alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Portfolios of Hypothetical First‐Lien Mortgages Data Definitions

Variable Mnemonic Description

Principal balance amount prin_bal_amt The principal balance as of the

start of the projection period in

dollars

Loan amount at origination loan_amt_orig The loan amount at origination

in dollars

Loan‐to‐value ratio at

origination

ltv_ratio_orig The ratio of loan amount at

origination to the property

value at origination

Creditscore at origination (FICO®

Scores)1

creditbureau_score_orig The credit score of the

borrower at origination using a

commercially available credit

score

Property state prop_state The state in which the property

is located. This includes the 50

U.S. states and the District of

Columbia

Occupancy status of property occupancy_type The occupancy status of

property:

1 is primary

2 issecond home

3 is non‐owner/investment

U is unknown

Mortgage product product Mortgage products:

“frm” isfixed‐rate mortgage

“arm” is adjustable‐rate

mortgage

Property type prop_type Property types:

1 is single

2 is condo/co‐op

3 is 2‐4 units

4 is other

Mortgage purpose purpose_type Mortgage purpose:

1 is purchase

2 israte/term refinance

3 is cash‐out refinance

4 is other refinance

Loan term at origination loan_term_orig Loan term at origination in

months

Year of loan origination year Year of loan origination

Loan age loan_age Loan age in months

Paymentstatus status Paymentstatus:

1 is current (0‐89 days past due)

2 islate (90‐179 days past due) 1 The Federal Reserve maps to FICO® Scores as an input to its first loss model because these scores are the

most widely used commercially available credit scores in the historical data used for estimation.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2 9 77

_____________________________
E MMANUEL M C M EANS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. J ennie Kinsey , Judge

. October 31, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , W INOKUR , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________ Emmanuel McMeans, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Holly Simcox , Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

258) ll-K- (I) -71 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:57AM Sheet 258 of 325 
P.2 

'/AUg 

II-K-(I)-71 

IFCAM MODEL RESULTS FOR EIGHTH ROUND TEST CASES. 

EEA, Inc. 

December 16, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-71
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the: (a) Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No 333-63393) pertaining to the CSK Auto Corporation 1996
Associate Stock Option Plan, the CSK Auto Corporation 1996 Executive Stock
Option Plan, the CSK Auto Corporation Directors Stock Plan and the Executive
Stock Option Plan, (2), (b) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No 333-77879)
pertaining to the CSK Auto, Inc Retirement Program, (c) Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No 333-86071) pertaining to the CSK Auto Corporation 1996 Executive
Stock Option Plan and (d) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No 333-86069)
pertaining to the CSK Auto Corporation 1999 Employee Stock Option Plan of our
report dated November 15, 1999 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of PACCAR Automotive, Inc. included in this Current Report on (Form
8-K/A) of CSK Auto Corporation dated October 1, 1999 and filed December 15,
1999.

                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Seattle, Washington
December 15, 1999
Exhibit
14.1







Consent
of Independent Registered


Public
Accounting Firm








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form
F-3 No. 333-147001 and Form S-8 No. 333-129136) of Double Hull Tankers, Inc. and
in the related Prospectus of our reports dated March 10, 2008, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Double Hull Tankers, Inc. and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Double Hull
Tankers, Inc. and our report dated March 31, 2006 with respect to the
predecessor combined carve-out financial statements of OSG Crude, all included
in this Annual Report of Double Hull Tankers, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 2007.




/s/ Ernst &
      Young LLPNew
      York, New York

                March
      10, 2008
<PAGE>   1

[KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP LETTERHEAD]


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Del Webb Corporation:

We consent to the use of our report dated August 21, 1998 incorporated herein
by reference and to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the
Prospectus. Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for
impairment of long-lived assets.

                                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
September 18, 1998
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6925

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WAYNE ALLEN FLETCHER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:02-cr-00008) Submitted: December 3, 2007 Decided: October 1, 2008 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Allen Fletcher, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Wayne Allen Fletcher seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 Fletcher 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement
of Zila, Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated June 30, 1997, appearing in the
Current Report on Form 8-K of Zila, Inc., dated July 18, 1997 and to the
reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Prospectus, which is part of
this Registration Statement.


