alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 33.2




MANAGEMENT’S ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE




Management of the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (or “Company”) is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.





Management has determined that the servicing criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are applicable in regard to the servicing platform as of and for the period as follows:





Platform:  Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) and certain privately issued (i.e., for which transaction-level reporting is required pursuant to contractual obligation) automobile loan or lease-backed securities, equipment loan-backed securities and student loan-backed securities issued on or after January 1, 2006, for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services (the “Platform”)





Applicable Servicing Criteria:  All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by Item 1122(d) servicing criteria in regards to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform as to any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities the Company performs with respect to the Platform (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”).





Period:  Twelve months ended December 31, 2012 (the “Period”).





With respect to the Platform as of and for the Period, the Company’s management provides the following assertion of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:


- The Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

- The Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.

- Based on such assessment, the Company has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to management’s assertion of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.









CITIBANK, N.A.By: /s/ Karen MontbackIts:  Managing Director







Dated: February 28, 2012
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51314 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESSIE LOZANO-RIVAS, also known as Leobardo Gallardo-Armendariz, also known as Ramon Rivas-Lozano, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-570-ALL-DB

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jessie Lozano-Rivas appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Lozano-Rivas complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Lozano-Rivas thus contends that his sentence should not exceed United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-51314 -2- the maximum terms of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Lozano-Rivas acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31947]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act. Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 31, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Jeffery Hirsch, Banking 
Supervisor) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
    1. Mellon Bank Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; to merge with 
United Bankshares, Inc., Miami, Florida, and thereby indirectly acquire 
United National Bank, Miami, Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 2, 
1997.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-31947 Filed 12-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### Lena Marinelli BARASA, also known as Lena Marinelli Barasa Hauser, Appellant, v. The BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF FLAGLER COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.

No. M-458.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 11, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 1, 1970.

R. K. Roberson, Deland, for appellant.

James H. Tucker, Holly Hill, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and briefs filed by counsel for the respective parties herein, and upon consideration thereof we hold that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the order dismissing this cause was erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment hereby appealed is affirmed. Rimer v. Mortgage Guarantee Corporation, 168 So.2d 549 (Fla.App.1964), and 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, Section 316.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J:, and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
| 1. | Such Annual Report of Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The information contained in such Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of E-Waste Systems, Inc. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 16, 2012             |
|----------------------------------|
|                             |   |
| E-Waste Systems,  Inc. |
|                             |
|                             |
|                             |   |
| By:                         |    / s/ Martin Nielson                                                                Martin Nielson         Chief Executive Officer |
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Brad Pufpaff <bpufpaff@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 3:16 PM

To: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Cc: Brad Pufpaff

Subject: Re: Petition for Exemption: RPM, LLC (Docket No. FAA-2014-1125)

Ms. Daniels,

I would like to retract my petition for exemption Docket No. FAA‐2014‐1125.

Brad Pufpaff

On Apr 1, 2015, at 10:04, <Nia.Daniels@faa.gov> <Nia.Daniels@faa.gov> wrote:

April 1, 2015

Mr. Bradley Pufpaff

Chief Operations Officer

RPM, LLC

P.O. Box 1018

Rogersville, AL 35652

Dear Mr. Pufpaff:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA-2014-1125). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make, model, and type (i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) 

for the proposed UAS operation. The description should include the maximum weight 

(including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or 

electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any 

further, we must receive the information described above by April 15, 2015. If we do not receive 

the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

  

  

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW
2

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30743]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-90-000]


Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

November 18, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 13, 1997, Northwest Pipeline 
Corporation (Northwest), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158, 
filed in Docket No. CP98-90-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 
and 157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act 
(18 CFR 157.205, 157.211) for authorization to operate the Animas Air 
Park Meter Station located in La Plata County, Colorado as a 
certificated delivery point under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act 
for the delivery of gas to Greeley Gas Company (Greeley) for any 
eligible shipper, under Northwest's blanket certificate issued in 
Docket No. CP82-443-000 pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 
all as more fully set forth in the request that is on file with the 
Commission and open to public inspection.
    Northwest states that the Animas Air Park Meter Station, located at 
milepost 6.34 on Northwest's Ignacio to Sumas mainline, was originally 
constructed pursuant to Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act to be 
used for the delivery of gas to Greeley pursuant to Subpart B of Part 
284 of the Commission's Regulations.
    Northwest states that the Greeley has requested Northwest to 
operate the Animas Air Park Meter Station as a certificated delivery 
point for the delivery of gas to Greeley for any eligible shipper under 
Northwest's blanket transportation certificate.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 384.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30743 Filed 11-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,897
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,019
<ALLOWANCES>                                       583
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,777
<PP&E>                                           5,289
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,572
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,418
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,243
<OTHER-SE>                                         850
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,959
<SALES>                                         17,915
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,915
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,999
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,337
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,622
<INCOME-TAX>                                       625
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                997
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       997
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT23.2**

**[LETTERHEADOF MILLER AND LENTS, LTD. APPEARS HERE]**

March 1, 2007

Hugoton RoyaltyTrustP.O. Box 830650Dallas, TX 75283-0650

Re:             Hugoton Royalty Trust2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K

Gentlemen:

The firm of Millerand Lents, Ltd., consents to the references to our firm in the form and contextin which they appear and to the use of our report datedFebruary 20, 2007, regarding the Hugoton Royalty Trust ProvedReserves and Future Net Revenue as of December 31, 2006, in the 2006Annual Report on Form 10-K.  We furtherconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.333-81849 on Form S-8 of XTO Energy Inc.

Miller and Lents,Ltd., has no interests in the Hugoton Royalty Trust or in any affiliatedcompanies or subsidiaries and is not to receive any such interest as paymentfor such reports and has no director, officer, or employee otherwise connectedwith Hugoton Royalty Trust.  We are notemployed by Hugoton Royalty Trust on a contingent basis.
|        |   | Yours very truly,      |
|--------|--------|------------------------|
|   |   |                   |
|   |   | MILLER AND LENTS, LTD. |
|   |   |                   |
|   |   |                   |
|   |   | By                     |   | /s/ JAMES C.  PEARSON |   |
|   |   |                   |   | James C. Pearson |
|   |   |                   |   | Chairman |

 

----
EXHIBIT 99.1
Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002)



I,  Raynerd  B. Carson, President and Chief Executive Officer  of
World  Ventures Inc., certify, to the best of my knowledge, based
upon  a  review of the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the  period
ended October 31, 2002 of World Ventures Inc. that:

  (1)   The  Annual Report on Form 20-F fully complies  with  the
     requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
     1934, as amended; and

  (2)  The information contained and incorporated by reference in
     the Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     World Ventures Inc.


/s/ Raynerd B. Carson
----------------------
Raynerd B. Carson
President (Chief Executive Officer)
May 5, 2003



A  SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY  SECTION
906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO WORLD VENTURES INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED
BY  WORLD  VENTURES  INC. AND FURNISHED  TO  THE  SECURITIES  AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

**Servicer Compliance Statement of John Deere Capital Corporation**

 

I, Andrew Traeger, Vice President and Controller of John Deere Capital Corporation, state:

 

A review of the activities of John Deere Capital Corporation (“JDCC”) for the period from November 1, 2010 through October 31, 2011 (the “Reporting Period”) and of JDCC’s performance under the Sale & Servicing Agreement dated as of April 22, 2010 among JDCC, John Deere Receivables, Inc. and John Deere Owner Trust 2010 has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge, based on such review JDCC has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

 
| Date:   January 13, 2012 | John   Deere Capital Corporation |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                          |                             |
|                          |                             |
|                          |                             |   |
|                          | By                               | /s/   *Andrew Traeger* |   |
|                          |                             | Andrew   Traeger |
|                          |                             | Vice   President and Controller |

 

----
#### Felix Leon ODLE, Appellant, v. Janice Claire ODLE, Appellee.

No. 73-474.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 29, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### J. Melvin YOUNG, J. E. Balthrop and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, a corporation, Petitioners, v. Exahr C. PETERS, Respondent.

No. M-303.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Jan. 29, 1970.

Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, Pensacola, for petitioners.

John G. O’Brien, Gulf Breeze, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied on the authority of Beta Eta House Corporation, Inc., of Tallahassee et al. v. Gregory, Fla.App., 230 So.2d 495, in the records of this court, opinion filed on January 20, 1970.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

NOV 1 0..20f4 

Mr. Tim Bilic 

Bombardier Aerospace 

400 Cote-Vertu Road West 

Dorval, Quebec, H4S 1 Y9 

CANADA 

Dear Mr. Bilic: 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057-3356 

We have received your petition letter dated October 30, 2014, requesting exemption from 

§ 25.809(a), of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. This exemption, if granted, would 

permit relief from the requirement to view the ground contact area under all lighting and 

landing gear conditions for over-wing passenger exits for Global 7000/8000 airplane models 

BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13. 

This request was submitted to the Department of Transportation's Federal Docket 

Management System (at Regulations.gov) on November 5, 2014, and has been assigned 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0932. We are currently reviewing your request and will contact you 

if we need additional information. 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please 

contact Mr. Alan Sinclair by telephone at (425) 227-2195, or by e-mail at 

Alan.Sinclair@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Deana M. Stedman 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service 

COPY 

OF ORIGINAL
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

. SE 04 331A0 33
1 The Honorable William G. Cambridge, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Nebraska.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-1478

___________ Debra Uriel, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. William Henderson, Postmaster * General, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: September 7, 1999 Filed: September 16, 1999

___________ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. DebraUriel appeals from the district court’s 1 order dismissing her wrongful discharge action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. After de novo review, we find the district court’s dismissal was proper. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.