alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
financial statements in the Registrant's Form 10-Q and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                   JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                  5,505,000
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          36,323,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                            5,422,000
<INVENTORY>                                            11,747,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       49,803,000
<PP&E>                                                400,968,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                        113,658,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        697,278,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  58,668,000
<BONDS>                                               199,812,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                  413,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          697,278,000
<SALES>                                               208,068,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      221,261,000
<CGS>                                                  23,837,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          40,312,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      134,616,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     33,868,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        10,281,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    10,281,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                           10,281,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0.25
        

</TABLE>
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 SLM Student Loan Trust 2011-2 (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 statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, 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 following unaffiliated parties: Xerox Education Services, LLC, as subservicer, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.




















/s/ SOMSAK CHIVAVIBUL
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 18, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 05-10389

Summary Calendar

BRIDGET PARSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

WILMER HUTCHINS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

3:03-CV-492-B

Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant challenges the dismissal of her suit as a sanction

for her abusive litigation practice and refusal to comply with the

court’s orders.

After the district court warned appellant numerous times to

refrain from abusive litigation tactics and follow the court’s
2

orders and plaintiff persisted in refusing to heed those warnings,

the court dismissed plaintiff’s suit. The multiple violations of

the court’s orders and instances of appellant’s abusive litigation

practice are recited in detail in its opinion and order of February

17, 2005, and fully support its dismissal of appellant’s suit. 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2

                            FORM 10-QSB CERTIFICATION

         I, Leslie J. Handler, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Nova
Communications, Inc. for the quarter ending September 30, 2005;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of 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 Nova Communications
Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4. I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and have:

         a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to Nova Communications, Inc., 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. Disclosed in this report any change in Nova Communications, Inc.'s
internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during Nova
Communications, Inc.'s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Nova Communications, Inc.'s
internal control over financial reporting.

         5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to Nova Communications, Inc.'s auditors and
the audit committee of Nova Communications, Inc.'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 Nova Communications, Inc,'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 Nova Communications, Inc,'s
internal control over financial reporting.

November 17, 2005                     NOVA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

                                 By: /s/ LESLIE J. HANDLER
                                 --------------------------
                                 Leslie J. Handler, President and
                                 Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FARRAD K. MUHAMMAD.

February 11, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-04-289-CR

KEVYN DELAWERENCE STONE	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	In one issue, appellant Kevyn Delawerance Stone contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for mistrial, which was based on the ground that appellant’s counsel was unable to tell whether the jury had seen appellant being brought into the courtroom from the holdover cell in shackles, without first ascertaining whether the jurors had been prejudiced by observing appellant in the courtroom wearing shackles.  Appellant contends that because the jury may have seen him in shackles, the trial court had a duty to either ascertain whether the jury had in fact seen him in shackles or grant a mistrial.  In asking for a mistrial, appellant’s counsel stated that “it appeared from [his] perspective that it was certainly possible” that the jurors had seen appellant in shackles and that he was asking for a mistrial “[f]or that reason, because of the extreme prejudice that results from having a client shackled in front of a jury.”  Appellant did not ask the trial court to question the jurors as to whether they had seen him in shackles, nor did he object when the trial court indicated that it was not going to question the jurors about whether they had seen appellant in shackles. 

	Appellant’s objection at trial does not comport with his complaint on appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Heidelberg v. State, 144 S.W.3d 535, 537 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35, 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 827 (1997); Rezac v. State, 782 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).  Thus, appellant did not preserve any error on this issue.  We overrule appellant’s sole issue on appeal and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

								PER CURIAM

PANEL F:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  August 18, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 31, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 53301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21718]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9195-6]


Proposed Cercla Administrative Order on Consent for the Standard 
Mine Site, Gunnison County, CO

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice and request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of section 122(i) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 
as amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(I), notice is hereby given of a 
proposed Administrative Order on Consent (``AOC'') under sections 104, 
106, 107, and 122 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9604, 9606, 9607, and 9622, 
between EPA and Elijah Valencia regarding the Standard Mine Site, 
located in Gunnison County, Colorado. The proposed AOC is for recovery 
of past and projected future response costs concerning the Standard 
Mine site in Gunnison County, Colorado with Elijah Valencia based upon 
ability to pay. The settlement requires the settling party to execute 
an environmental covenant and provide access to real property. The 
settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling party pursuant 
to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). For thirty (30) days 
following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will 
consider all comments received on the AOC and may modify or withdraw 
its consent to the AOC, if comments received disclose facts or 
considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, 
improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received 
will be available for public inspection at the EPA Superfund Record 
Center, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 2nd Floor, in Denver, Colorado.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background 
information relating to the settlement are available for public 
inspection at the EPA Superfund Records Center, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
2nd Floor, in Denver, Colorado 80202. Comments and requests for a copy 
of the proposed settlement should be addressed to John D. Works, 
Enforcement Specialist (8ENF-RC), Technical Enforcement Program, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 
80202-1129, and should reference the Standard Mine Site/Valencia 
settlement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John D. Works, Enforcement Specialist 
(8ENF-RC), Technical Enforcement Program, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-
6196.
    It is so agreed.

