alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 34.1**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

To the Board of Directors andStockholders of 

First National Bank of Omaha 

Omaha, Nebraska 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanyingManagement’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria Pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB, that First National Bank of Omaha (“FNBO”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for asset-backed securities transactions involving credit card receivables conducted by First National Master Note Trust (the “Platform”) as of and forthe year ended December 31, 2011, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv) and 1122(d)(4)(x), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by theCompany with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with theservicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by theAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the FNBO performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, andperforming such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the FNBO during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not haveincluded servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that mayhave affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the FNBO during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination onthe FNBO’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that FNBO complied with theaforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Omaha, Nebraska 

March 26, 2012
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6141** 

REGINALD HARDY , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:14

- cv - 00748

- HEH

- RCY )

Submitted : June 15, 2015 Decided: June 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Reginald Hardy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Reginald Hardy seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendat ion of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds , the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and co nclude that Hardy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motions for a certificate of appealability and appointment of counsel, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts3 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
Exhibit 4.02(d)
May 30, 2003


Sbarro, Inc.
401 Broadhollow Road
Melville, NY 11747

RE:      Covenant Violation Waiver

Gentlemen:

     You have advised us that Sbarro,  Inc. (the "Company") has defaulted in the
performance  of certain of its  obligations  to Citibank,  N.A., as successor to
European  American  Bank  (the  "Bank")  as  specified  in that  certain  Credit
Agreement  dated September 23, 1999, as amended by a Covenant  Violation  Waiver
and  Amendment  dated as of March 18, 2002 and a Covenant  Violation  Waiver and
Amendment dated as of March 26, 2003  (collectively,  the "Agreement") among the
Company,  Citibank, N.A., as successor to European American Bank and the lenders
party thereto by virtue of the Company having  violated  subparagraphs  7.13 (a)
and  (b) of the  Agreement  by  which  the  Company  agreed  to  maintain  (i) a
Consolidated EBITDA to Consolidated  Interest Expense, as such terms are defined
in the  Agreement,  of not less than 1.4 to 1.0 and (ii) a  Consolidated  Senior
Debt to Consolidated EBITDA, as such terms are defined in the Agreement,  of not
greater than 6.5 to 1.0 at its fiscal quarter ending April 20, 2003.

     Pursuant to your request,  the Bank agrees to waive such  requirements  but
limited to and only as particularly set forth herein.

     The waiver set forth above shall be limited  precisely as written and shall
not be deemed to (i) be a waiver of any other term or condition of the Agreement
or any of the instruments or agreements referred to therein, (ii) be a waiver of
the required  future  compliance  with such  provisions,  or (iii) prejudice any
right or rights  which the Bank may now have or may have in the future  under or
in connection with the Agreement.

     The   Company   represents   and   warrants   to  the  Bank  that  (i)  the
representations and warranties set forth in Article IV of the Agreement are true
and  correct on the date hereof as if made on the date hereof and (ii) except as
otherwise  specified above, no Event of Default,  as described in the Agreement,
has occurred and is continuing.

     Except as waived  hereby,  all other terms and  conditions of the Agreement
shall remain unchanged and continue in full force and effect.

     If the foregoing  accurately  represents the understanding  reached between
the  Company and the Bank,  please  execute  and return to the  undersigned  the
attached copy of this letter by June 6, 2003.

Very truly yours,

CITIBANK, N.A.

By: /s/ Stuart N. Berman
---------------------------
Stuart N. Berman
Vice President

SBARRO, INC.

By: /s/ Mario Sbarro
---------------------------
Mario Sbarro
President
#### The City of Parma, ex rel. Fleger, Mayor, *v.*Burczyk et al.

(No. 25572

Decided November 6, 1935.)

*Mr. Samuel Doerfler*and *Mr. William C. Dixon,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Walter I. Krewson,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
#### R. G. STOREY and Charles P. Storey, Independent Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Genevieve W. Ware, Deceased, Appellants, v. CITY OF IRVING, Appellee.

No. 17803.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

Dec. 29, 1971.

*857Donald A. Swanson, Jr., Storey, Armstrong & Steger, Dallas, for appellants.

Wm. A. McKenzie, McKenzie & Baer, Dallas, Don J. Rorschach, City Atty., City of Irving, John F. Boyle, Jr., English, Deatherage & Boyle, Irving, for appellee.

BATEMAN, Justice.

In this condemnation suit the appellants, owners of property taken by appellee, sought to obtain a trial by filing objections to the award of the commissioners. The trial court on motion of appellee dismissed the objections as not being timely filed and adopted the award of the commissioners as the judgment of the court pursuant to Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stat., Article 1206, subdivision (d).

