alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 33.2 Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing
Criteria of Citibank, N.A.





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 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 agent services (the “Platform”)

Applicable Servicing Criteria:
All servicing 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, 2011 (the “Period”).



With respect to the Platform as of and
for the Period, the Company’s management provides the following assertion of compliances 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 assessed
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by 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 Montbach

Its: Managing
Director

Dated: February 28, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheet at June 30, 1998 (Unaudited) and the
Consolidated Condensed Statement of Operations for the Six Months Ended June 30,
1998 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         359,323
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,929,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                   113,812
<INVENTORY>                                  1,949,647
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,682,790
<PP&E>                                       5,833,459
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,129,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,024,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,319,588
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,089
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,593,030
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,024,042
<SALES>                                      5,856,182
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,856,182
<CGS>                                        3,143,594
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,143,594
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,900,241
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (3,200)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,896
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (209,349)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (17,300)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (192,049)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (192,049)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
#### H. Hill v. F. N. Tucker.

(No. 1590, Op. Book No. 2, p. 554.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

October 3, 1881.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1224. *Variance between allegation and proof.*Appellee sued appellant for damages for breach of a contract in failing to deliver to appellee one hundred and eighty bales of cotton. Appellant set forth the contract in his petition, and alleged that it was in writing, but the written contract was not described. On the trial appellant read in evidence, over the objections of the appellee, a writing variant from the contract alleged in the petition. Verdict and judgment for appellee for his damages. *Held,*as no writing was set up and described in the petition, the doctrine of variance did not apply. The variance must be between the instrument as described in the petition and that offered in evidence. [Shipman v. Fulcrod, 42 Tex. 248.] The only objection that could be properly made in such case would be that the instrument offered is irrelevant, but in this case this objection was not tenable, because the writing read in evidence was relevant.

§ 1225. *Contract; tulien breach of, is complete, cause of action accrues; subsequent offer to perform is no defense to action for breach of.*The cotton was to have been delivered under the contract on the 25th of February. Appellee, on the evening of that day, called upon appellant for the cotton, and was told by him that he bad sold it to other parties, and could not and did not deliver it. On the next morning appellant proposed to deliver the cotton to appellee. *Held,*appellant could not reinvigorate and give life to his broken agreement, by proposing to deliver the cotton on a day subsequent to that fixed by the agreement. Having theretofore declined and refused to deliver on the day agreed upon, this refusal wrought a breach of the contract, and his subsequent offer to perform the contract was no defense to plaintiff’s action.

Affirmed.
News United States Air Force
 AF Leaders send Veterans Day messagePublished Nov. 11, 2013
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Acting Secretary of the Air Force Eric Fanning, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III and Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force James Cody issued the following message to the Airmen of the United States Air Force:
Two days ago, on Nov. 9, 2013, three of the four surviving Doolittle Raiders performed their final toast in honor of the 80 brave men who volunteered for a daring raid on Tokyo on April 18, 1942. Launching 16 B-25 bombers off the deck of the USS Hornet, the Doolittle Raiders struck at the heart of the enemy when the war in the Pacific looked bleak. The leadership, innovation and courage of those 80 Raiders set the standard for America’s Airmen.  This may have been the Raiders final toast, but as long as there is a United States Air Force, Airmen will toast the Doolittle Raiders.
This Veterans Day, we pay tribute to generations of men and women who have served and still serve in uniform. We celebrate veterans of every Service who have built the finest military the world has ever seen. And we honor their service which has protected this great republic for more than two centuries. To those who made the ultimate sacrifice, we owe a debt that can never be repaid.  
Today, we salute America’s veterans and their families. We thank all the veterans who embody the highest ideals of this Nation that we cherish so dearly...people like Lt. Col. Dick Cole, one of the four living Doolittle Raiders. He said of volunteering for the raid, “They had a note on the company bulletin board that they were looking for volunteers for a dangerous mission ... I signed my name.”  **Happy Veterans Day!**Veterans Day
H. Con. Res. 67 Agreed to February 17, 2007

One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of 

Friday, February 16, 2007, or Saturday, February 17, 2007, on 

a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 

Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. 

on Tuesday, February 27, 2007, or until the time of any reassembly 

pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 

first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day 

from Saturday, February 17, 2007, through Saturday, February 

24, 2007, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution 

by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or 

adjourned until noon on Monday, February 26, 2007, or such other 

time on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or 

his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time 

of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 

SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader 

of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 

consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the 

Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the 

House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place 

and time as they may designate if, in their opinion, the public 

interest shall warrant it. 

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. AUMARIE W. BALDWIN.

February 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Dean W. Danner, President and Chief Executive Officer of Electronic
Tele-Communications, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Electronic
Tele-Communications, 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 officers 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 have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us 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 our 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 most recent 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 control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

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.

Date: November 3, 2003



/s/ Dean W. Danner
-----------------------------------
Dean W. Danner
President and
Chief Executive Officer
#### Tilford Bean v. F. W. Toland.

(No. 789, Op. Book No. 2, p. 242.)