    Dated: August 25, 2010.
Sharon L. Kercher,
Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Enforcement, 
Compliance and Environmental Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2010-21718 Filed 8-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Exhibit
32


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 on Form 10-Q of Reliv’ International, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Robert
L. Montgomery, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven D.
Albright, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Robert L. MontgomeryRobert
      L. MontgomeryChief
      Executive OfficerDate:
      November 9, 2009/s/ Steven D. AlbrightSteven
      D. AlbrightChief
      Financial OfficerDate:
      November 9, 2009





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
is not being “filed” as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure
document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to liability under that
section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32 is expressly and specifically
incorporated by reference in any such filing.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE PROBATE OF THE ALLEGED WILL OF MARTHA C. MALINIAK, A/K/A MARTHA C. BENNETT.

May 14, 1985.

Petition for certification denied. (See 199 *N.J.Super.*490)
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 71 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 PROCLAMATION CONGRATULATING DEAN HARRAH

                                 ______

                           HON. ROBERT W. NEY

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, May 2, 1995
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following article to my 
colleagues:

       Whereas, Dean Harrah, should be recognized for his 
     invaluable contributions to the game of baseball; and
       Whereas, Dean Harrah, was a player for Kent State 
     University, the United Mine Workers League, the Harrison 
     County League, and numerous local and semi-pro teams; and
       Whereas, Dean Harrah, has dedicated much of his talent to 
     coach both elementary and high school students in which some 
     of his players continued on to play college and professional 
     baseball; and,
       Whereas, Dean Harrah, led many of his teams to league 
     championships, all-star game championships, and to all 
     appearances at sectional, district, and regional tournaments; 
     and
       Whereas, Dean Harrah, has ensured that local programs were 
     established for both girls and boys and help coordinate 
     construction and renovation of many local fields; and
       Whereas, the local communities are better places for people 
     of all ages because of the work of Dean Harrah; and
       Whereas, the residents of Belmont County and the 
     surrounding areas of Ohio, with a real sense of pleasure, 
     join me in commending Mr. Dean Harrah for his indispensable 
     contribution to the game of baseball.
     

                          ____________________
```
#### SALVATORE MALFITANO v. DOW JONES CO., INC.

November 12, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
#### PRODIGY CENTERS/ATLANTA NO. 1 L.P.; Prodigy Centers No. 2 L.P., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. T-C ASSOCIATES, LTD., etc., Defendant-Appellee, United States of America, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 95-9448.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 29, 1998.

Sean O’Connor, Gary R. Allen, William S. Estabrook, Loretta C. Argrett, Sarah K. Knutson, Tax Div., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendanb-Appellant.

Fredric Chaiken, Kaufman & Chaiken, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

William R. Wildman, Alfred A. Lindseth, Sutherland, Asbill & Bx’ennan, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BIRCH, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

*1325PER CURIAM:

In this ease, the government and T-C Associates (“TCA”) assert liens on a distribution to Prodigy Child Development Centers (“PCDC”) from a limited partnership. Although TCA obtained a judgment against PCDC before the government recorded its tax lien in 1993, the government argues that TCA’s judgment lien did not attach to PCDC’s partnership interest until TCA obtained a charging order in 1994, because PCDC’s partnership interest was a “chose in action.” After determining that the issue of whether the partnership interest was a chose in action was dispositive of this appeal but unsettled as a matter of Georgia law, we certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Georgia:

> DOES A PARTNERSHIP INTEREST IN A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTE A CHOSE IN ACTION?

*Prodigy Centers/Atlanta No. 1 L.P. v. T-C Assocs., Ltd.,*127 F.3d 1021, 1024 (11th Cir.1997). In answer, the Supreme Court of Georgia has decided that “a ‘partnership interest’ is a chose in action.” *Prodigy Centers/Atlanta v. T-C Assoc.,*269 Ga. 522, 526, 501 S.E.2d 209, 213 (1998). Since judgment liens generally do not attach to ehoses in action under Georgia law absent a collateral charging order to garnishment, *see, e.g., id.*at 211 n. 3, 501 S.E.2d at 523 n. 3, the government is correct that TCA’s lien did not attach until 1994, well after the government recorded its own lien. Therefore, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment for TCA and REMAND with instructions that the district court enter summary judgment for the government.
|                                      |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                      |  |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas | BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware |
| As Indenture Trustee                 | As Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Michelle H.Y. Voon  | Attn:  Kristine Gullo |
| 100 Plaza One 6th Floor         | 301 Bellevue Parkway 3rd Floor |
| Jersey City, NY 07311                | Wilmington, DE  19809 |

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |  |
| The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. | Ally Auto Assets LLC |
| Attn:  Robert Castle                  | Ally Financial Inc. |
| 2 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1020              | 200 Renaissance Center |
| Chicago, IL  60602                    | 10th Floor, MC 482-B10-A68 |
|                                            | Detroit, MI |

|     |
|-----|
|     |  |
| Re: | Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2011-1 (the “Issuer”) |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement has been under his supervision, and |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| b. | To the best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement throughout such period. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |
|   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |
|   | Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |
|   | Ally Financial Inc. |