This is a companion case to No. 17,784 in this court, wherein appellants, as relators in an original proceeding, sought the writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to set aside the said order and to set the cause for trial on its merits. We have this date granted the writ by opinion in No. 17,784, R. G. Storey and Charles P. Storey, Independent Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Genevieve W. Ware, Deceased, Relators, versus Honorable Fred Red Harris, Judge, County Court at Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas, and City of Irving, Respondent and Co-Respondent, 475 S.W.2d 848, to which reference is here made.

The order complained of was an administrative order and not a judgment in a civil case, and there is no right of appeal therefrom. Pearson v. State, 159 Tex. 66, 315 S.W.2d 935, 938 (1958); Lemmon v. Giles, 342 S.W.2d 56, 57 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas 1960, writ dism’d), holding approved in City of Dallas v. Dixon, 161 Tex. 618, 343 S.W.2d 697 (1961).

The appeal is therefore dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Leslye L. Grindle, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Southern Community Bancshares, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual 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 inthis annual report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designated such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 31, 2006                                                         /s/ Leslye L. Grindle   Leslye L. Grindle   Chief Financial Officer  
47
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00625-CV

EX PARTE Michael WUDTEE

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 21, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED

On August 26, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, complaining 

Sheriff Amadeo Ortiz has failed to give him “good time” credit during his 180 day confinement 

after being held in contempt for failure to pay child support. However, a relator is not entitled to 

habeas corpus relief unless he was deprived of his liberty without due process of law, or if we 

conclude the judgment ordering him confined is void. See In re Alexander, 243 S.W.3d 822, 824 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, orig. proceeding). Relator has failed to meet his burden to show

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2001-CI-01410, in the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, 

the Honorable Cathy Stryker presiding. 
04-11-00625-CV

- 2 -

he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is 

DENIED. 

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1630 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1630

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain tax-
 exempt financing of electric transmission facilities from the private 
                           business use test.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 14, 2007

 Mr. Crapo (for himself and Mr. Craig) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain tax-
 exempt financing of electric transmission facilities from the private 
                           business use test.

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

SECTION 1. TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING OF CERTAIN ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION 
              FACILITIES NOT SUBJECT TO PRIVATE BUSINESS USE TEST.

    (a) In General.--Section 141(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (defining private business use) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Exception for certain electric transmission 
                facilities.--For purposes of the 1st sentence of 
                subparagraph (A), the operation or use of an electric 
                transmission facility by any person which is not a 
                governmental unit shall not be considered a private 
                business use if--
                            ``(i) the facility is placed in service on 
                        or after the date of the enactment of this 
                        subparagraph and is owned by--
                                    ``(I) a State or political 
                                subdivision of a State, or any agency, 
                                authority, or instrumentality of any of 
                                the foregoing providing electric 
                                service, directly or indirectly to the 
                                public, or
                                    ``(II) a State or political 
                                subdivision of a State expressly 
                                authorized under applicable State law 
                                effective on or after January 1, 2004, 
                                to finance and own electric 
                                transmission facilities, and
                            ``(ii) bonds for such facility are issued 
                        before the date which is 5 years after the date 
                        of the enactment of this subparagraph.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to bonds issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1


        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14/15d-14(d) OF THE SECURITIES
                              EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

     I, Timothy D. Hart, certify that:

     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 First National Master Note Trust (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. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers
and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the
servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of
Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the
servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements 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.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by The Bank of New York, The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.
and BNYM (Delaware).


<PAGE>

Dated:  March 31, 2008               /s/ Timothy D. Hart
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Timothy D. Hart, Senior Vice President,
                                     First National Bank of Omaha (senior
                                     officer in charge of the servicing
                                     function of the servicer)














       [Signature page to Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14/15d-14(d)
                     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934]
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 60302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24062]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY


Notice of Adjustment of Disaster Grant Amounts

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice of an increase of the maximum amount for 
Small Project Grants to State and local governments and private 
nonprofit facilities for disasters declared on or after October 1, 
2008.

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2008, and applies to major disasters 
declared on or after October 1, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Walke, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207, 
prescribes that FEMA must annually adjust the maximum grant amount made 
under section 422, Small Project Grants, Simplified Procedure, relating 
to the Public Assistance program, to reflect changes in the Consumer 
Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of 
Labor.
    FEMA gives notice of an increase of the maximum amount of any Small 
Project Grant made to the State, local government, or to the owner or 
operator of an eligible private nonprofit facility, under section 422 
of the Stafford Act, to $64,200 for all disasters declared on or after 
October 1, 2008.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price 
Index for All Urban Consumers of 5.4 percent for the 12-month period 
ended in August 2008. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. 
Department of Labor released the information on September 16, 2008.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Public Assistance 
Grants.

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-24062 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P