alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-35 (c)
(logo) SUNTRUST
       MORTGAGE

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
Post Office Box 26149
Richmond, VA 23260-6149
Toll Free 1.800.634.7928
www.suntrustmortgage.com

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
Attention: Client Manager BAFC 2006-2

Re: Annual Compliance Statement for BAFC 2006-2

In connection with the loans serviced by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (the "Company")
pursuant to the Company's Servicing Agreement(s)/Purchase and Sale Agreement(s)
with Bank of America, National Association and any applicable Reconstitution
Agreement(s) (together, the "Transaction Agreements"), I, the undersigned
officer, hereby certify the following as of December 31, 2006:

(i)  The Company conducted a review of its activities during the immediately
     preceding calendar year (or applicable portion thereof) and of its
     performance under the Transaction Agreements during such period has been
     made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the Transaction Agreements in all
     material respects throughout such calendar year (or applicable portion
     thereof), except that as of January 1, 2006, the Company did not have
     procedures for monitoring compliance with requirements as specified in the
     applicable transaction agreements governing SEC Regulation AB transactions.
     To address the absence of such procedures, the Company's management has
     undertaken and completed the following actions: (a) completed a review of
     each Transaction Agreement and identified if there was specific language
     affecting any of the Servicing Criteria outlined in Section 1122; (b) to
     the degree that the Transaction Agreements required specific procedures
     related to the servicing criteria, the Company's Reference Point Library
     (where all policies and procedures are maintained) was updated to this
     effect; (c) for each pool, a Control Matrix was completed (and is
     maintained on a current basis) identifying which Transaction Agreements
     control each pool; and (d) established a monthly review process where the
     Company's managers review key factors of performance under Transaction
     Agreements and respond to a questionnaire indicating compliance with such
     factors.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereby certify the foregoing as of the date hereof.

/s/ John R. Purcell, Jr.

John R. Purcell, Jr.
Senior Vice President - Manager, Servicing Division

Date: February 27, 2007
#### Christopher S. Reynolds, Respondent, v City of Syracuse et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, and OCM *1023BOCES, Appellant. Potter Heating & Air Conditioning, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[667 NYS2d 564]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff enrolled in an adult education course at defendant OCM BOCES (BOCES). To induce local contractors to participate in the externship program for on-the-job experience, BOCES agreed to hold harmless and indemnify participating contractors. Plaintiff was injured on the job during his externship placement with third-party defendant, Potter Heating & Air Conditioning (Potter). The Workers’ Compensation Board found plaintiff to be an employee of Potter and awarded plaintiff compensation benefits.

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking money damages for the injuries he sustained. Plaintiff agreed to accept a settlement offer of $65,000, contingent upon a complete waiver of the workers’ compensation lien in effect pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1). Potter and its carrier, The State Insurance Fund, agreed to waive the workers’ compensation lien, but BOCES claimed entitlement by subrogation to assert the workers’ compensation lien.

Potter moved for summary judgment on its cross claim against BOCES for contractual indemnification. Supreme Court granted that motion and, in addition, approved the settlement of plaintiff’s negligence action and declared that the granting of summary judgment to Potter “does not provide [BOCES] with any basis to object to the settlement in the underlying personal injury action nor does it permit [BOCES] to assert any workers5 compensation lien or any lien[,] which settlement has been reached between the plaintiff and the other parties”.

Insofar as the court granted the motion of Potter for summary judgment on its cross claim for contractual indemnification, we affirm. On appeal, BOCES does not contend that the motion should have been denied.

We agree with BOCES, however, that the court erred in approving the settlement of plaintiffs negligence action and declaring that BOCES may not assert any lien against the settlement. The record is inadequate to support those determinations. No motion was made for a determination whether BOCES has the right to assert a workers’ compensation lien, and, consequently, there is nothing in the record from which the court could determine that BOCES may not assert a lien. In the absence of a determination that BOCES may not assert a lien, there are material issues of fact concerning the terms of the settlement that render approval of it improper.

