alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jonathan E. Vick et al., Respondents, v Richard Albert et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[824 NYS2d 270]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered January 11, 2006, which, upon the grant of *332plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award and the denial of defendants-appellants’ cross motion to vacate the award, confirmed the award, and awarded plaintiffs the total sum of $732,485.40 against defendant Richard Albert, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

It was defendants-appellants’ burden on their cross motion to demonstrate the existence of a statutorily enumerated ground warranting vacatur of the challenged arbitration award *(see*CPLR 7511), and the lack of a record permitting meaningful review alone is fatal to their attempt to carry that burden *(see Commonwealth Assoc. v Letsos,*40 F Supp 2d 170 [SD NY 1999]; *and see Matter of Military Contrs. [Marrano/Marc Equity Corp.],*2 AD3d 1382 [2003]). In any event, the award was properly confirmed since, so far as can be ascertained from the existing record, any alleged errors by the arbitrator do not constitute grounds for vacatur *(see Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc.,*6 NY3d 471 [2006], *cert dismissed*— US —, 127 S Ct 34 [2006]). The record shows that defendants had a full and fair opportunity to present their evidence and to be heard on all of the issues.

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
### §921a. Art. 121a. Fraudulent use of credit cards, debit cards, and other access devices

(a) In General.—Any person subject to this chapter who, knowingly and with intent to defraud, uses—

(1) a stolen credit card, debit card, or other access device;

(2) a revoked, cancelled, or otherwise invalid credit card, debit card, or other access device; or

(3) a credit card, debit card, or other access device without the authorization of a person whose authorization is required for such use;

to obtain money, property, services, or anything else of value shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Access Device Defined.—In this section (article), the term "access device" has the meaning given that term in section 1029 of title 18.

(Added Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, §5432, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2951.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.
#### Helen F. Krause, Executrix, et al. *v.*Bridgeport Hospital

*Arnold J. Bai,*for the appellee (defendant).

*Helen F. Krause,*pro se, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Argued February 5

decided February 5, 1974

The defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.
# C_2007082EN.01002805.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/28

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-326/06) (1)

1

(2007/C 82/61)

Language of the case: Spanish

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

1

---
#### §§ 720.112-720.129 [Reserved]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10252 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CIPRIANO LOPEZ-CASTANEDA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:02-CR-00286-ALL-R

-------------------- Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Cipriano Lopez-Castaneda appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Lopez-Castaneda contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Lopez-Castaneda maintains thatNo. 03-10252 -2- he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Lopez-Castaneda acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### Frank McGuirk, Respondent, v. Carsten Offerman Coal Company, Appellant.

— Judgment and order of the Municipal, Court affirmed, with costs.- ' No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Rich, JJ., concurred.
### §308. Debtor reporting requirements

(a) For purposes of this section, the term "profitability" means, with respect to a debtor, the amount of money that the debtor has earned or lost during current and recent fiscal periods.

(b) A debtor in a small business case shall file periodic financial and other reports containing information including—

(1) the debtor's profitability;

(2) reasonable approximations of the debtor's projected cash receipts and cash disbursements over a reasonable period;

(3) comparisons of actual cash receipts and disbursements with projections in prior reports;

(4) whether the debtor is—

(A) in compliance in all material respects with postpetition requirements imposed by this title and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure; and

(B) timely filing tax returns and other required government filings and paying taxes and other administrative expenses when due;

(5) if the debtor is not in compliance with the requirements referred to in paragraph (4)(A) or filing tax returns and other required government filings and making the payments referred to in paragraph (4)(B), what the failures are and how, at what cost, and when the debtor intends to remedy such failures; and

(6) such other matters as are in the best interests of the debtor and creditors, and in the public interest in fair and efficient procedures under chapter 11 of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 109–8, title IV, §434(a)(1), Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 111; amended Pub. L. 111–327, §2(a)(10), Dec. 22, 2010, 124 Stat. 3558.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, referred to in subsec. (b)(4)(A), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

#### Amendments

2010—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 111–327, §2(a)(10)(A), substituted "debtor in a small business case" for "small business debtor" in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (b)(4) to (6). Pub. L. 111–327, §2(a)(10)(B), struck out subpar. (A) designation before "whether the debtor" in par. (4) and redesignated cls. (i) and (ii) of former subpar. (A) as subpars. (A) and (B), respectively, redesignated former subpars. (B) and (C) of par. (4) as pars. (5) and (6), respectively, and, in par. (5), substituted "paragraph (4)(A)" for "subparagraph (A)(i)" and "paragraph (4)(B)" for "subparagraph (A)(ii)".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 109–8, title IV, §434(b), Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 111, provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) [enacting this section] shall take effect 60 days after the date on which rules are prescribed under section 2075 of title 28, United States Code, to establish forms to be used to comply with section 308 of title 11, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) [See Bankruptcy Form No. 25C, eff. Dec. 1, 2008]."
| (logo) NTS NATIONAL

TAX SEARCH, LLC | 130 S. Jefferson, Suite 300

Chicago, IL 60661

312-233-6440 |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OFCOMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’SREGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

For the calendar year endingDecember 31, 2016, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for **WellsFargo Bank** (the “Servicer”).

 

National Tax Search, LLC(“NTS”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31,2016 and for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the“Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the“CFR”). NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS bythe Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Onlyservicing criteria 1122 (d) (l)(ii), 1122 (d)1(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the“Applicable Servicing Criteria”) are applicable to the activitiesNTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS hasdetermined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) ofthe SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs withrespect to the transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered bythis report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer usingNTS’s TaxQ system (the “Platform Transactions”).

