alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(LOGO)ERNST& YOUNG LLP   1300 Huntington Building
                         925 Euclid Avenue
                         Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1405     Phone: 216 861 5000





                 Report on Management's Assertion on Compliance
               with Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth in the
            UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS

                        Report of Independent Accountants

Board of Directors
National City Mortgage Co.

We have examined  management's  assertion,  included in the accompanying  report
titled REPORT OF MANAGEMENT, that National City Mortgage Co. (NCM) complied with
the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS (USAP) during
the year ended December 31, 1997. Management is responsible for NCM's compliance
with  those  requirements.  Our  responsibility  is to  express  an  opinion  on
management's assertions about NCM's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  NCM's  compliance  with  those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on NCM's
compliance with specified requirements.

In  our  opinion,   management's   assertion,   that  NCM   complied   with  the
aforementioned  requirements  during the year ended December 31, 1997, is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

                                             Ernst & Young LLP
                                             /s/Ernst & Young LLP




January 28, 1998

       Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.
###### Editorial Note on Part 141

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 141 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93019, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 141.55 Single entry summary for shipments arriving under one transportation entry.

Except for merchandise subject to a quantitative or tariff-rate quota, port directors are authorized to accept one entry summary for consumption or for warehouse for the entire quantity of merchandise covered by an entry for immediate transportation after the arrival of any part of the merchandise at the port of destination or at a place of deposit outside the port as may be authorized in accordance with § 18.11(c) of this chapter.

[T.D. 79-221, 44 FR 46817, Aug. 9, 1979]
#### § 24.73 Miscellaneous claims.

Every claim of whatever nature arising under the Customs laws which is not otherwise provided for shall be forwarded directly to Headquarters, U.S. Customs Service, together with all supporting documents and information available.
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF TEHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Robert Spivak, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Grill Concepts, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Grill Concepts, Inc.








By:
/s/ Robert SpivakName: Robert SpivakTitle: Chief Executive OfficerNovember 9, 2004
#### Guynn *v.*City and County of Denver.

(20 P. [2d] 1118)

Decided April 3, 1933.

Mr. Samuel D. Menin, Mr. D. O. Plummer, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. James D. Parriott, Mr. Frederick P. Cranston, Mr. Harry A. Feder, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Per Curiam.

Guynn was found guilty of vagrancy in police court and also on appeal to the county court. He was sentenced to jail and brings tbe case here for review. Following defendant’s brief on application for supersedeas, counsel for tbe city filed a written consent that tbe judgment be reversed and tbe cause remanded for a new trial. It amounts to a confession of error, but Guynn objects to any reversal except with instructions to dismiss tbe action on tbe ground that tbe evidence discloses that be is not guilty of tbe offense charged. Our examination of the record convinces us that this proposition presents an open question. Tbe judgment therefore will be reversed and tbe cause remanded for a new trial.
#### In the Matter of Laurence E. Prendergast et al., Respondents, against Board of Education of the City of New York et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
### SUBCHAPTER VI—ALASKA OIL PROVISO
NRC NEWS

 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-01-049 December 10, 2001

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov 

 

PREHEARING CONFERENCE SCHEDULED ON MCGUIRE 

AND CATAWBA NUCLEAR PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL

 A Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will hold a prehearing

conference on December 18 and 19 in Charlotte, North Carolina, in a proceeding involving an

application to renew the operating licenses for both nuclear units at the McGuire nuclear power plant

in North Carolina and both nuclear units at the Catawba nuclear power plant in South Carolina.

 Duke Energy Corporation is seeking the license renewals, which would permit the units to operate

an additional 20 years beyond their current license expiration dates. McGuire Units 1 and 2, and

Catawba Units 1 and 2 currently have operating licenses set to expire in 2021, 2023, 2024, and 2026,

respectively. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service and the Blue Ridge Environmental

Defense League have petitioned to intervene in the license renewal proceeding.

 At the conference, the Licensing Board will hear arguments on the standing of the petitioners to

participate in the proceeding and the admissibility of their contentions challenging various aspects of

the renewal application. The Board will issue its decision on standing and contentions in late January

2002.

 The Licensing Board is made up of Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young, Chair; and

Administrative Judges Dr. Charles N. Kelber and Lester S. Rubenstein.

 The conference will be held on December 18 and 19, in Courtroom 2 of the U.S. Courthouse, 401

W. Trade Street, Charlotte, North Carolina, commencing at 9:00 a.m. each morning and continuing

into the evening as required.

###
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Arthur J. Kane, Inc., Appellant, and Kluger, Inc., Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 903.]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23954]



[[Page 62436]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


University of Pennsylvania; Notice of Decision on Application for 
Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscope

    This decision is made pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Suite 4100W, Franklin Court Building, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 04-017. Applicant: University of Pennsylvania, 
Philadelphia, PA. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Technai G\2\ 
TWIN bioTWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Japan. Intended Use: See 
notice at FR 69, 60395, October 8,2004. Order Date: January 20, 2004.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as the instrument is intended to be used, was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time the instrument was 
ordered. Reasons: The foreign instrument is a conventional transmission 
electron microscope (CTEM) and is intended for research or scientific 
educational uses requiring a CTEM. We know of no CTEM, or any other 
instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in 
the United States either at the time of order of the instrument OR at 
the time of receipt of the application by U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection.

Gerald A. Zerdy,
Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 04-23954 Filed 10-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington TX 76011-8064

No. IV-00-16 May 18, 2000

CONTACT: Breck Henderson

Phone: 817-860-8128

Cellular: 817-917-1227

e-mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC INSPECTION TEAM SENT TO DIABLO CANYON

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent a Special Inspection Team to Diablo Canyon, a

nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo, California, to gather information on the electrical fire and

automatic reactor trip that occurred on Monday.

The team began work yesterday and is expected to spend about one week onsite. A team report

will be issued about 30 days after completion of the inspection.

Operators at Diablo Canyon declared a Notice of Unusual Event, the lowest emergency action

level in the NRC required emergency response plan for nuclear reactors, early Monday morning when

a fault in electrical cabling led to a fire, a protective shutdown of the main generator and an automatic

reactor shutdown. Offsite electric power was restored to safety-related equipment and the Notice of

Unusual Event was terminated at 9:59 a.m. PDT on Tuesday. The NRC closely monitored conditions

at Diablo Canyon throughout the event.

Items the two-man inspection team will examine include the sequence of events, the licensee’s

root cause determination and corrective actions, effectiveness of the fire brigade notification and

response, timeliness of the emergency classification and notifications, and whether there are lessons to

be learned that could benefit other nuclear plants.

###
#### § 204.2 Investigations.

The Commission will make an investigation for the purposes of section 22(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended, only upon request of the President.[2]

[27 FR 12121, Dec. 7, 1962, as amended at 68 FR 32977, June 3, 2003]

###### Footnotes -
  204.2

[2] Applications for investigations for the purposes of section 22 of this Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended, must be filed with the Secretary of Agriculture (Executive Order 7233).
472 P.2d 651

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor TAFOYA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 483.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

July 2, 1970.

Jacob Carian, and William C. Bowers, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.

James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Kenneth A. Cullen, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff appellee.

OPINION

WOOD, Judge.

Defendant moved for post-conviction relief under § 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp.1969). The claims made in the motion were denied without a hearing. We do not review those claims because none stated a basis for post-conviction relief; defendant does not contend otherwise. Defendant asserts the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel to represent him in connection with the motion and in denying the motion without a hearing. Since the motion stated no basis for relief, appointment of counsel was not required, State v. Tapia, 80 N.M. 477, 457 P.2d 996 (Ct.App.1969), and the trial court properly denied the motion without a hearing. Nance v. State, 80 N.M. 123, 452 P.2d 192 (Ct.App.1969).

Defendant also makes claims concerning an asserted waiver of proof and double jeopardy. They are raised for the first time in the appeal. Not having been presented to the trial court they will not be considered. State v. Lujan, 79 N.M. 525, 445 P.2d 749 (Ct.App.1968); State v. Sharp, 79 N.M. 498, 445 P.2d 101 (Ct.App.1968); State v. Knerr, 79 N.M. 133, 440 P.2d 808 (Ct.App.1968).

The order denying relief is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

SPIESS, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur.
§ 191.174 Derivatives manufactured under 19 U.S.C. 1313(a) or (b). When the basis for drawback under 19 U.S.C. 1313(p) is petroleum derivatives which were manufactured or produced in the United States and qualify for drawback under the manufacturing drawback law (19 U.S.C. 1313(a) or (b)), the requirements for drawback are as follows: ( a ) *Merchandise.* The merchandise which is the basis for drawback under 19 U.S.C. 1313(p) must: ( 1 ) Have been manufactured or produced as described in 19 U.S.C. 1313(a) or (b) from crude petroleum or a petroleum derivative; and
( 2 ) Be a “qualified article” as defined in § 191.172(a) of this subpart;
( b ) *Exported article.* The exported article on which drawback is claimed must be an “exported article” as defined in § 191.172(c) of this subpart;
( c ) *Exporter.* The exporter of the exported article must have either: ( 1 ) Manufactured or produced the qualified article in at least the quantity of the exported article; or
( 2 ) Purchased or exchanged (directly or indirectly) from a manufacturer or producer described in 19 U.S.C. 1313(a) or (b) the qualified article in at least the quantity of the exported article;
( d ) *Manufacture in specific facility.* The qualified article must have been manufactured or produced in a specific petroleum refinery or production facility which must be identified;
( e ) *Time of export.* The exported article must be exported either: ( 1 ) During the period provided for in the manufacturer's or producer's specific manufacturing drawback ruling (see § 191.8 of this part) in which the qualified article is manufactured or produced; or
( 2 ) Within 180 days after the close of the period in which the qualified article is manufactured or produced; and
( f ) *Amount of drawback.* The amount of drawback payable may not exceed the amount of drawback which would be attributable to the article manufactured or produced under 19 U.S.C. 1313(a) or (b) which serves as the basis for drawback.
Exhibit 10-25



AMENDMENT NO. 1
to
2000 STOCK OPTION PLAN
of
ENERGY EAST CORPORATION





The 2000 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") of Energy East Corporation is hereby amended as follows:

1.          Article V.C. of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

In the event of any change in corporate capitalization (including, but not limited to, a change in the number of shares of Common Stock outstanding), such as a stock split or a corporate transaction, such as any merger, consolidation, separation,
including a spin-off, or other distribution of stock or property of the Company, any reorganization (whether or not such reorganization comes within the definition of such term in Section 368 of the Code) or any partial or complete liquidation of the
Company, the Committee shall cause there to be made such adjustments as it determines, in its sole discretion, to be necessary or appropriate, to the number and kind of shares that may be issued under the Plan, or to any individual under the Plan, and to
the number and kind of shares or other property subject to and  the exercise price (if applicable) of any then outstanding Awards, and such adjustments shall be conclusive and binding for all purposes of the Plan.  If deemed necessary or appropriate by
the Committee, provision may be made for the payment to a Participant who has an outstanding Option or other Award of a cash amount in cancellation of such Award equal to its then-value, as determined by the Committee; provided, that if such event takes
place in connection with a Change in Control such value shall be based on the value received by holders of the outstanding Common Stock in connection with the Change of Control. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the number of shares subject to any Award
shall always be a whole number.
### §224. Payments for oil or gas taken prior to application for lease

Until the permittee shall apply for lease to the one quarter of the permit area heretofore provided for he shall pay to the United States 20 per centum of the gross value of all oil or gas secured by him from the lands embraced within his permit and sold or otherwise disposed of or held by him for sale or other disposition.

(Feb. 25, 1920, ch. 85, §15, 41 Stat. 442.)
§ 162.43 Appraisement. ( a ) *Property under seizure and subject to forfeiture.* Seized property shall be appraised as required by section 606, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1606). The term “domestic value” as used therein shall mean the price at which such or similar property is freely offered for sale at the time and place of appraisement, in the same quantity or quantities as seized, and in the ordinary course of trade. If there is no market for the seized property at the place of appraisement, such value in the principal market nearest to the place of appraisement shall be reported.
( b ) *Property not under seizure.* The basis for a claim for forfeiture value or for an assessment of a penalty relating to the forfeiture value of property not under seizure is the domestic value as defined in paragraph (a) of this section, except that the value shall be fixed as of the date of the violation. In the case of entered merchandise, the date of the violation shall be the date of the entry, or the date of the filing of the document, or the commission of the act forming the basis of the claim, whichever is later.
[T.D. 72-211, 37 FR 16488, Aug. 15, 1972, as amended by T.D. 79-160, 44 FR 31957, June 4, 1979; T.D. 85-123, 50 FR 29956, July 23, 1985]
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington TX 76011-8064

No. IV-01-016 May 2, 2001

CONTACT: Breck Henderson

Phone: 817-860-8128

Cellular: 817-917-1227

e-mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC TO DISCUSS INSPECTION PROGRAM

WITH RADIOGRAPHY INDUSTRY AT PUBLIC FORUM IN LAFAYETTE

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public forum in Lafayette, La., with

representatives of the radiography and well logging industries and other state and federal agencies to

discuss the NRC safety inspection program for offshore activities.

The forum, which is open to interested members of the public, will be held on Thursday,

May 10, beginning at 9 a.m. at the Hilton Hotel, 1521 West Pinhook Road, Lafayette.

Prior to April 26 of last year the State of Louisiana maintained an agreement with NRC to

perform inspections in offshore waters adjacent to Louisiana on behalf of the NRC. However, in a

letter from Louisiana Governor M. J. “Mike” Foster, Jr., dated March 22, 2000, the State requested

termination of this agreement. Accordingly, the NRC has resumed inspecting industrial radiography

and well logging operations on offshore platforms and lay barges in federal waters in the Gulf of

Mexico. The agency has teamed with the Materials Management Service, a branch of the U.S.

Department of the Interior, for helicopter transportation of inspectors to off shore platforms and barges

for their inspections.

To open the forum NRC representatives will make short presentations on the inspection and

enforcement program. The remainder of the time will be available for questions and discussion among

those in attendance of any issues and challenges that implementing NRC safety regulations presents.

###
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62707-62708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23975]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Initial Review 
Group. Subcommittee A--Cancer Centers.
    Date: December 10, 2004.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Marriott Conference Centers, 5701 Marinelli Road, North 
Bethesda, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: David E. Maslow, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of 
Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive 
Blvd., Room 8117, Bethesda, MD 20892-7405, (301) 496-2330.



[[Page 62708]]


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Causes and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 29, 2004.
Laverne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-23975 Filed 10-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Editorial Note on Part 151
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93021, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 151.76 Grading of wool. ( a ) *Examination for grade.* The Center director shall cause wool dutiable at a rate per clean kilogram to be examined for grade. The standards for determining grades of wool shall be those which are established from time to time by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to law and which are in effect on the date of importation of the wool, as provided by Chapter 51, Additional U.S. Note 2, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202).
( b ) *Notification to importer.* If classification of the wool at the grade or grades determined on the basis of the examination will result in the assessment of duty at a rate higher than the rate provided for wool of the grade stated in the entry, the Center director shall promptly notify the importer by mail.
( c ) *Importer's request for reexamination.* If the importer is dissatisfied with the port director's or Center director's findings as to the grade or grades of the wool, made before January 19, 2017, or the Center director's findings as to the grade or grades of wool made on or after January 19, 2017, he may, within 14 calendar days after the date of mailing of the notice of the port director's or Center director's findings, file in duplicate a written request with the Center director for another determination of grade or grades, stating the reason for the request. Notice of the Center director's findings on the basis of the reexamination of the wool shall be mailed to the importer.
[T.D. 73-175, 38 FR 17470, July 2, 1973, as amended by T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51269, Dec. 21, 1988; CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93021, Dec. 20, 2016]