*1024Therefore, we modify the order by vacating the ninth and 10th ordering paragraphs thereof. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Major, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
First Amendment to Management Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT 
 This FIRST AMENDMENT to the Management Agreement, dated as
of February 10, 2006 (the Management Agreement”), by and between Cypress Sharpridge Investments, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”) and Cypress Sharpridge Advisors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the
“Manager”), is made and entered into and effective as of December 8, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as this “First Amendment”). Capitalized terms and references used herein and not otherwise defined below shall have the respective
meanings ascribed to them in the Management Agreement. 
 Background 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Manager are parties to the Management Agreement pursuant to which the Manger has agreed to provide management and investment
advisory services to the Company; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Manager desire to amend the terms of the Management Agreement as
provided in this First Amendment. 
 Agreement 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements set forth herein, the Company and the Manager do hereby agree as follows: 
 1. The definition of “Base Management Fee” in Section 1(b) of the Management Agreement is hereby amended by deleting clause
(ii) thereof, which reads “(ii) 1.75%;”, and inserting in lieu thereof “(ii) 1.50%; provided, however, that if the Company shall not have filed a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“SEC”) relating to its Common Shares on or prior to April 30, 2007, this percentage shall be reduced to 1.25% during the period from April 30, 2007 until the Company files such registration statement;”. 
 2. The Incentive Compensation for which the Manager is or would become eligible pursuant to Section 8(d) of the Management Agreement is hereby
waived until such time as the Company shall have filed a registration statement with the SEC relating to its Common Shares. 
 3. The option
to elect to seek reimbursement for the overhead expenses for which the Manager is or would become eligible pursuant to Section 9 of the Management Agreement is hereby waived until December 31, 2007. 
 4. The Management Agreement is amended only as expressly modified by this First Amendment. Except as expressly modified by this First Amendment, the
terms of the Management Agreement remain in full force and effect, and the Management Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed by the Company and the Manager in all respects. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Manager have executed this First Amendment as of the date first
written above. 
  

			
	 Cypress Sharpridge Investments, Inc., a
 Maryland corporation

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kevin E. Grant

	Name:	 	Kevin E. Grant
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
	
	 Cypress Sharpridge Advisors LLC, a
 Delaware
limited liability company

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jeffrey Hughes

	Name:	 	Jeffrey Hughes
	Title:	 	Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49586-49587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23309]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-164-2017]


Foreign-Trade Zone 295--Central Pennsylvania; Application for 
Subzone; North American H[ouml]gan[auml]s Company; Johnstown, 
Hollsopple and St, Mary's, Pennsylvania

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) 
Board by the Pennsylvania Foreign Trade Zone Corporation, grantee of 
FTZ 295, requesting subzone status for the facilities of North American 
H[ouml]gan[auml]s Company (H[ouml]gan[auml]s), located in Johnstown, 
Hollsopple and St. Mary's, Pennsylvania. The application was submitted 
pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended 
(19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 
400). It was formally docketed on October 19, 2017.
    The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites: Site 1 
(9.38 acres) 101 Bridge Street, Johnstown, Cambria County; Site 2 
(98.98 acres) 111 H[ouml]gan[auml]s Way, Hollsopple, Somerset County; 
and, Site 3 (3.42 acres) 210 Ceramic Street, St. Mary's, Elk County. No 
authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. 
The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit 
of FTZ 295.
    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman 
of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and 
make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the 
address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 5, 
2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the 
foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period 
to December 20, 2017.
    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection 
at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, 
Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the ``Reading Room'' section of the 
FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

[[Page 49587]]

    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#094c656073686b6c7d61275e61607d6c646867497d7b686d6c276e667f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b0e2722312a292e3f23651c23223f2e262a250b3f392a2f2e652c243d">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: October 20, 2017.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23309 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
FILED 

 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 August 30, 2005 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-16668

Non-Argument Calendar

 

D.C. Docket No. 04-20305-CR-JEM 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE MORENO,

 Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

 

(August 30, 2005)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sheryl Joyce Lowenthal, appointed counsel for Jorge Moreno in this direct
2

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit

of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the record reveals no

issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and

Moreno’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
#### Jose M. SOTO, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 2011-3071.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 12, 2011.

Before GAJARSA, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

*976ON MOTION

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) moves to dismiss Jose M. Soto’s petition for review as untimely.

On October 22, 2010, an administrative judge issued an initial decision, affirming OPM’s denial of Soto’s claims, and notifying Soto that, absent an appeal to the Board, the decision would become final on November 26, 2010. The Board further informed Soto that any petition for review must be received by this court within 60 calendar days of the date the initial decision became final. Soto did not appeal the initial decision to the Board. Soto’s petition for review was received by the court on January 27, 2011, 62 days after the Board’s decision became final on November 26.

A petition for review must be received by the court within 60 days of receipt of notice of the Board’s final order. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). To be timely filed, the petition must be received by this court on or before the date that the petition is due. *Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management,*931 F.2d 1544, 1546 (Fed.Cir.1991) (petition is filed when received by this court; court dismissed petition received nine days late).

