alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

      ( print page 13793)    
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Human Resource Development (#1199).                    

*Date/Time:*                         March 14-15, 2001 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, Stafford Place II—Conference Center, 4121 Wilson Boulevard, Room 565, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. A. James Hicks, Program Director, Human Resource Development Division, Room 815, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230 Telephone: (703) 292-4668.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason For Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals.  These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: March 1, 2001.

Susanne Bolton, 

Committee Management.

[FR Doc. 01-5468  Filed 3-6-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
(b)(2) 

e FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Washington, DC 20429 

SHEILA C. BAIR 

CHAIRMAN 

Honorable Robert Menendez 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Menendez: 

March 30, 2011 

Thank you for your letter regarding national mortgage loan servicing standards. 

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation concurs that there is an urgent need to reduce 

borrower confusion and eliminate barriers to sustainable mortgage modifications. Fair 

dealing with borrowers and adherence to the law are fundamental to safe and sound 

banking practices and must be viewed as mandatory if our servicing and foreclosure 

process is to function in the interest of all parties concerned. 

To that end, we are working on an interagency basis to consider the development 

of national mortgage servicing remedial measures that address many of the issues you 

raise. As you know, I have been a particularly strong advocate of a single point of 

contact. I will continue to work with the other regulators to address the problems that 

you and others have highlighted. 

Thank you again for contacting the FDIC and continuing the dialo 

critical matter. If you have other que~tact me at 

Nash, Deputy for External Affairs, at .. · . . . ., 

Sincerely, 

Sheila C. Bair 

(b)(2)
#### Frankie CONTRERAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-70468.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Feb. 28, 2007.

Ana Avila-Cote, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, John R. Cunningham, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Frankie Contreras, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand, *see Movsisian v. Ashcroft,*395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005), and we grant the petition for review.

The BIA abused its discretion by denying Contreras’ motion to remand on the ground that Contreras could not qualify as a beneficiary of the approved visa petition his mother-in-law filed on behalf of his wife. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1153(d) (“A spouse ... shall ... be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse”).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Contreras’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim. *See Barroso v. Gonzales,*429 F.3d 1195, 1196 n. 1 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of GBC Bancorp, Inc. (the "Corporation") for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certifies 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 Corporation.

                                           /s/ John Hopkins
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John Hopkins, Chief Financial Officer

May 13, 2003
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  I, Lawrence Williams, Jr., certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Annual Report of Gateway Certifications., Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008;  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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuers other certifying officer 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 small business issuer and we 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 31, 2009/s/ Lawrence Williams, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Visual Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Brad
Ketch, Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas J. Sweeney, Chief Financial 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/ Brad Ketch                                          /s/ Thomas J. Sweeney
Brad Ketch                                              Thomas J. Sweeney
Chief Executive Officer                                 Chief Financial Officer
June 16, 2003                                           June 16, 2003
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 11

                        METRO INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                      March 31,
                                               -------------------------
                                                  1997          1998
                                               -----------   -----------
<S>                                            <C>           <C>        
SHARES

Average outstanding during the period and
         number of shares on which published
         basic earnings per share is based     14,033,333    14,823,296

Add:  Incremental shares from assumed
         exercise of stock options                 11,696       165,671
                                               -----------   -----------

Number of shares on which published
         diluted earnings per share is based   14,045,029    14,988,967
                                               -----------   -----------
                                               -----------   -----------

EARNINGS

Net income applicable to common
         shareholders                         $ 1,831,872    $ 2,898,562
                                               -----------   -----------
                                               -----------   -----------
Earnings Per Share:
         Basic                                $      0.13    $      0.20
                                               -----------   -----------
                                               -----------   -----------
         Diluted                              $      0.13    $      0.19
                                               -----------   -----------
                                               -----------   -----------

</TABLE>


                                       17
Exhibit 10.8.4

EnergySolutions, Inc.  2007 Equity Incentive Plan

NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT  (Performance-Based; Company EBITDA)

THIS NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT (the "Award Agreement") is made
effective as of[            ](the "Date of Grant") between
EnergySolutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (with any successor, the "Company"), and [            ](the "Participant"):

R E C I T A L S:

WHEREAS,
the Company has adopted the EnergySolutions, Inc. 2007 Equity Incentive Plan (the
"Plan"), which Plan is incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Award Agreement. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein
(including in Section 10) shall have the same meanings as in the Plan; and

WHEREAS,
the Compensation Committee of the Board (the "Committee") has determined that it would be in the best interests of the Company
and its stockholders to grant the option provided for herein to the Participant pursuant to the Plan and the terms set forth herein.

NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth (including, without limitation, the restrictive covenants described in Section 7, the parties agree
as follows:



---





2

---





3

---





4

---





[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

5

---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Award Agreement.

ENERGYSOLUTIONS, INC.By:

Val John Christensen, President and CEOAgreed and acknowledged as
of the date first above written:PARTICIPANT


6

---



QuickLinks
2010-0486.

#### In re Guernsey.

This cause is pending before the court upon notice of respondent’s conviction of a felony. On March 19, 2010, respondent filed a motion for stay of the interim felony suspension. On March 29, 2010, Disciplinary Counsel filed a memo opposing respondent’s motion for stay. Upon consideration thereof,

It is ordered by this court that respondent’s motion is denied.
EX-34.6
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG

Ernst & Young LLP
220 South Sixth Street, Ste 1400
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4509

Phone: (612) 343-1000
www.ey.com

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 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the
Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
SEC's Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform
(the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, except for
servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii) and 1122(d)(4)(iv)-(xiv), which the Company
has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them 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, 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 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 our examination provides 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 December 31,
2007, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 12, 2008

A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
EX-35.7

Wachovia Bank, National Association
8739 Research Drive, URP4
Charlotte, NC 28288-1075


(logo) WACHOVIA SECURITIES


1123 SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
as of March 1, 2007, by and among Wachovia Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.,
as Depositor, Wachovia Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, CWCapital
Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer, and Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-C30 (the "Agreement"), for the Peter Cooper Village
and Stuyvesant Town pari passu loan, included in the COBALT 2007-C2
securitization. Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have
the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 3.13 of this Agreement, Timothy Ryan and Marilyn Addison,
Managing Director Customer Relationship Management and Director of Compliance
Third Party Oversight, do hereby certify that:

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer, during the period from
   March 1, 2007 and of its performance December 31, 2007, per the Agreement
   during such period has been made under our supervision; and

2. To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has
   fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement with respect to the
   Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town pari passu loan in all material
   respects throughout the period March 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate as of the
10th day of March 2008.


/s/ Timothy S. Ryan
Timothy S. Ryan, Managing Director
Wachovia Bank National Association


/s/ Marilyn Addison
Marilyn Addison, Director
Wachovia Bank National Association
#### Kennedy *v.*Schofield’s Sons & Company.

Argued June 14,

Decided July 22, 1901.

Action for damages. Before Judge Nottingham. City court of Macon. June 8,1900.

*Marion W.*Harris, for plaintiff.

*Dessau, Harris & Harris,*for defendant.

Lewis, J.

This being a suit by a servant against his master to recover for personal[injuries, and the evidence for the plaintiff showing no negligence on the part of the master, there was no error in awarding a nonsuit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6237
ROBERT DIAZ, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-658-R) Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 29, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Diaz, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel John Munroe, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Diaz v. Warden, Nottoway, Corr. Ctr. , No. CA-96-658-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 3, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00163

- CV

I N RE S TATE F ARM L LOYDS

, Relator §

§

§

§ Original Proceeding

F rom the 96th District Court

of Tarrant County ( 096

- 298884

- 18 )

September 3, 2020

Opinion by Justice Womac k

JUDGM ENT

This co urt has considered relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus and holds

that the petition should be conditionally granted. Accordingly

, we conditionally grant

the writ of mandamus and dire ct the trial court to vacate its May 26, 2020 “ Or der on

Pl aintiffs ’ Supp lement to Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. ” Our writ will

issue only if the trial court fails t o comply.

It is fu rther ordered that real part ies in inter est Lamont Frawley and Mary K.

Frawley shall pay all of the costs of this proceedin g , for which let exec ution issue.SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s / Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack