alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 33.1





REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA


FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES





Entergy Texas, Inc. (the “Servicer”), as a party participating in the servicing function under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, hereby reports on its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as follows:





(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the Senior Secured Transition Bonds: (1)(ii) (outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond), 2(iii) (advances or guarantees), (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), 4(v) (records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(x) (funds held in trust for an obligor), (4)(xi) (payments on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements), (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);





(2) The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;





(3) The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and





(4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Servicer's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.








Date:  March 27, 2015





Entergy Texas, Inc., as servicer





By: /s/ Alyson M. Mount





Name:  Alyson M. Mount


Title:   Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
# • FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION COMPLIANCE WITH E.O. 12866 Section 6(a)(3)(E) of E.O. 1 2866 requires agencies to ident ify fo r the publ ic, in a complete, clear, and s im p le manner, those changes in a regulatory act ion made at the suggest ion or recommendation of the Office of Info rmat ion and Regulatory Affa ir s (OIRA), Office of Ma nageme nt and Budget.


### Title of Rulemaking: 

### Disclo s ure of Seat Dimensions to Facilitate Use of Child Safety Seats on Airplanes During P asse nger-C a rr yi n g Opera tions Regulatory Identification Number: 

### 2120-AKl 7

# ~ OIRA did no t re v iew the rulemaking document.

OIRA reviewed the rulemaking document , but did no t s uggest or recommend any changes.

OIRA reviewed the rulemaking document , and we have documented the c h anges we made at OIRA' s s uggestion or recommendation in an attachment to this sheet.
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 

 The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of 

Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 

1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice 

Thomas J. Moyer. 

 Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's 

Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. 

Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative 

Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. 

Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. 

 NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the 

full texts of the opinions after they have been released 

electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised 

to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West 

Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. 

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume 

and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound 

volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. 

 

The State ex rel. Fant, Appellant, v. Tober, Appellee. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Fant v. Tober (1993), Ohio 

St.3d .] 

Public records -- R.C. 149.43 -- Request for information does 

not constitute a request to inspect a public record. 

 (No. 93-1321 -- Submitted October 12, 1993 -- Decided 

December 29, 1993.) 

 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 

63737. 

 

 Henry J. Fant, pro se. 

 Edward J. Opett, for appellee. 

 The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 

 Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and 

Pfeifer, JJ., concur. 

 F.E. Sweeney, J., not participating.
|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 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 Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2019-4 (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 required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; 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. |

|                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                               |  |
| /s/ Ryan C. Farris                                            |   |
|                                                          |
| Ryan C. Farris                                                |
| President, Ally Auto Assets LLC, as Depositor                 |
| (Senior Officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
BILLY COMER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1670

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 3, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Calhoun County.

Allen L. Register, Judge.

Billy Comer, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, 

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 34,895

5 PABLO LUCERO and LUGIE LUCERO, 

6 Defendants-Appellants,

7 and

8 HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC f/k/a

9 HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC.,

10 Defendants.

11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

12 Nancy J. Franchini, District Judge

13 Johnson Law Firm, L.C.

14 Thomas L. Johnson

15 Albuquerque, NM

16 Richard M. Leverick

17 Leverick & Musselman LLC

18 Albuquerque, NM

19 for Appellee
2

1 Joshua R. Simms, PC

2 Joshua R. Simms

3 Albuquerque, NM

4 for Appellants

5 MEMORANDUM OPINION

6 SUTIN, Judge.

7 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

8 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

9 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

10 {2} AFFIRMED.

11 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 

12 __________________________________

13 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

14 WE CONCUR:

15 _______________________________

16 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge

17 _______________________________

18 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
## Development of Chemical Precipitation Purchased Equ ipment Costs:

Sand Filters

This telephone contact report supports EPA’s developmen t of purchased equipment cost equations for sand filters by documenting EPA's communication with a vendor regarding purchase costs for continuous backwash gravity sand filters used in the Steam Electric cost mode l.Project No.: 0172.08.029.044 DISTRIBUTION

Page _1_ of __1_

Project Name: Steam

/Cost/Compliance Modeling

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: 03/21/2011 Time: 11:30 am EST

Company Name: Siemens Contact Name: Miguel Gutierrez

Phone No : (229)-227-8778

Name: Kavya Kasturi ERG

GENERAL SUBJECT: Sand filters costs for chemical pre cipitation costing

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On Monday, March 21, 2011 Mr. Miguel Gutierrez left me a mess age to discuss costs of sand filters. At

11:30am I returned Mr. Guitierrez’s call. He told me he coul d provide costs for pre-packaged sand filter units (referred to as package units) which were essentially stee l box units which already contain the sand filter material. He stated they can also provide concrete basi n units where the client constructs a concrete basin for the filter and Siemens just provides the internal materi al. He said concrete basin units are only applicable fo r ranges over 300 gpm, and the cost of such units would be 30% less than that of the package units.

Mr. Guitierrez provided equipment costs for the flow range previously requested by Rekha Hareendran, which was 20 gpm to 700 gpm. While costs are provided for specific flow rates, he stated there is flexibility in the units in that they can handle more or less than the s pecified flow rate. Below are the costs:

• 20 gpm – their smallest unit could handle this flow rate. The cost is $68,000

• 100 gpm - $80,000

• 200 gpm – this is their medium-sized unit. The cost is $98,000

• 300 gpm – this is their largest unit. The cost is $180,000

• 400 gpm, 500 gpm – these flow rates could be handled by 2 medium-siz ed units. The cost is $196,000

• 600 gpm, 700 gpm – these flow rates could be handled by 2 of the lar gest units. The cost is $360,000

I told Mr. Guitierrez that we are now looking for costs for an even smaller flow rate of 7 gpm. Mr. Guitierre z stated that this flow rate could be handled by their smal lest unit and the cost would be the same as what he provided for the 20 gpm flow rate.

I asked Mr. Guitierrez to provide any additional specificati ons, details, and marketing material/brochures for the sand filters. He stated he would provide drawings, brochures , and blanket specifications (including diameters, heights) via email. He also stated that none of the i nformation above is confidential business information and can be shared with anyone.
#### Conrad F. YELVINGTON, Petitioner, v. Genevieve E. BOWMAN et al., Respondents.

No. 44289.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 14, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 280 So.2d 497.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30695]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5486-4]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7167 OR (202) 564-7153.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed November 
10, 1997 Through November 14, 1997 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
EIS No. 970446, Draft EIS, BLM, MT, Golden Sunlight Mine Expansion, 
Implementation of Amendment 008 to Operating Permit No. 0065, COE 
Section 404 Permit, Whitehall, Jefferson County MT, Due: January 21, 
1998, Contact: David Williams (406) 494-5059.
EIS No. 970447, Final EIS, AFS, SD, Anchor Hill Mine Expansion Project 
in Gilt Edge Mine, Plan-of-Operations, Approval, Black Hills National 
Forest, SD, Due: January 05, 1998, Contact: Don Murray (605) 578-2744.
EIS No. 970448, Draft EIS, USN, CA, Miramar Naval Air Station 
Realignment of E-2 Aircraft Squadrons, Three Installations are 
consider: Point Muga Naval Air Weapons Station, Lemoore Navel Air 
Station and El Centro, Ventura Fresno, King and Imperial Counties, CA, 
Due: January 05, 1998, Contact: Ms. Kelly Knight (619) 532-2456.
EIS No. 970449, Final EIS, USN, CA, Novato, California Department of 
Defense Housing Facility Disposal and Reuse, Implementation, City of 
Novato, Marin County, CA, Due: December 22, 1997, Contact: Gary J. 
Munekawa (650) 244-3022.
EIS No. 970450, Draft EIS, USN, HI, Fort Kamehameha Outfall Replacement 
for Wastewater Treatment Plant, Navy Public Works Center, Pearl Harbor, 
HI, Due: January 05, 1998, Contact: Gary Kasaoke (808) 471-9338.
EIS No. 970451, Draft EIS, DOE, CO, Rocky Flats Environmental 
Technology Site, Management of Certain Plutonium Residues and Scrub 
Alloy Stored for Disposal or other Disposition, Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant, Golden, CO, Due: January 05, 1998, Contact: Charles Head (202) 
586-5151.

