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



LOGO

SUBSERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

SALLIE MAE, INC.

12061 Bluemont Way

Reston, VA 20190

Pursuant to Section 13.03 of the Omnibus
Subservicing Agreement dated March 23, 2009 among Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. (Subservicer), Sallie Mae, Inc. as the master servicer and administrator (the Servicing Agreement), the undersigned certifies that
(a) a review of the Subservicers activities during the period from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement, has been made under my supervision; and (b) to the best of my knowledge, based
on such review, the Subservicer has fulfilled all of its obligation under the Servicing Agreement, in all material respects, during such period.

GREAT
LAKES EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Jill M. Leitl                    
|Jill M. Leitl Chief Servicing
Officer

February 5, 2014

GREAT LAKES
EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC.

2401 INTERNATIONAL LANE | MADISON, WI 53704-3192

PHONE: 608.246.1800 | WEB: MYGREATLAKES.ORG
[D O NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 20

- 14490

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO SALDANA, a.k.a. Frank, a.k.a. Frank Rivera, a.k.a. Warren G, Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:95

- cr
- 00605

- PAS

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-14490 Date Filed: 03/22/2022 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 20

- 14490

____________________ No. 21

- 10634

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO SALDANA, a.k.a. Frank, a.k.a. Frank Rivera, a.k.a. Warren G, Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:95

- cr
- 00605

- PAS

- 1

____________________ Before J ORDAN , L UCK , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges.
P ER C URIAM : USCA11 Case: 20-14490 Date Filed: 03/22/2022 Page: 2 of 320

- 14490 Opinion of the Court 3
Francisco Saldana appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce his sentence under section 404 of the First Step Act . He argues that the district court erred in concluding that he was not eligible to receive a lower sentence under the First Step Act. The government concedes “that the district court’s conclusion that it had no authority to reduce Saldana’s sentence was erroneous.” After a thorough review of the record, w e agree with the parties that the district court erred in concluding that Saldana was i neligible for a reduced sentence under section 404 of the First Step Act. We REVERSE the order denying Saldana’s motion to reduce his sentence and REMAND for the district court to exercise its discretion and decide whether to reduce Saldana’s sentences fo r his crack cocaine convictions. 1

1 This appeal was originally scheduled for oral argument but was removed from the oral argument calendar by unanimous agreement of the panel under 11th Cir. R. 34

- 3(f). USCA11 Case: 20-14490 Date Filed: 03/22/2022 Page: 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33163]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #2996]


Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

    As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 
December 8, 1997, I find that the Islands of Saipan, Tinian, and Rota 
in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands constitute a 
disaster area as a result of damages caused by Super Typhoon Keith 
which occurred November 2-3, 1997. Applications for loans for physical 
damages as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of 
business on February 6, 1998 and for economic injury until the close of 
business on September 8, 1998 at the address listed below or other 
locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, 
Disaster Area 4 Office, P.O. Box 13795, Sacramento, CA 95853-4795.
    The interest rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
-----------------------------------------------------------------Percent
For Physical Damage:                                                    
  Homeowners with credit available elsewhere..................     7.625
  Homeowners without credit available elsewhere...............     3.812
  Businesses with credit available elsewhere..................     8.000
  Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit                
   available elsewhere........................................     4.000
  Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit               
   available elsewhere........................................     7.125
For Economic Injury:                                                    
  Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without                
   credit available elsewhere.................................     4.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 299606 
and for economic injury the number is 967600.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: December 9, 1997.
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-33163 Filed 12-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10195 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KENNETH RAY RAINEY, a/k/a Kenny Reine, a/k/a John Rainy, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:93-CR-99-A

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Ray Rainey appeals from the imposition of a 20-month prison sentence following revocation of his two-year term of supervised release. Rainey contends that his sentence violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and was plainly unreasonable. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to supervised-No. 96-10195 - 2 - release-revocation proceedings. United States v. Marmolejo , 915 F.2d 981, 983 (5th Cir. 1990). Rainey’s sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum applicable to his underlying offense; nor did the sentence exceed the two-year maximum permitted by the revocation statutes. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 3581(b)(5). Rainey’s punishment did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. United States v. Celestine , 905 F.2d 59, 60 (5th Cir. 1990). Rainey’s sentence was not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Giddings , 37 F.3d 1091, 1093 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1323 (1995). Rainey’s unrepentant conduct merited the imposition of a stiff prison sentence. Finally, Rainey’s appeal is frivolous. Counsel has “no duty to bring frivolous appeals; the opposite is true.” United States v. Burleson , 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 283 (1994). APPEAL DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
#### Louis Lee LOAFT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43831.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 23, 1973.

Certiorari denied 276 So.2d 255.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit
      31.1





CERTIFICATION





I,
      Nicholas S. Maturo, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2007,
      of
      TheRetirementSolution.com, Inc.;





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
      condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
      for, the periods presented in this report;





4.
      The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:




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




b)
      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report my 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 registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
      the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.
      The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
      registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
      directors:




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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting.




