alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### (A) Empire Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Charles Ingram et al., Respondents. (Fix & Spindelman for Strang, Wright, Combs, Wiser & Shaw.) (B) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Tangredi, Appellant. (Leonard H. Amdursky, Esq., for J. Richard Sardino, Esq.) (C) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Royce Alfred Perry, Appellant. (John P. Chwalek, Esq., for Edward J. Madden, Esq. Order entered April 16, 1962.) (D) The People of the State of New York v. Vincent A. Ciffa (Louis Russo, Esq., for John S. Fanning, Esq. Order entered April 25, 1962). (E) The People of the State of New York ex rel. Francis J. Higgins v. Walter H. Wilkins, as Warden of Attica Prison (Robert Hitchcock, Esq., for Anthony L. Sapienza, Esq. Order entered April 25, 1962). (F) The People of the State of New York v. Edward Barnes (Richard C. Birmingham, Esq., for Daniel J. Lynch, Esq.).

[In each action] Order of substitution of attorneys entered.
EXHIBIT 99.1









THE
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON



Officer’s
Certificate










March 20, 2023



MERRILL
LYNCH DEPOSITOR, INC.
One Bryant Park
4th Floor – Structured Credit Trading
New York, New York 10036



PREFERREDPLUS,
PPLUS TRUST AND INDEXPLUS CERTIFICATE



The
undersigned, Terrence White, Vice President of The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly The Bank of New York), a New York corporation
(the “Trustee”), hereby certifies in such capacity that, based on his knowledge, the Trustee has complied, in all
material respects, with all conditions and covenants applicable to the Trustee under the Standard Terms for Trust Agreements dated
February 20, 1998 between MERRILL LYNCH DEPOSITOR, INC., as depositor (the “Depositor”) and the Trustee, as successor
to United States Trust Company of New York, as trustee and securities intermediary (the “Securities Intermediary”),
in each case as amended by a series supplement between the Depositor, the Trustee and the Securities Intermediary for each trust
series listed in the attached schedule.



| | Very truly yours,
    The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly 
    The Bank of New York), as Trustee |       
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------
| | By:                                                                                                | /s/   
| |                                                                                                    | Name: 
| |                                                                                                    | Title:















SCHEDULE



PPLUS
Trust Series GSC-2

INDEXPLUS Trust Series 2003-1
§ 578.25 Site control. ( a ) *In general.* When grant funds will be used for acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, operating costs, or to provide supportive services, the recipient or subrecipient must demonstrate that it has site control within the time frame established in section § 578.21 before HUD will execute a grant agreement. This requirement does not apply to funds used for housing that will eventually be owned or controlled by the individuals or families served or for supportive services provided at sites not operated by the recipient or subrecipient.
( b ) *Evidence.* Acceptable evidence of site control is a deed or lease. If grant funds will be used for acquisition, acceptable evidence of site control will be a purchase agreement. The owner, lessee, and purchaser shown on these documents must be the selected applicant or intended subrecipient identified in the application for assistance.
( c ) *Tax credit projects.* ( 1 ) Applicants that plan to use the low-income housing tax credit authorized under 26 U.S.C. 42 to finance a project must prove to HUD's satisfaction that the applicant or subrecipient identified in the application is in control of the limited partnership or limited liability corporation that has a deed or lease for the project site. ( i ) To have control of the limited partnership, the applicant or subrecipient must be the general partner of the limited partnership or have a 51 percent controlling interest in that general partner.
( ii ) To have control of the limited liability company, the applicant or subrecipient must be the sole managing member.
( 2 ) If grant funds are to be used for acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction, the recipient or subrecipient must maintain control of the partnership or corporation and must ensure that the project is operated in compliance with law and regulation for 15 years from the date of initial occupancy or initial service provision. The partnership or corporation must own the project site throughout the 15-year period. If grant funds were not used for acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction, then the recipient or subrecipient must maintain control for the term of the grant agreement and any renewals thereof.
### §620b. Congressional intent; additional undesignated projects not precluded; construction not authorized within national park or monument

It is not the intention of Congress, in authorizing only those projects designated in section 620 of this title, and in authorizing priority in planning only those additional projects designated in section 620a of this title, to limit, restrict, or otherwise interfere with such comprehensive development as will provide for the consumptive use by States of the Upper Colorado River Basin of waters, the use of which is apportioned to the Upper Colorado River Basin by the Colorado River Compact and to each State thereof by the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, nor to preclude consideration and authorization by the Congress of additional projects under the allocations in the compacts as additional needs are indicated. It is the intention of Congress that no dam or reservoir constructed under the authorization of this chapter shall be within any national park or monument.

(Apr. 11, 1956, ch. 203, §3, 70 Stat. 107.)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alex RODIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-4896-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 30, 2007.

*34Barry D. Leiwant, Appeals Bureau, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY, for Appellant.

David S. Leibowitz, Assistant United States Attorney (Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney, David Raskin, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.

PRESENT: WALKER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges and RICHARD W. GOLDBERG * Judge.

*

 The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Alex Rodin appeals from a judgment of conviction entered in the District Court on September 3, 2004. Rodin pleaded guilty to making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and was found guilty by a jury of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and 18 U.S.C. § 371, respectively. Rodin’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

We have carefully reviewed the evidence presented at trial and the submissions to this Court on appeal. For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its July 13, 2004 Memorandum Order denying Rodin’s motion for a judgment of acquittal under Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(c) or for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, we conclude that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, the evidence — which includes e-mails containing Rodin’s first name and bank account information, testimony regarding the manner in which Rodin transferred money overseas, and multiple contradictory exculpatory statements made by Rodin — would permit a rational jury to find the essential elements of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. *See United States v. LaSpina,*299 F.3d 165, 180 (2d Cir.2002). The District Court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
<page> EXHIBIT 32.02



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




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Morgan Stanley
Cornerstone Fund IV L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
?Report?), I, Kevin Perry, Chief Financial Officer, Demeter
Management Corporation, the general partner of the
Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(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
Partnership.









By:   /s/ Kevin Perry

Name:		Kevin Perry
Title:	Chief Financial Officer

Date:		August 14, 2006
§ 3285.902 Moving manufactured home to location. It is recommended that the installation instructions indicate that the LAHJ be informed before moving the manufactured home to the site. It is also recommended that the installation instructions indicate that the manufactured home is not to be moved to the site until the site is prepared in accordance with subpart C of this part and when the utilities are available as required by the LAHJ. Examples of related areas that might be addressed in the installation instructions for meeting this recommendation include: ( a ) *Access for the transporter.* Before attempting to move a home, ensure that the transportation equipment and home can be routed to the installation site and that all special transportation permits required by the LAHJ have been obtained.
( b ) *Drainage structures.* Ditches and culverts used to drain surface runoff meet the requirements of the LAHJ and are considered in the overall site preparation.
### §891. Abandoned railroad lands; reentry

When at the time of such withdrawal as aforesaid, valid preemption or homestead claims existed upon any lands within the limits of any such grants which afterward were abandoned, and, under the decisions and rulings of the Land Department, were reentered by preemption or homestead claimants who have complied with the laws governing preemption or homestead entries, and shall make the proper proofs required under such laws, such entries shall be deemed valid, and patents shall issue therefor to the person entitled thereto.

(Apr. 21, 1876, ch. 72, §2, 19 Stat. 35.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out under section 1451 of this title.
#### Bogart Manufacturing Corporation, Appellant, v. Franklin Fibre Lamitex Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant. Russell Reinforced Plastics Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract, in which the defendant, Franklin Fibre Lamitex Corp., pleaded an affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction and also served a third-party complaint against Russell Reinforced Plastics Corporation as third-party defendant, the parties cross-appeal as follows from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 19, 1961 upon the oral decision of the court, after a nonjury trial with respect to said defense: (1) Plaintiff appeals from so much of the judgment as dismissed its complaint, with costs. (2) Defendant and third-party plaintiff appeals from so much of the judgment as dismissed its third-party complaint. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The complaint and third-party complaint were dismissed by the trial court upon the ground, in substance, that an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, whereby plaintiff agreed to and did pay defendant a certain amount in satisfaction of defendant’s claim against plaintiff under the contract, constituted an accord and satisfaction as a matter of law, barring plaintiff’s action against defendant for damages for breach of the same contract. In our opinion a question of fact was presented as to whether, when plaintiff agreed to and did pay defendant a sum in settlement of defendant’s claim, the parties also intended that plaintiff was thereby settling or releasing any claim which plaintiff might have against defendant (cf. *Moers*v. *Moers,*229 N. Y. 294, 300). The provision of the settlement agreement that on payment of the agreed sum the contract would be considered “ cancelled ” did not, as a matter of law, constitute a rescission of the contract *ab initio.*Whether defendant’s obligation under the contract was discharged by the subsequent agreement depends on the intention to be deduced from the cancellation agreement, construed in the light of the attendant circumstances (cf. *McCreery*v. *Day,*119 N. Y. 1, 5; *Mayor*v. *New York Refrigerating Constr. Co.,*146 N. Y. 210, 214-215; *Roe*v. *Conway,*74 N. Y. 201, 205; *Beck & Sons*v. *Danaher,*93 Misc. 537, 539, 540; *Hayes*v. *City of Nashville,*80 F. 641, 645, 646). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security

Defendant

 /

No. C 09-2668 MMC

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION”

FILED APRIL 7, 2010; DECLINING TO

DISCHARGE ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE; DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

In this action, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks judicial review of a decision of the

Social Security Administration. By order filed January 28, 2010, plaintiff was directed to file

a motion for summary judgment no later than March 12, 2010. Because plaintiff had not

filed a motion for summary judgment as of March 12, 2010, the Court, by order filed April 1,

2010, directed plaintiff to show cause, no later than April 23, 2010, why the above-titled

action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. In the April 1, 2010 order, the Court

stated that “[t]o show good cause, plaintiff must file his motion for summary judgment, along

with a declaration explaining why such motion was not filed within the time required by the

Court’s prior orders.” (See April 1, 2010 Order at 1:28 - 2:3.)

On April 7, 2010, plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion,” in which plaintiff states he

was unable to file a motion for summary judgment within the time required by the Court’s

Case 3:09-cv-02668-MMC Document 30 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

prior orders because he was in custody.

Plaintiff’s explanation is sufficient to explain why he did not file a motion for summary 

judgment on or before March 12, 2010. Plaintiff has not, however, filed a motion for

summary judgment, and, consequently, the Court declines to discharge the April 1, 2010

order to show cause.

Plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than April 23, 2010, his motion for

summary judgment. As was explained in the Court’s orders of January 28, 2010 and

February 25, 2010, plaintiff, in his motion for summary judgment, shall set forth all

arguments in support of his position that the administrative law judge’s decision of February

23, 2007 is erroneous. In particular, plaintiff must identify in his motion for summary

judgment what finding or findings included in the decision of February 23, 2007 are

erroneous, and set forth his argument as to why any such finding is erroneous.

If plaintiff fails to file a motion for summary judgment on or before April 23, 2010, the

Court will dismiss the action for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02668-MMC Document 30 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 245.100 Right of tenants to organize.

The tenants of a multifamily housing project covered under § 245.10 have the right to establish and operate a tenant organization for the purpose of addressing issues related to their living environment, which includes the terms and conditions of their tenancy as well as activities related to housing and community development.
### §31109. Payment of judgment or settlement

The proper accounting officer of the United States shall pay a final judgment, arbitration award, or settlement under this chapter on presentation of an authenticated copy. Payment shall be made from any money in the Treasury appropriated for the purpose.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §6(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1522.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 31109 | 46 App.:787. | Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 428, §7, 43 Stat. 1113. |

Section

Reference to an arbitration award is added for consistency with sections 30912 and 31108 of the revised title.
### §31e. Geologic mapping program 5-year plan

#### (a) In general

The Secretary, acting through the Director, shall, with the advice and review of the advisory committee, prepare a 5-year plan for the geologic mapping program.

#### (b) Requirements

The 5-year plan shall identify—

(1) overall priorities for the geologic mapping program; and

(2) implementation of the overall management structure and operation of the geologic mapping program, including—

(A) the role of the Survey in the capacity of overall management lead, including the responsibility for developing the national geologic mapping program that meets Federal needs while fostering State needs;

(B) the responsibilities of the State geological surveys, with emphasis on mechanisms that incorporate the needs, missions, capabilities, and requirements of the State geological surveys, into the nationwide geologic mapping program;

(C) mechanisms for identifying short- and long-term priorities for each component of the geologic mapping program, including—

(i) for the Federal component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to—

(I) Federal mission requirements for geologic map information;

(II) critical scientific problems that require geologic maps for their resolution; and

(III) shared Federal and State needs for geologic maps, in which joint Federal-State geologic mapping projects are in the national interest;

(ii) for the State component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to—

(I) specific intrastate needs for geologic map information; and

(II) interstate needs shared by adjacent States that have common requirements; and

(iii) for the education component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to requirements for geologic map information that are dictated by Federal and State mission requirements;

(D) a mechanism for adopting scientific and technical mapping standards for preparing and publishing general- and special-purpose geologic maps to—

(i) ensure uniformity of cartographic and scientific conventions; and

(ii) provide a basis for assessing the comparability and quality of map products; and

(E) a mechanism for monitoring the inventory of published and current mapping investigations nationwide to facilitate planning and information exchange and to avoid redundancy.

(Pub. L. 102–285, §6, as added Pub. L. 106–148, §6, Dec. 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1722.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 31e, Pub. L. 102–285, §6, May 18, 1992, 106 Stat. 170; Pub. L. 105–36, §3(d), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 1110, provided for the preparation of a geologic mapping program implementation plan, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 106–148, §6, Dec. 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1722.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                                  KEVCO, INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                   (in thousands, except per share amounts)
                                  (unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                     March 31,
                                                                               -------------------
                                                                                 1997       1996
                                                                               --------   --------
<S>                                                                            <C>         <C>
Primary earnings
   Net income                                                                  $  1,916   $  1,836 (1)

Shares
   Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                           6,809      4,395
   Conversion of options issued and outstanding                                     135         49
   Other shares                                                                      -         264 (2)
                                                                               --------   --------
   Weighted average number of common shares outstanding as adjusted               6,944      4,708
                                                                               ========   ========
Primary earnings per common share                                              $   0.28   $   0.39
                                                                               ========   ========
</TABLE> 

     Earnings per share is computed by dividing net income by the weighted
average number of common shares and common share equivalents outstanding. Common
share equivalents are computed using the treasury stock method. Under the
treasury stock method, market price is used to determine the number of common
share equivalents.

(1)  Net income for the three months ended March 31, 1996 has been adjusted to
     reflect a provision for income taxes, which gives effect to the change in
     the Company's income tax status to a C corporation concurrently with the
     consummation of the Company's initial public offering. (See footnote 5)

(2)  Amount reflects the assumed issuance of Common Stock at the initial public
     offering price per share, less underwriting discount, to generate
     sufficient cash to fund the distribution of undistributed earnings
     previously taxed at the stockholder level. (See footnote 5)
### Thematic mapper-derived mineral distribution maps of Idaho, Nevada, and western Montana

By: Gary L. Raines

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds185

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Version History:  **Version History**                            (txt)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
### §677. Repealed. Dec. 16, 1930, ch. 14, §1, 46 Stat. 1029

Section, R.S. §2356, related to credit on sales and payment of price.