Because Soto’s petition was not timely received by this court, it must be dismissed based on controlling precedent of this court. *See Oja v. Dep’t of the Army,*405 F.3d 1349, 1360 (Fed.Cir.2005) (“Seeing no specific authorization for the equitable tolling of section 7703(b)(1), we find that the congressionally approved statements of Rules 15(a)(1) and 26(b)(2) require the conclusion first reached in *Monzo[ v. Department of Transp., F.A.A,*735 F.2d 1335 (Fed.Cir.1984) ] and herein followed. Compliance with the filing deadline for 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) is a prerequisite to our exercise of jurisdiction over this case.”).

Accordingly,

It is Ordered That:

(1) OPM’s motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7975

YAQUB HAMEED MUWAKKIL,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

LEROY ROUNDTREE HASSELL, Chief Justice,

Supreme Court of Virginia; ELIZABETH D. LACY,

Justice, Supreme Court of Virginia; BARBARA M.

KEENAN, Justice, Supreme Court of Virginia;

LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR., Justice, Supreme

Court of Virginia; CYNTHIA D. KINEER, Justice,

Supreme Court of Virginia; DONALD LEMONS,

Justice, Supreme Court of Virginia; G. STEVEN

AGEE, Justice, Supreme Court of Virginia;

HARRY L. CARRICO, Senior Justice, Supreme

Court of Virginia; A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON,

Senior Justice, Supreme Court of Virginia;

ROSCOE B. STEPHENSON, JR., Senior Justice,

Supreme Court of Virginia; PATRICIA H.

KRUEGER, Clerk, Supreme Court of Virginia,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-05-1118-1)

Submitted: May 22, 2006 Decided: June 12, 2006

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit

Judge.
- 2 -

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yaqub Hameed Muwakkil, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Yaqub Hameed Muwakkil appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Muwakkil v. Hassell, No. CA-05-1118-1 (E.D.

Va. Dec. 5, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3529 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3529

  To amend the Small Business Act to increase the maximum loan amount 
        under the Express Loan Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2009

 Mr. Welch (for himself, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Massa, Ms. Bordallo, and Ms. 
Pingree of Maine) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Small Business Act to increase the maximum loan amount 
        under the Express Loan Program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE OF MAXIMUM LOAN AMOUNT UNDER EXPRESS LOAN PROGRAM.

    Section 7(a)(31)(D) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
636(a)(31)(D)) is amended by striking ``$350,000'' and inserting 
``$2,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 50479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23612]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Eighteenth Tactical Operations Committee (TOC) Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Eighteenth TOC Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of the Eighteenth TOC Meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held December 5, 2017, 09:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., 
Eastern Daylight Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: National Business Aviation 
Association, 1200 G Street NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trin Mitra, TOC Secretariat, 202-330-
0665, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b0f16120f091a3b090f181a5514091c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84f0e9edf0f6e5c4f6f0e7e5aaebf6e3">[email protected]</span></a>, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 
20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web 
site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given of the Eighteenth TOC Meeting. The TOC is a component of 
RTCA, which is a Federal Advisory Committee. The agenda will include 
the following:

December 5, 2017, 09:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time
    1. Welcome and Introductions of TOC Members
    2. Official Statement of Designated Federal Officer
    3. Review and Approval of Meeting Summary From the Previous TOC 
Meeting
    4. FAA Update
    5. Consideration of Draft Recommendations From the Common Support 
Services Flight Data Task Group
    6. FAA Response on Previous TOC Recommendations
    7. Update on Ongoing Task on Intentional GPS Interference
    8. Discussion of Future/Potential Tasks
    9. Other Business
    10. Closing Comments--DFO and Chairs
    11. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the Chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 26, 2017.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17, 
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-23612 Filed 10-30-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.3(d) 


FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT 

AGREEMENT 


          THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of this 13th day of April, 2007 to that certain AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of
May 15, 2002, as amended (collectively, the “Employment Agreement”), by and between DAVID E. ULLMAN (“Employee”) and JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC. (“Employer”).


                    FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Employer and Employee, being the sole parties to the Employment Agreement, hereby amend the Employment
Agreement as follows: 


          1. Subject to earlier termination otherwise set forth in the Employment Agreement, the last day of the Employment Period shall be January 31, 2009. 


          2. Effective March 4, 2007, Employee’s Base Salary shall be $440,000.00. 


          Except as specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect according to its terms. To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the
terms of the remainder of the Employment Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall control and prevail. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have those respective meanings attributed to them in the Employment Agreement. This
Amendment shall hereafter be deemed a part of the Employment Agreement for all purposes. The terms of employment set forth in this Amendment have been approved by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Employer. 


          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written. 


JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC. 

	By:	     /s/
    Charles D. Frazer                              
	 
  	      /s/
    David E. Ullman

	 	 Charles D. Frazer,
  	
DAVID E. ULLMAN
  
	 	 Senior Vice President – General Counsel