/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
------------------------
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Phoenix, Arizona

July 18, 1997


                                  EXHIBIT 23-B
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0175

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

NATALIE AMANDA RICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 2, 2020, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 26 2020

10/26/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0175
No. 66609.

#### Charles Hall, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 214870-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
B oard o f G overnors o f the F ederal R eserve S ystem

Washington , DC 20551

w w w .fed eralreserv e.go v

Septem ber 26, 2018

Jeffrey A. Tisdale, Esq.

Tisdale & Nicholson, LLP 

2029 Century Park East, Suite 1040 

Los Angeles, California 90067

Dear Mr. Tisdale:

This is in response to your letter dated July 17, 2018, on behalf of 

KEDAP S.A. de C.V. (“KEDAP”), Mexico City, Mexico, and Enrique Rafael 

Schon Gritzewsky, requesting relief from foreign national commitments provided 

by KEDAP and Mr. Schon in connection with the application of KEDAP to 

become a bank holding company with respect to Commerce Bank of Temecula 

Valley (“CBTV”), Murrieta, California.

The commitments were provided to ensure that the Federal Reserve 

had an adequate means of supervising CBTV and enforcing federal banking laws. 

KEDAP and Mr. Schon seek relief from the commitments because Nano Financial 

Holdings, Inc. (“NFH”), Irvine, California acquired 100 percent of the voting 

shares of CBTV (now Nano Banc). KEDAP received shares in NFH in 

connection with the transaction, resulting in aggregate ownership of approximately 

4.46 percent of the common stock of NFH. Mr. Schon, who served as a director at 

CBTV prior to the merger, now serves as a director of NFH and Nano Banc.

Apart from KEDAP’s ownership of NFH’s shares and Mr. Schon’s membership 

on the boards of directors of NFH and Nano Banc, none of KEDAP, Mr. Schon, or 

any member of Mr. Schon’s immediate family has any business relationship with, 

or other apparent means of influencing, NFH or Nano Banc.

Based on the foregoing and all the facts of record, the Director of the 

Division of Supervision and Regulation, acting pursuant to authority delegated by 

the Board under section 265.7(a)(2) of the Board’s Rules Regarding Delegation of 

Authority,1 and after consulting with the General Counsel, has granted the request 

for relief from commitments by KEDAP and Mr. Schon.

1 12 CFR 265.7(a)(2).
This action is based on the representations set forth in your letters 

related to this request and in other communications with the Federal Reserve. Any 

change in the facts presented could result in a different conclusion and should be 

reported immediately to Board staff Finally, this action should not be construed 

as granting relief from any other conditions or commitments to which KEDAP or 

Mr. Schon is subject.

Very truly yours,

Margaret McCloskey Shanks 

Deputy Secretary of the Board
#### Henry J. Barker *vs.*Carroll W. Perry and Walter J. Brennan.

Penobscot County.

Decided November 29, 1938.

The plaintiff, a passenger in a Ford truck driven by the defendant Perry, brought suit to recover for personal injuries suffered in a collision with a truck left by the defendant Brennan without lights after dark in the highway. After a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $2800, the defendant Perry has filed a motion for a new trial. It is argued that the verdict is against the evidence and that the damages are excessive.

The plaintiff, on November 21, 1934 after his work for the day was finished, asked Perry for a ride to his home. The defendant Brennan had left his truck without lights in the highway just to the right of the center line of the travelled part of the road. As Perry was proceeding in the darkness at a speed of about thirty miles an hour with the plaintiff in the seat beside him, he saw another car approaching. He dimmed his lights and swung to the right. As he did so, the Brennan truck suddenly loomed up in front of him and, before he had time to pull to the left sufficiently to clear it, a collision took place.

Perry maintains that he did everythingpossibleto avoid the acci*511dent and that he was not negligent. The plaintiff contends that the question of Perry’s negligence was for the jury.

*Fellows*& *Fellows,*for plaintiff.

*Alan L. Bird,*for defendant.

