alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MHA Call Center Overview

Call Center Snapshot

Total Number of Calls Taken 829,302

Borrowers Who Received Free Housing Counseling 430,996

Borrower's Preliminary Eligibility Determined 216,463

Borrower Cases That Were Escalated1 31,658

Average Seconds Before Call is Answered 3.7

The MHA call center has helped hundreds of thousands of homeowners. 

While call center volume remains strong, borrower complaints as a percentage of volume ha

from a peak of 8.5% in October 2009, to 3.6% in February, 2010.

February, 2010

1 Escalations are cases in which a borrower believes that the servicer may have improperly applied HAMP guidelines.
Borrower Complaints and Esca

Borrower Complaint

Program‐

to‐date

% of Total

Complaints

% of Total

Calls

1. Borrower submitted documents; no response in 15 business days 6,545 16.5% 0.8% 

2. Can't reach servicer; on hold too long; can't get right person 6,374 16.1% 0.8% 

3. Servicer claims they have lost the borrower's paperwork 5,170 13.0% 0.6% 4. Servicer states customer must be delinquent to be eligible for MHA 4,303 10.9% 0.5% 

5. Servicer claims they are not participating in the program 3,508 8.9% 0.4% 

6. Servicer mentions an investor restriction as basis for ineligibility 3,117 7.9% 0.4% 

7. Borrower contacted Servicer by voicemail/email, but no response 1,547 3.9% 0.2% 

8. Servicer is charging upfront fees/application fees for a HAMP 1,457 3.7% 0.2% 9. Servicer claims no MHA info or are waiting on info from Treasury 672 1.7% 0.1% 

10. Other 6,932 17.5% 0.8% 

Totals 39,625 100% 4.8% 

Although complaints about servicer handling of documentation are significant, complaints about servicer res

Complaint Resolution Process•Complaints are unsolicited comments from the borrower captured during the borrowers’ initial call fo

that suggest that the servicer may not be following HAMP guidelines are automatically escalated to co

borrowers and servicers to resolve issues. Callers may also automatically opt to have their call escalate

•Cases that cannot be resolved by the escalation counselors are sent to the HAMP Solutions Center for 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for GSE loans, where‐in depth analysis and contact with senior staff in the 

generate a final resolution. Program to date, there have been just over 275 escalations to these teams 

and resolution.

•All escalations are closely tracked to ensure resolution.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29451]



[[Page 60282]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[NAFTA-01942]


General Motors Corporation Power Train Division, Danville, 
Illinois; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment 
assistance, hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA), and in accordance with 
Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), an investigation was initiated on 
September 30, 1997 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers 
at General Motors Corporation, Power Train Division, Danville, 
Illinois.
    In a letter dated October 22, 1997, the petitioner requested that 
the petition for NAFTA-TAA be withdrawn. Consequently, further 
investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the 
investigation has been terminated.
    A trade adjustment assistance investigation (TA-W-33,945) is 
currently underway to determine if workers are eligible to apply for 
benefits under the Trade Act of 1974. The investigation was instituted 
on October 27, 1997. A final determination should be made within 60 
days of the institution date.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 30th day of October 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-29451 Filed 11-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
|  |  | [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 (CGP).
Title: FRAPTRAN  1.4 [electronic resource] : a computer code for the transient  analysis of oxide fuel rods
SuDocs Number:Y 3.N 88:25/7023
Item Number:1051-H-11  (online)
System    Number: 000816940
 
Volume 1. 
Volume 2. 
 
A service of the Superintendent of Documents,  U.S. Government Printing Office..

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Last updated:  July 6, 2020  Page Name:  http://permanent.fdlp.gov
perm |
|--|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50050

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CRESENCIO RICO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:97-CR-164-ALL

Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cresencio Rico appeals the district court’s order dismissing his pro se

motion to reinstate his appeal of his 2005 conviction for conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute marijuana. Counsel appointed to represent Rico in the

instant appeal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending that there are no

nonfrivolous issues with respect to Rico’s conviction and sentence.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 5, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-50050 Document: 00511043246 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/05/2010
No. 09-50050

2

As recognized by the district court, Rico’s motion to reinstate his appeal

was an unauthorized motion that the district court lacked jurisdiction to

entertain. See United States v. Early, 27 F. 3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). “Thus,

[Rico] has appealed from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion.” Id.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. All other outstanding motions are

DENIED.

Case: 09-50050 Document: 00511043246 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/05/2010
No. 9701.

#### C. H. Happer & Co. *v.*Morrison.

(Decided February 5, 1907.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hancock County.

*Mr. Alfred Graber*and *Messrs. J. A. & E. V. Bope,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Beecher W. Waltermire,*for defendant in-error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shaucic, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

** Certification**

** **I, W. Douglas Hobbs, certifythat:

1.         I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Texas-New Mexico Power Company;

2.         Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.         Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.         The registrant's other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)           Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant'smost recent fiscal quarter (each registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;and

----

5.         The registrant's other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  August 8, 2005

 
| /s/ W. Douglas Hobbs |
|----------------------|

W. Douglas Hobbs,Chairman, President andChief Executive OfficerTexas-New Mexico PowerCompany
Exhibit
23.1  Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.
333-164624) pertaining to the Cobalt International Energy Inc. Non-Employee
Directors Compensation Plan and Cobalt International Energy, Inc, Non-Employee
Directors Deferral Plan and Form S-8 (333-163883) pertaining to the Cobalt
International Energy Inc. Long Term Incentive Plan and Cobalt International
Energy, L.P. Deferred Compensation Plan, respectively, of our report dated
March 30, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Cobalt
International Energy, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2009.  /s/
Ernst & Young LLP  Houston, Texas
March 30, 2010
Filed 3/11/14 P. v. Keim CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DONOVAN ERIC KEIM II, 

