alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
34.2







Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm



The Board of Directors

U.S. Bank National Association



We have examined management’s assertion,
included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association
(the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s
Regulation AB for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides
trustee, securities administration, registrar and paying agent services, as of and for the year ended October 31, 2021, except for servicing
criteria Items 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(v), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(vi)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv), which
the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report.
Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion
on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance with
attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the
servicing activities related to the Platform and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those
selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and
servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine
whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated
or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe
that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.



Our examination does not provide a legal determination
on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.



In our opinion, management’s assertion that
the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended October 31, 2021, for the U.S. Bank Corporate
Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.





/s/Ernst & Young LLP



Minneapolis, Minnesota

December 21, 2021
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-762]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Refund Processing 
Communications Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Refund 
Processing Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and 
suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue 
Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, February 2, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Smiley at 1-(888) 912-1227 or 
(414) 231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Refund Processing 
Communications Project Committee will be held Thursday, February 2, 
2012 at 2 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is 
invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for 
consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent 
to participate must be made with Ms. Ellen Smiley. For more information 
please contact Ms. Smiley at 1-(888) 912-1227 or (414) 231-2360, or 
write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 
53203-2221, or post comments to the web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: January 10, 2012.
Shawn Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2012-762 Filed 1-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
* On February 4, 2005, Alberto R. Gonzales became the United States

Attorney General. In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedures, Mr. Gonzales is substituted f or John Ashcroft as the Respondent in this action.

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 15 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR SABIDO VALDIVIA,

Petitioner,

v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, * Respondent. No. 05-9501 (D.C. No. A 79-520-972) (Petition for Review)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before BRISCOE , BALDOCK , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. **See** Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

On January 20, 2005, we directed petitioner Oscar S abido Valdivia to show cause within fourteen days why his petition for rev iew should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On February 7, petitione r moved for an extension of time to file a response to the show cause order. We granted petitioner’s motion and petitioner’s response deadline was extended to February 28. Having received no response, we hold that we lack jurisdiction over pe titioner’s petition for review for the reasons set out in our January 20 order. A ccordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Entered for the Court PER CURIAM
In the Senate of the United States,

February 8, 2001.

Resolved, That the resolution from the House of Representatives (H. Con. Res. 14) entitled ‘‘Concurrent resolution permitting the use of the Rotunda of the Capitol for a

ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.’’, do pass with the

following

AMENDMENT:

1 Page 1, line 3, strike out øApril 18, 2001¿ and in2 sert: April 19, 2001

Attest:

Secretary.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 14

AMENDMENT
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF I.L., A CHILD.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00049-CV

Appeal from the

65th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2003CM5921) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rigoberto Lerma attempts to appeal from the trial court’s ruling, granting a petition to

terminate his parental rights. Finding that the trial court has not entered a final order in the case,

we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The trial court orally granted a petition terminating Mr. Lerma’s parental rights regarding

I.L. at the close of a termination hearing on January 17, 2008. Mr. Lerma filed a notice of appeal

on January 24, 2008. There is no record that a final appealable order has been entered by the trial

court.

Appellate courts generally have jurisdiction over final judgments, and such interlocutory

orders as the Legislature deems appealable. TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 51.012 (Vernon

1997) and § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2007); Ruiz v. Ruiz, 946 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex.App.--El Paso

1997, no pet.). Given the absence of a final appealable order in this case, we dismiss the appeal

for want of jurisdiction.
-2-

May 15, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.
From: Katie Coughlin [mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 5:04 PM
To: Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com
Cc: Richard Parker; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Ar is Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bob Smith; Brenda Edwards; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carl os Gaytan; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Cr eevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; David Flaten; Emily Marchetti; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Gr eg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rive st; Millure, Dave; Pamela Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo Subject: Re: NES savings in NIA: "relative to a base-case scenario of no standard"

Hello all, The "no standard" phrase in the document should more correctly read "no modification to the
2007 standard". The base case for the national impacts analysis is the EL0 level with the 2007 standard in force. Sorry for the confusion,
Katie

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:19 PM, < Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com > wrote: Mr Parker,

Please find attached a page from Chapter 10, National Impact Analysis from the September 2011 analysis that stat es that the NES are "relat ive to a base-case scenario of no standard." I'm interpreting this as m eaning that the savings calculated are against the "affected stock", or the transformers that are currently in the field rather than the savings that are already to be gained as a result of the 2007 ruling, or EL0.

If my interpretation of this is correct, the current NES an alysis is "double counting" the energy savings which have already been impl emented by the 2007 rule. Since we are comparing LCC and Payback against EL0, shouldn 't the NES analysis be relative to the
current EL0 standard rather than us ing a scenario of "no standard"?

Regards,

Eric Petersen Director Customer Technical Services and Research AK Steel CorporationConfidentiality Notice This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 126 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 126

   Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States Trade 
  Representative should investigate whether any price control program 
governing the cost of medication in Mexico or Canada violates any trade 
                               agreement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2001

  Mr. Duncan submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States Trade 
  Representative should investigate whether any price control program 
governing the cost of medication in Mexico or Canada violates any trade 
                               agreement.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the United States Trade 
Representative should investigate whether any price control program 
governing the cost of medication in Mexico or Canada--
            (1) violates or is inconsistent with any trade agreement, 
        or otherwise denies benefits to the United States under any 
        trade agreement; or
            (2) is unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory and 
        burdens or restricts United States commerce.
                                 <all>
```
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
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 February 7, 2011

s0131 

# Order

February 7, 2011

141479

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141479 COA: 286270 Macomb CC: 2 007-004032-FC CRYSTAL TAMARA CONKLIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 15, 2010 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.
steam_record - Fw: RRI Request for ICR Extension 

 

-----Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US on 06/28/2010 03:45PM ----- 

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Smith, James R. (Randy)" <JRSmith@rrienergy.com> 

Date: 06/25/2010 12:22PM 

Subject: RRI Request for ICR Extension 

Alicea, please find attached RRI correspondence for EPA’s consideration to extend the 

deadline to complete and comply for the RRI steam-electric generating facilities Effluent ICR 

requirements.

If there are any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

Randy Smith 

Engineering & Technical Services 

832-357-4632 (NEW) 

832-357-7420 Fax

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: <steam_record@erg.com>

Date: 6/28/2010 3:47 PM

Subject: Fw: RRI Request for ICR Extension

CC: <jordan.ronald@epa.gov>

Attachments: RRI corporate Extension Request Letter.pdf

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C28C403DO... 3/17/2011
#### Ronnie L. FORTUNE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-1145.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 7, 1987.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Paul C. Helm, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lauren Hafner Sewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

Defendant, Ronnie L. Fortune, challenges his conviction for throwing a deadly missile at an occupied vehicle and his two-year general term of probation resulting from that conviction and from a conviction for criminal mischief.

We reject Fortune’s first point challenging his conviction for throwing a deadly missile at an occupied vehicle in violation of section 790.19, Florida Statutes (1985). We do, however, find merit to his second contention that the trial court erred by imposing a two-year general term of probation for the two separate offenses.

A general term of probation for two separate offenses is improper. *J.J.S. v. State,*465 So.2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). By imposing this general term of probation, Fortune contends that the trial court exceeded the statutory maximum term of probation for criminal mischief which is six months. §§ 806.13(b)1., 948.04(1), Fla.Stat. (1985); *Smith v. State,*484 So.2d 581, 582 n. 1 (Fla.1986); *see Bell v. State,*479 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). He further contends that he has already served more than the six-month probation term for criminal mischief. Thus, he argues the portion of the probation order related to the criminal mischief must be vacated. We cannot, however, make a determination as to whether he has served his term for criminal mischief from the record before us.

Accordingly, we affirm Fortune’s convictions but remand the case to the trial court with instructions to enter separate probation orders for each offense.

RYDER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7838]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; ZHD1 RRG-K 52 1, Rehabilitation 
Research Career Development Programs.
    Date: April 17, 2012.
    Time: 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Anne Krey, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National 
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive 
Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6908, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f2e247b7e200f21262761282039"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b1a104f4a143b151213551c140d">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 27, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-7838 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Creative Beauty Supply of
New Jersey Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three
months ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carmine Catizone,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:
            (1) The Report 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 the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company.

/s/Carmine Catizone
-----------------------------
Carmine Catizone
Chief Executive Officer

May 11, 2010


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Creative Beauty Supply of
New Jersey Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three
months ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Generelli,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:
            (1) The Report 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 the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company.

/s/Daniel Generelli
-----------------------------
Daniel Generelli
Chief Financial Officer

May 11, 2010