Appeal from Lampasas County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1022. *Jurisdiction of county court; suits for trial of title to land; to remove cloud from title; a house is part of realty.*Toland alleged that he was the legal and equitable owner of a certain lot and a house thereon; that Bean and another party were wrongfully and illegally removing the house from the lot, and that defendants were claiming the house under certain deeds and a bill of sale which were fraudulent. He prayed for an injunction restraining defendants from removing the house, and for a cancellation of the alleged fraudulent deeds and bill of sale, and for damages. A trial resulted in a judgment for Toland for the possession of the house, and for $25 damages, a cancellation of the deeds and bill of sale, and a perpetuation of the preliminary injunction. *Held,*the constitution provides that “the county courts shall not have jurisdiction of suits for the recovery of land.” [Const, art. V, sec. 16.] The object and purpose of the convention in this inhibition was to give to the district court exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate and determine titles to land, for by the same instrument [art. V, sec. 8] it is provided that the district court shall have original *573jurisdiction “of all suits for the trial of title to land and the enforcement of liens thereon.” The value of the land in controversy is immaterial. Whatever may be its value, -when the title is to be passed upon and determined, the county court has no jurisdiction, and should it assume the power, its adjudication in such case would be *coram non judice*and void. That a' suit to annul and cancel deeds or other instruments evidencing title to land is an adjudication upon and a trial of the title to the land, is much too plain for controversy. The gist of such action is, plaintiff claims to be the true owner of the land, and that the defendant holds written instruments evidencing title in himself, and thereby casts a cloud upon the title of the plaintiff. What must and does the court determine in such case ? First, that the plaintiff has title to the property; secondly, that the instruments held by the defendant do not constitute title in him, and do cast a cloud upon that of plaintiff. As a general rule, a house situated on the realty or land of the owner of both house and land is a fixture, and belongs to and is a part of the soil. In the case before us, the plaintiff claims in his petition to be the legal and equitable owner of the lot and the house thereon. There is nothing in the pleadings exempting the house in controversy from the general rule stated above, and it is to the pleadings we must look in determining the question presented for our adjudication; from these it appears that the house was a fixture, a part of the soil, and that the county court had no jurisdiction and erred in overruling appellant’s exceptions.

March 9, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
#### H. & T. C. R. R. Co. v. J. A. Park.

(No. 784, Op. Book No. 1, p. 470.)

Error from Ellis County.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 332. *Railroads; special contracts by, for shipment of stoclc.*Where one of the stipulations in a special contract signed by the parties with regard to the shipment of cattle from Ellis county to Chicago was as follows: “and it is further stipulated and agreed between the parties hereto that in case the live stock mentioned herein is transported over the road or roads of any other railway company the said party of the first part shall be released from liability of every kind after said live stock shall have left its road, and the party of the second part hereby so expressly stipulates and agrees, the understanding of both parties thereto being that the party of the first part shall not be held liable for anything beyond the line of the Houston ;& Texas Central Railway, excepting to protect the through rate of freight named therein,” *held,*“that the American cases, with a few exceptions, recognize the right of a railway company to enter into special contracts to carry goods beyond the line of their own road. Where-different roads are united in one continuous route, such an undertaking in regard to freight received and booked for any point upon the line of the connected companies is almost matter of course, and that when separate companies are engaged in a common undertaking for the transportation of freight over a line of which each, associate' forms a link, giving through bills of lading and charging through freights, each will be liable as a corn*143món carrier for the whole distance.” [Redfield on Railways, §§ 180 to 183 inclusive.]

April 17, 1878.

§ -333. *Liability of common carrier beyond Ms own line.*The fair weight of American cases limits the carrier’s liability as such, where there is no special contract, to his own line, though there are cases which hold, the liability as continuing the same throughout the whole route, and such is the English doctrine. [Redfieid on Railways, 2 vol. pp. 95 to 126; Redfield on Carriers, §§ 180, 183; Chitty on Carriers, p. 78.]

§ 334. *Right of common carrier to restrict his liability.*A common carrier may, by express contract, limit and restrict his liability as it exists at common law, where he is not prohibited by statute, provided that he cannot contract to exempt himself from liability for loss or damage caused by his own negligence. [3 Wallace, 107; 16 Wallace, 319; 22 Wallace, 129, 595; 6 How. (U. S.) 344; 104 Mass. 144; 25 Mich. 329; 60 Ill. 175.]

§ 335. *Construction of statute, art. Ifi®, sec. 1, Pas. Dig.*This act applies to domestic carriers *on land tuithin this state or on waters entirely within the body of this state.*It was never intended by the legislature that the restrictions laid in this section on domestic carriers should affect or apply to interstate carriage or traffic.

Reversed and-rendered.
#### Geo. E. Lane v. Joseph Peters.

(No. 1333, Op. Book No. 2, p. 255.)

Error from Falls County.

March 9, 1880.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1030. *Affirmance on certificate refused; motion for rehearing in such case not allowed.*Citation in error was served upon defendant in error April 26, 1879, citing him to answer in the court of appeals on the first Monday in April, 3880. On the 20th of May, 1879, defendant in error filed a motion in the court of appeals to affirm the judgment of the court below on certificate. That motion was overruled, and defendant in error filed this motion for a rehearing thereon. *Held,*1. The motion to affirm on certificate was properly overruled by the court of appeals, because it was made at a term of the court prior to that to which the defendant in error had been cited to appear. 2. The motion to affirm, when overruled, had subserved the purposes for which the law allows such motions to be made, and if defendant in error desired to make a motion to affirm on certificate at the proper term of court, it should have been a new and independent motion then filed, and the action of the court thereon asked.

Motion for rehearing’ refused.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE EXIDE
ELECTRONICS GROUP, INC. UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND> 
       
         
       
<CAPTION>
                                                
                                 
<S>                                     <C> 
<MULTIPLIER>                            1000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         3460
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                124285
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                   99519
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             246840
<PP&E>                                        48648
<DEPRECIATION>                                41946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               486521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        139031
<BONDS>                                      221251
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                   18455
<COMMON>                                        104
<OTHER-SE>                                    97847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 486521
<SALES>                                       99412  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             130922
<CGS>                                         89316
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                121822
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6999
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2128
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1058
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             959
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                    959
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.06
        
        

</TABLE>
#### PERRY FOGEL v. S.S.R. REALTY ASSOCIATES.

March 27, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.