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B249291

(Super. Ct. No. F468001)

(San Luis Obispo County)

Donovan Eric Keim appeals from the judgment entered after he pled no 

contest to first degree residential burglary (Pen., Code, § 459)1 and grand theft of firearms, 

ammunition, coins, and personal property (§ 487, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended 

imposition of sentence, granted probation with 353 days county jail, and ordered appellant 

to pay a $240 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $240 probation revocation fine (§ 

1202.44), and a $1,000 statutory fine. Following a March 28, 2013 contested hearing, 

appellant was ordered to pay $87,845.86 victim restitution, of which appellant and a 

codefendant (Rudy Coronado) were ordered to jointly and severally pay $83,693.92, and 

appellant was ordered to pay the $4,151.94 remaining balance. 

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel’s 

examination of the record, she filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. 

 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
2

On December 26, 2013, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within 

which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response 

has been received from appellant. 

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney 

has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

PERREN, J. 
3

Hugh F. Mullen III, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Jolene Larimore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.
|   | (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of § 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   May  6,      2009 | By:    | /s/      Patricia K.      Collawn                          |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                               |   | Patricia      K. Collawn                                                                                                                                                                |
|                                               |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                              |
|                                               |   | Texas-New      Mexico Power Company                                                                                                                                                     |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-2362

JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES LEWIS KING,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 00-7610

JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES LEWIS KING,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge; Albert V. Bryan, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1532, CA-98-

1368-A)

Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 27, 2001
2

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles Lewis King,

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Johnson, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders denying his post-judgment motions filed in his civil actions. We have

reviewed the records and the district court’s opinions and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals as frivolous

on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. King, Nos. CA97-1532; CA-98-1368-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 2000; Oct. 25, 2000). 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
Presidential Documents

59273

Federal Register

Vol. 62, No. 211

Friday, October 31, 1997

Title 3—

The President

Executive Order 13066 of October 29, 1997

Amendment to Executive Order 13037, Commission To Study

Capital Budgeting

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the

laws of the United States of America, and in order to increase the membership

of the Commission to Study Capital Budgeting, it is hereby ordered that

the second sentence of section 1 of Executive Order 13037 is amended

by deleting ‘‘11’’ and inserting ‘‘no more than 20’’ in lieu thereof. It is

further ordered that section 3 of Executive Order 13037 is amended by

[FR Doc. 97–29126

deleting the words ‘‘by March 15, 1998, or’’.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 29, 1997.

œ–

Filed 10–30–97; 11:55 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3519 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue guidance 

on whether hospital emergency departments should implement fentanyl 

testing as a routine procedure for patients experiencing an overdose, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 14, 2023 

Mr. MANCHIN (for himself and Mr. BRAUN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 

issue guidance on whether hospital emergency departments should implement fentanyl testing as a routine 

procedure for patients experiencing an overdose, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as ‘‘Tyler’s Law’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3519 IS

1 SEC. 2. TESTING FOR FENTANYL IN HOSPITAL EMERGENCY 

2 DEPARTMENTS. 

3 (a) STUDY.—Not later than 1 year after the date of 

4 enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and 

5 Human Services shall complete a study to determine— 

6 (1) how frequently hospital emergency depart7 ments test for fentanyl (in addition to testing for 

8 other substances such as amphetamines, 

9 phencyclidine, cocaine, opiates, and marijuana) when 

10 a patient is experiencing an overdose; 

11 (2) the costs associated with such testing for 

12 fentanyl; 

13 (3) the potential benefits and risks for patients 

14 receiving such testing for fentanyl; and 

15 (4) how fentanyl testing in hospital emergency 

16 departments may impact the experience of the pa17 tient, including— 

18 (A) protections for the confidentiality and 

19 privacy of the patient’s personal health informa20 tion; and 

21 (B) the patient-physician relationship. 

22 (b) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 6 months after com23 pletion of the study under subsection (a), based on the 

24 results of such study, the Secretary of Health and Human 

25 Services shall issue guidance on the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 3519 IS

1 (1) Whether hospital emergency departments 

2 should implement fentanyl testing as a routine pro3 cedure for patients experiencing an overdose. 

4 (2) How hospitals can ensure that clinicians in 

5 their hospital emergency departments are aware of 

6 which substances are being tested for in their rou7 tinely-administered drug tests, regardless of whether 

8 those tests screen for fentanyl. 

9 (3) How the administration of fentanyl testing 

10 in hospital emergency departments may affect the 

11 future risk of overdose and general health outcomes. 

12 (c) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘hospital 

13 emergency department’’ means a hospital emergency de14 partment as such term is used in section 1867(a) of the 

15 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395dd(a)). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2009

1019 

# Order

October 26, 2009

139153

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139153 COA: 277505 Kent CC: 01-002471-FC PATRICK LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 7, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-815.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

NUCLEAR MATERIAL 

Cooperation 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the KYRGYZ REPUBLIC 

Signed at Bishkek August 15, 2008 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
KYRGYZ REPUBLIC 

Nuclear Material: Cooperation 

 Memorandum of understanding signed 

 at Bishkek August 15, 2008; 

 Entered into force August 15, 2008.