    Dated: November 18, 1997.
B. Katherine Biggs,
Associate Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 97-30695 Filed 11-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30753]



[[Page 62582]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-47-000]


Shell Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

November 18, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 13, 1997, Shell Gas Pipeline company 
(SGPC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original 
Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet Nos. 14, 20, 259 and 260, to become 
effective December 12, 1997.
    SGPC states that the purpose of this filing is to meet the 
expressed needs of potential shippers. Therefore SGPC proposes to 
reduce the minimum requirements under Rate Schedule FT-2 to a reserve 
commitment level of 10 BCF and a MDQ of 1,000 Mcf per day.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions and protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make Protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30753 Filed 11-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
|   | a) | designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Trust, including its consolidated 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 Trust’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | c) | disclosed in this report any change in the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | a) | all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Trust’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b) | any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### M & W IRON WORKS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. James A. BROWN d/b/a Jim’s Gulf Service, Hartford Insurance Co., Southeastern Machine Co., Inc., a Florida corporation, and Kenneth R. Maurer and Hugh B. Cramer d/b/a Cramer and Maurer, Appellees.

No. 69-750.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 19, 1970.

Thomas E. Byrd of Carlisle, Zeiher & Byrd, Fort Lauderdale, and Walter Urchisin, Deerfield Beach, for appellant.

Dieter K. Gunther of Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees James A. Brown d/b/a Jim’s Gulf Service and Hartford Ins. Co.

*467PER CURIAM.

We have examined the record and find no harmful or reversible error.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2002 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2002

 To amend the Social Security Act to remove the restriction on the use 
  of funds under the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund to offset 
             reductions in State or territory tax revenues.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 18, 2021

Mr. Bishop of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. Perry, Mrs. Hinson, Mr. 
Fulcher, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Rosendale, Mrs. Boebert, Mr. Weber 
   of Texas, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Harris, Mr. 
  Duncan, Ms. Tenney, Mrs. Greene of Georgia, Mr. Meuser, Mr. Good of 
  Virginia, Mr. Biggs, Ms. Herrell, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mrs. 
  Steel, Mr. C. Scott Franklin of Florida, Mr. Cloud, Mr. Owens, Mr. 
   Gooden of Texas, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Gimenez, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Hice of 
Georgia, Mr. Williams of Texas, Mr. Feenstra, Mr. Guest, Mr. Cawthorn, 
    and Mr. Moore of Utah) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Social Security Act to remove the restriction on the use 
  of funds under the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund to offset 
             reductions in State or territory tax revenues.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Let States Cut Taxes Act''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON USE OF FUNDS UNDER CORONAVIRUS STATE 
              FISCAL RECOVERY FUND.

    (a) Removal of Restriction.--Paragraph (2) of subsection (c) of 
section 602 of the Social Security Act, as added by section 9901 of the 
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2), is amended to read 
as follows:
            ``(2) Further restriction on use of funds.--No State or 
        territory may use funds made available under this section for 
        deposit into any pension fund.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further amended--
            (1) in subsection (d)(2)(A), by striking ``, including, in 
        the case of a State or a territory, all modification to the 
        State's or territory's tax revenue sources during the covered 
        period'';
            (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``such subsection,'' and 
        all that follows through the period and inserting ``such 
        subsection.''; and
            (3) in subsection (g)--
                    (A) by striking paragraph (1); and
                    (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (7) as 
                paragraphs (1) through (6), respectively.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0030 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CORENA MARIE MOUNTAIN CHIEF,

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 May 2 4 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 20 2021

04/20/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0030