshute Indian

14 Tribe certain additional public lands and lands belonging

15 to the State of Utah, which comprise approximately 8,000

16 acres of surface and subsurface estate, as generally de17 picted on the map entitled ‘Additional Utah-Goshute Ex18 change’, dated July 1, 1994, such public lands and State

19 lands are hereby declared to be part of the Goshute Indian

20 Reservation in the State of Utah effective upon the com21 pletion of conveyance of the State lands from the State

22 of Utah and acceptance of title by the United States.

23 ‘‘(b) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary of the Interior

24 is authorized to acquire through exchange those lands and

25 interests in land described in subsection (a) which are
3

•HR 2464 RH

1 owned by the State of Utah, subject to valid existing

2 rights.

3 ‘‘(c) APPLICATION OF PRIOR PROVISIONS.—(1) Ex4 cept as provided in paragraph (2), the remaining provi5 sions of this Act which are applicable to the lands to be

6 transferred to the Goshute Indian Tribe pursuant to sec7 tion 3 shall also apply to the lands subject to this section.

8 ‘‘(2) The Goshute Indian Tribe will be responsible for

9 payment of the costs of appraisal of the lands to be ac10 quired pursuant to this section, which costs shall be paid

11 prior to the transfer of such lands.’’.
Union Calendar No. 275

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2464

[Report No. 104–562]

A BILL

To amend Public Law 103–93 to provide additional

Indian Reservation, and for other purposes.lands within the State of Utah for the Goshute

MAY 7, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
#### § 236.54 Minimum length of track circuit.

When a track circuit shorter than maximum inner wheelbase of any locomotive or car operated over such track circuit is used for control of signaling facilities, other means shall be used to provide the equivalent of track circuit protection.

[49 FR 3383, Jan. 26, 1984]
#### § 236.780 Plunger, facing point lock.

That part of a facing point lock which secures the lock rod to the plunger stand when the switch is locked.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



Board of Directors and Stockholders
EKCO Group, Inc.

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (File No. 33-42785) pertaining to the 1984 and 1985 Restricted Stock
Purchase Plans of EKCO Group, Inc., in the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(File No. 33-50800) pertaining to the 1984 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of EKCO
Group, Inc., in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 33-50802)
pertaining to the 1987 Stock Option Plan of EKCO Group, Inc., in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 33-29448) pertaining to the 1988
Directors' Stock Option Plan of EKCO Group, Inc., and in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 33-58319) pertaining to the Dividend
Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan of EKCO Group, Inc., of our report dated
February 12, 1999 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of EKCO Group,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 3, 1999 and December 28, 1997, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended January 3,
1999, which report is included in the January 3, 1999 Annual Report on Form 10-K
of EKCO Group, Inc.



                                                       /S/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 29, 1999
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. George F. Andrews et al., as Temporary Administrators and as Executors of Frederick C. Hewitt, Deceased, Respondents and Appellants, *v.*Del Rey A. Cameron et al., as Assessors of the Village of Owego, Appellants and Respondents.

*People ex rel. Andrews*v. *Cameron,*140 App. Div. 76, affirmed.

(Argued January 4, 1911;

decided January 24, 1911.)

Cross-appeals from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered September 26, 1910, which affirmed an order of Special Term reducing an assessment for taxation against the estate of Frederick C. Hewitt, deceased.

*F. W. Clifford*for relators, respondents and appellants.

*William Nelson Noble*and *Fred J. Davis*for defendants, appellants and respondents.

Order affirmed, without costs ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ. Not sitting: Collin, J.
§ 240.227 Reliance on qualification requirements of other countries. ( a ) A railroad that conducts joint operations with a Canadian railroad may certify, for the purposes of compliance with this part, that a person is qualified to be a locomotive or train service engineer provided it determines that: ( 1 ) The person is employed by the Canadian railroad; and
( 2 ) The person meets or exceeds the qualifications standards issued by Transport Canada for such service.
( b ) Any Canadian railroad that is required to comply with this regulation may certify that a person is qualified to be a locomotive or train service engineer provided it determines that: ( 1 ) The person is employed by the Canadian railroad; and
( 2 ) The person meets or exceeds the qualifications standards issued by Transport Canada for such service.
From: weitzs@earthlink.net [mailto:weitzs@earthlink.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 10:47 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Stephen Weitz 

2757 Best Ave. 

Oakland, CA 94619
-----Original Message----- 

From: deanandrew@usfamily.net [mailto:deanandrew@usfamily.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:57 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Dean Andrew 

1904 Manton St 

Saint Paul, MN 55109
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135289 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan EDWARD GUOAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135289 COA: 277823 Chippewa CC: 07-009119-AH JERI ANN SHERRY, WARDEN, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 10, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

l0317 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.

March 24, 2008

Clerk
April9,2014 DocketNo. FAA-2013-0855 Case No. 2012-GL-25-0058

To His Honor, Judge J.E. Sullivan; 

# RECEIVED APR 1 5 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET

1nregards to the above mentioned case, I respectfully request a hearing to take place in Cleveland, Ohio. At this hearing I also requestthat Ms. Chris Paucho, the Flight Standards District Office Chief, also be present, along with FAA counsel Kate Barber as well as my representing council, ifnecessary. I do not feel that theprevious options offered by Ms. Barber presented adequate opportunityto effectively answer the allegations presented against me.
In regards to the FAA's Complaint dated January 30, 2013, my Answers are as follows: *Paragraph 1) Admit *Paragraph 2) Denied *Paragraph 3) Denied *Paragraph4) Lack ofKnowledge *Paragraph 5) Denied *Paragraph 6) Denied

Ithas always been my sole intent to promote the sport ofskydiving, as well as aviation, in a positive and safety conscious manner. I feel I have done this byhaving completed inexcess of8,000 Tandem and AFF skydives as a USPA licensed instructor with never an accident, incidentnor complaint filed against me. I would, again, request a hearing in my home state so as to defend myintegrity as well as my safety consciousness in this matter.
Respectfully,

# ~a~ David A. DravesApril9, 2014 Docket No. FAA-2013-0855 Case No. 2012-GL-25-0058

CERTIFIED and FIRST CLASS MAIL Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Ave., SW Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 Washington, DC 20591 Attn. Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430

Ms. Kate Barber Office ofRegional Counsel Great Lakes Region, AGL-7 Federal Aviation Administration 2300 East DevonAvenue Des Plaines, IL 60018
Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, D.C. 20590

# '~ ) 

### '

..
Summary of Changed Named Executive Officer Compensation Arrangements


 Exhibit 10.1 
 Summary of Changed Named Executive Officer Compensation Arrangements 
 Cynthia Harriss’ annual base salary was
changed from $750,000 to $785,000 effective March 19, 2006. 
 Byron Pollitt’s annual base salary was changed from $675,000 to $700,000 effective
March 19, 2006. 
 Cynthia Harriss was awarded a bonus of $59,853 based on the portion of fiscal 2005 during which she led the Company’s Outlet
Division and the performance of that division.
SOFEA Update

Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 2:00 pm

Potomac Yards South – 9100

Summary: Dow AgroSciences provided the Office of Pesticide Programs with an update on air dispersion 

modeling using the SOil Fumigant Exposure Assessment system (SOFEA).

Participants:

EPA/OPP

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division:

Dana Friedman, Susan Bartow, Khue Nguyen, Kevin Costello, Cathryn Britton, Carolyn Schroeder, Meg 

Hathaway

Health Effects Division:

James Miller, Shalu Shelat, Bridgett Bobowiec, Jeff Dawson, Matt Lloyd, Christina Swartz

Antimicrobials Division:

Siroos Mostaghimi

Environmental Fate and Effects Division:

Chuck Peck

Dow AgroSciences

Ian van Wesenbeeck, Jim Baxter, Steve Cryer
#### Henry T. Buffum, Respondent, *v.*Buffalo and Lake Erie Traction Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Another.

*Buffum*v. *Buffalo & L. E. Traction Co.,*137 App. Div. 879, affirmed.

(Argued March 30, 1911;

decided April 25, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 23, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of defendant.

*Lyman M. Bass*for appellant.

*W. H. Ticknor*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Chase and Collin, JJ.