 

NTS, as a vendor, has assessedits compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Periodand has concluded that NTS has complied, in all material respects, with theApplicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2016 and for the ReportingPeriod with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

 

Plante& Moran, PLLC, an independentregistered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on theassessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December31, 2016 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

 

National Tax Search, LLC, asVendor to Servicer

 

 

/s/ Lori D. Eshoo

Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO 

January 23, 2017
Exhibit 31.1
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, David Guthrie, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Consolidated Energy, Inc. for the
period ending March 31, 2005;

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 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
the small business issuer'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 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: May 16, 2005

/s/David Guthrie
David Guthrie, President (Principal Executive Officer)
# C_2007001EN.01000201.xml

| 4.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 1/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 1/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

2 January 2007

(2007/C 1/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3270 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 157,76 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4566 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67350 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0245 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6104 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 93,86 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2080 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5782 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,525 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 251,44 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6984 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8287 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,3829 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 34,383 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8758 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6694 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5452 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3273 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8760 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0308 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 228,34 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,2299 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,3574 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3625 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 926,41 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6843 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,890 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,8760 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,462 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3270

JPY

Japanese yen

157,76

DKK

Danish krone

7,4566

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67350

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0245

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6104

ISK

Iceland króna

93,86

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2080

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5782

CZK

Czech koruna

27,525

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

251,44

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6984

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8287

RON

Romanian leu

3,3829

SKK

Slovak koruna

34,383

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8758

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6694

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5452

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3273

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8760

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0308

KRW

South Korean won

1 228,34

ZAR

South African rand

9,2299

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,3574

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3625

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 926,41

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6843

PHP

Philippine peso

64,890

RUB

Russian rouble

34,8760

THB

Thai baht

47,462

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Editorial Note on Part 23
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 23 appear at 79 FR 27190, May 13, 2014.

§ 23.132 How is a determination of “good cause” to depart from the placement preferences made? ( a ) If any party asserts that good cause not to follow the placement preferences exists, the reasons for that belief or assertion must be stated orally on the record or provided in writing to the parties to the child-custody proceeding and the court.
( b ) The party seeking departure from the placement preferences should bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that there is “good cause” to depart from the placement preferences.
( c ) A court's determination of good cause to depart from the placement preferences must be made on the record or in writing and should be based on one or more of the following considerations: ( 1 ) The request of one or both of the Indian child's parents, if they attest that they have reviewed the placement options, if any, that comply with the order of preference;
( 2 ) The request of the child, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to understand the decision that is being made;
( 3 ) The presence of a sibling attachment that can be maintained only through a particular placement;
( 4 ) The extraordinary physical, mental, or emotional needs of the Indian child, such as specialized treatment services that may be unavailable in the community where families who meet the placement preferences live;
( 5 ) The unavailability of a suitable placement after a determination by the court that a diligent search was conducted to find suitable placements meeting the preference criteria, but none has been located. For purposes of this analysis, the standards for determining whether a placement is unavailable must conform to the prevailing social and cultural standards of the Indian community in which the Indian child's parent or extended family resides or with which the Indian child's parent or extended family members maintain social and cultural ties.
( d ) A placement may not depart from the preferences based on the socioeconomic status of any placement relative to another placement.
( e ) A placement may not depart from the preferences based solely on ordinary bonding or attachment that flowed from time spent in a non-preferred placement that was made in violation of ICWA.
§ 158.301 Administering CTMS and Managing the DHS-CS. ( a ) The Secretary or designee is responsible for administering CTMS and managing the DHS-CS, including establishing and maintaining CTMS policy.
( b ) The Cybersecurity Talent Management Board (CTMB) is responsible for assisting the Secretary or designee in administering CTMS and managing the DHS-CS.
( c ) The Secretary or designee, with assistance from the CTMB, administers CTMS and manages the DHS-CS based on: ( 1 ) Talent management principles described in § 158.303;
( 2 ) Strategic talent priorities described in § 158.304; and
( 3 ) DHS-CS core values described in § 158.305.
### §2213. Regulation and examination

The corporations organized under this part shall be institutions of the Farm Credit System and shall be subject to the same regulation and examination by the Farm Credit Administration as are the organizing bank or banks under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 92–181, title IV, §4.27, as added Pub. L. 96–592, title IV, §404, Dec. 24, 1980, 94 Stat. 3447; amended Pub. L. 99–205, title II, §205(f)(10), Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1706; Pub. L. 100–233, title VIII, §802(t), Jan. 6, 1988, 101 Stat. 1712.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–233 substituted "Regulation" for "Supervision" in section catchline.

1985—Pub. L. 99–205 substituted "regulation" for "supervision".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1985 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–205 effective thirty days after Dec. 23, 1985, see section 401 of Pub. L. 99–205, set out as a note under section 2001 of this title.
#### § 211.49 Restrictions on operations.

Leases issued under the provisions of the regulations in this part shall be subject to such restrictions as to time or times for well operations and production from any leased premises as the Secretary judges may be necessary or proper for the protection of the natural resources of the leased land and in the interest of the lessor.
§ 522.6 Disapproval of a class II ordinance. ( a ) No later than 90 days after a tribe submits an ordinance for approval under § 522.2, the Chair may disapprove an ordinance if it determines that a tribe failed to comply with the requirements of § 522.2 or § 522.5(b).
( b ) The Chair shall notify a tribe of its right to appeal under part 582 of this chapter. A disapproval shall be effective immediately unless appealed under part 582 of this chapter.
H. Res. 598

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

September 28, 2000.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and

water development for the fiscal year ending September 30,

2001, and for other purposes. All points of order against the

conference report and against its consideration are waived.

The conference report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.