Dated:
              July 2, 2007
            
            /s/
                Nicholas S. MaturoNicholas
                S. Maturo
              Chief
                Execuive Officer
Financial Literacy and Education Commission Meeting 

February 13, 2013

10:00 am – 12:00 pm

U.S. Department of the Treasury – Cash Room

Welcome 

• Melissa Koide, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consumer Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury

Opening

• Mary Miller, Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, U.S. Department of the Treasury

• Richard Cordray, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Starting Early for Financial Success Committee Progress Report

• Children and Youth

• Post-Secondary Education

• Research and Evaluation

Starting Early in the Workplace for Retirement Preparedness 

• Early Career and Retirement Committee Report

• Phyllis Borzi, Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor

• Robin Diamonte, Chief Investment Officer, United Technologies Corporation

Commission Discussion

Other Announcements

Closing
#### CITY OF HALLANDALE, Petitioner, v. William F. CHATLOS; Acmar Engineering Corp., a Florida corporation; M. L. Watson; A. J. Dodge; G. B. Dodge, Jr.; P. L. Watson and Ruby M. Watson, his wife, Respondents.

No. 2045.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Oct. 6, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 28, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Ivan WISE, Appellant.

No. 60138.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 19, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 26, 1978.

Wayne J. McDougall, J. Wayne Mum-phrey, Tonry, Mumphrey, D’Antonio & McDougall, Chalmette, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Julian J. Ro-drigue, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Asst. Dist. Atty., Research and Appeals Div., for plaintiff-appellee.

TATE, Justice.

The defendant Wise was convicted of second degree murder, La.R.S. 14:30.1(1) (1975), and sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor. His appeal raises eleven assignments of error, some of them urging several grounds.

We find that none of the assignments present reversible error, nor do any involve legal issues not governed by clearly applicable legal principle. Some of the assignments require lengthy factual discussion of interest primarily to the parties, but not involving circumstances likely to recur. We have therefore discussed and disposed of them in an appendix attached to this opinion, which remains a public record of this court but which will not be published with this opinion.

Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

SUMMERS, J., concurs.
#### Robert W. GRIER, Appellant, v. M. H. C. REALTY CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, and Mobile Home Communities, a Colorado Trust, Appellees.

No. 72-947.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 8, 1973.

*22Richard B. Burk, of Scott, Burk & Royce, Palm Beach, for appellant.

George H. Bailey, of Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, and Thomas S. Nichols, of Davis, Graham & Stubbs, Denver, Colorado, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. We are of the opinion that the trial court correctly construed the note and mortgage in question and quote with approval the following language contained in the final judgment:

> “There does not appear to be any genuine issue of fact with regard to the acceleration rights of the plaintiff. When these two instruments are construed together, as they should be, Spadaro v. Baird [97 Fla. 50], 119 So. 788; Webster v. 759 Riverside Ave. [113 Fla. 8], 151 So. 276; Oates v. Prudential Ins. Co. [107 Fla. 224], 144 So. 418; 4A Fla.Jur., Bills, notes, etc., Sec. 58; Erwin v. Crandell [Crandall] [129 Fla. 45], 175 So. 862; Sec. 673.3-119 FSA, it seems clear the provision of the mortgage controls the provision of the note relative to acceleration since the mortgage specifically provides ‘anything in said note or herein to the contrary notwithstanding’.

> “Unquestionably, plaintiff can sue on the note without foreclosing the mortgage, as they are distinct agreements, Taylor v. American National Bank [63 Fla. 631], 57 So. 678. But where there are provisions in two instruments, simultaneously executed and pertaining to the same transaction, which limit, explain or otherwise affect the provisions of the other, they should be construed together so that the intent of the parties can be determined and carried out. Taylor v. American National Bank, . . . ”

See also Mager v. Abrams, Fla.App.1958, 109 So.2d 386.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

WALDEN, CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Jon ROBLES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-10036.

D.C. No. CR-98-00456-SOM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 16, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Timothy Jon Robles appeals his 139-month sentence following his guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Robles contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to disqualify the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) prosecuting his case and by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the mo*833tion.1 We review for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Plesinski,*912 F.2d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir.1990) (motion to disqualify); *United States v. Houston,*217 F.3d 1204, 1206-07 (9th Cir.2000) (evidentiary hearing).

Robles’ motion to disqualify the AUSA was based on his claim that the prosecutor was withholding a substantial assistance departure recommendation, *see*U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, based on the AUSA’s bias against Robles and his attorney. Because Robles did not sufficiently support his motion, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. In light of the AUSA’s plausible explanation that his decision not to recommend a departure was based on the fact that Robles had not provided substantial assistance, we cannot say that we have a “definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.” *United States v. Schlette,*842 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir.1988), *as amended by,*854 F.2d 359 (9th Cir.1988).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. To the extent Robles has raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest with his attorney, we decline to address this issue because it was first raised in the reply brief, *see United States*v. *Birtle, 792*F.2d 846, 848 (9th Cir.1986) (stating that parties generally may not raise arguments for the first time in the reply brief), and we do not generally review claims of ineffec-five assistance of counsel on direct appeal. *See United States v. Laughlin,*933 F.2d 786, 788 (9th Cir.1991) ("As a general rule, we will not review challenges to the effectiveness of defense counsel on direct appeal.").
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6266-6267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3246]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Notice of Intent To Issue a Prospectus for Operation of Marina 
Facilities at Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area

SUMMARY: The National Park Service will be releasing a concession 
prospectus authorizing continued operation of marina services, which 
includes seasonal moorage, rental of boats and houseboats, sale of 
marina supplies and general merchandise, limited grocery and camping 
supplies, and marina fuel and oil, for the public at Lake Roosevelt 
National Recreation Area for a period of ten years from May 1, 1997 
through April 30, 2007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The existing concessioner, Lake Roosevelt 
Vacations, Inc., has performed its obligations to the satisfaction of 
the Secretary under an existing permit which expires by limitation of 
time on December 31, 1997, and therefore pursuant to the provisions of 
Section 5 of the Act of October 9, 1965 (79 Stat. 969 U.S.C. 20), is 
entitled to be given preference in the renewal and execution of a new 
contract providing that the existing concessioner submits a responsive 
offer (a timely offer which meets the terms and conditions of the 
Prospectus). This means that the contract will be awarded to the party 
submitting the best offer, provided that if the best offer was not 
submitted by the existing concessioner, then the existing concessioner 
will be afforded the opportunity to match the best offer. If the 
existing concessioner agrees to match the best offer, then the contract 
will be awarded to the existing concessioner.
    If the existing concessioner does not submit a responsive offer, 
the right of preference in renewal shall be considered to have been 
waived, and the contract will then be awarded to the party that has 
submitted the best responsive offer.
    The Secretary will consider and evaluate all proposals received as 
a result of this notice.
    The cost for purchasing a prospectus is $30.00. Parties interested 
in obtaining a copy should send a check payable to ``National Park 
Service'' to the following address: National Park Service, Office of 
Concession Program Management, Pacific Great Basin Support Office, 600 
Harrison St., Suite 600, San Francisco, California 94107-1372. The 
front of the envelope should be marked ``Attention: Office of 
Concession Program Management--Mail Room Do Not Open''. Please include 
a mailing address indicating where to send the prospectus. Inquiries 
may be directed to Ms. Teresa Jackson, Secretary, Office of Concession 
Program Management at (415) 744-3981.


[[Page 6267]]


    Dated: January 21, 1997.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Field Director, Pacific West Area.
[FR Doc. 97-3246 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Proposed IFC Investment in Landmark Myanmar

(Myanmar)

September 4, 2014

United States Position

The United States believes that IFC investments in hotel-related projects need to meet robust 

standards of additionality and development impact linked to the World Bank Group’s poverty 

and shared prosperity goals. The United States is satisfied that the IFC brings additionality in 

this case through its long-term financing and its path-breaking role in employing structured 

project finance that will test Burma’s nascent legal and regulatory environment. The United 

States appreciates that the IFC’s involvement has also helped attract co-financing from the Asian 

Development Bank and investment from Mitsubishi. 

The United States is also satisfied that this project has the potential to deliver solid development 

impacts. The United States particularly appreciates the project’s role in: (1) increasing the 

supply and reducing the cost of office and business residence space; (2) creating jobs through 

links with small and medium-sized enterprises from food services to transportation to arts and 

crafts manufacturers; and (3) demonstrating international environmental and social standards in 

real estate projects. Fire safety codes, green building standards, and workers’ living conditions 

are all areas where IFC oversight can play an important role in raising standards. The United 

States welcomes Yoma Strategic Holdings’ commitment to work with the IFC to meet IFC 

performance standards not only for Landmark Myanmar, but also for its other real estate 

developments that will involve more complex land acquisition issues. The United States urges

the IFC to closely monitor progress on the environmental and social action plan, and to actively 

encourage transparency and public consultation around environmental and social impacts 

throughout the life of the project. 

Landmark is the IFC’s second hotel/business infrastructure project in Burma, following ShangriLa in FY2014. Diversification of the IFC’s portfolio in Burma will be important to maximize 

the IFC’s development impact and to demonstrate the IFC’s intent to benefit low-income 

households. The United States noted the reference to IFC’s work on future investments in the 

agriculture and manufacturing sectors (as well as ongoing investments in micro and small and 

medium-sized enterprises) and the United States hopes that such investments can make a strong 

contribution to private sector development aimed at the “bottom of the pyramid”. The SME 

linkages and job creation associated with this project are laudable, and the United States looks

forward to future investments that can move the IFC further in this direction.