In considering a motion for a new trial by a defendant the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. *Searles*v. *Ross,*134 Me., 77, 80, 181 A., 820. Whether Perry, after seeing the approaching car and dimming his own lights, was driving at such a speed that he could bring his car to a stop within the distance illumined by his own headlights, in short whether under the particular conditions then existing he was using due care, was certainly a question for the jury.

The plaintiff’s right hip was fractured and the femur broken. He was in the hospital at Millinocket two weeks and was in the Eastern Maine General Hospital for seven months. One leg is shorter than the other and he walks with a limp. He was earning $35 a week, his hospital and medical bills were $940. Damages of $2800 were certainly not excessive. Motion overruled.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 124 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 124

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 3, 1999

                                Received

                           November 19, 1999

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress relating to recent allegations of 
    espionage and illegal campaign financing that have brought into 
    question the loyalty and probity of Americans of Asian ancestry.

Whereas the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are truths we 
        hold as self-evident;
Whereas all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of law;
Whereas Americans of Asian ancestry have made profound contributions to American 
        life, including the arts, our

economy, education, the sciences, technology, politics, and sports, among 
others;

Whereas Americans of Asian ancestry have demonstrated their patriotism by 
        honorably serving to defend the United States in times of armed 
        conflict, from the Civil War to the present; and
Whereas due to recent allegations of espionage and illegal campaign financing, 
        the loyalty and probity of Americans of Asian ancestry has been 
        questioned: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) no Member of Congress or any other American should 
        generalize or stereotype the actions of an individual to an 
        entire group of people;
            (2) Americans of Asian ancestry are entitled to all rights 
        and privileges afforded to all Americans; and
            (3) the Attorney General, the Secretary of Energy, and the 
        Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
        should, within their respective jurisdictions, vigorously 
        enforce the security of America's national laboratories and 
        investigate all allegations of discrimination in public or 
        private workplaces.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 2, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Federal Register: August 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 154)]
[Notices]               
[Page 48736]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11au10-102]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7118]

 
Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Mir[oacute]: The Dutch Interiors''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Mir[oacute]: The Dutch Interiors,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Metropolitan 
Museum of Art, New York, NY, from on or about October 4, 2010, until on 
or about January 17, 2011, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: August 5, 2010.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-19837 Filed 8-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MICHAEL GREEN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3953

[ March 1, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Paul L. Backman

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 10

- 017459 CF10A

.

Michael Green, Defuniak Springs, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., C IKLIN and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT23.2





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-143483 and No. 333-147735) on Form S-3 and in the registration statements
(No. 333-147734, No. 333-156341 and No. 333-156338) on Form S-8 of Smart
Balance, Inc  and subsidiaries (the Company) of our report dated July 29, 2009, with
respect to the consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’
equity and cash flows of GFA Holdings, Inc for the period from January 1, 2007
to May 20, 2007 which report appears in the December 31, 2008 annual report on
Form 10-K/A of Smart Balance, Inc.




/s/ Ehrhardt
Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC




July 29, 2009


Denver,
Colorado
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MANUEL MARQUEZ GOMEZ,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CR06-197-RSL-JPD

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses Charged: 

Conspiracy to Distribute Heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and

846.

Date of Detention Hearing: June 16, 2006.

The Court, conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and based

upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), there is a rebuttable presumption that defendant

is a flight risk and a danger to the community based on the nature of the pending charges.

Application of the presumption is appropriate in this case.

(2) Defendant appears to be a citizen of Mexico and has no established ties to this

community.

(3) He has prior violations and convictions of the Uniform Control Substances Act

Case 2:06-cr-00197-RSL Document 63 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

and has been previously charged as a fugitive.

(4) The Immigration and Customs Enforcement has placed a detainer on the

defendant.

(5) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than

detention that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings or the

safety of the community. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 19th day of June, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00197-RSL Document 63 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, 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.

 May 27, 2015

s0520

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2015

151006

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 151006

COA: 324622

Oakland CC: 2014-141232-AR

JAMES ARTHUR LAICH,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 20, 2015 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted.
# Official Journal C 144I/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 144I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6225 April 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 144I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6225 April 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2019/C 144 I/01 | Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2019/C 144 I/01

Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN