alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
  WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

---

FORM 8-K

---

CURRENT REPORTPURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE
  SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): February 6, 2006

|MS Structured Asset Corp.                         
|--------------------------------------------------
|                                                  
|(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

|Delaware                                        | 333-101155                | 13-4026700                        
|----------------------------------------------- | ------------------------- | ----------------------------------
|                                               
|(State or Other Jurisdiction  of Incorporation) | (Commission File  Number) | (IRS Employer  Identification No.)



|1585 Broadway, Second Floor  New York, New York  Attention: Madhu Philips | 10036     
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------
|                                                                         
|(Address of Principal Executive Offices)                                  | (Zip Code)

Registrants telephone number, including area code: 212-761-2520

|Not Applicable                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                             
|(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)





---







Section 8Other Events



| | Item 8.01 | Other Events
| | --------- | ------------



On February 2, 2006, the Company issued a press release regarding the occurrence of a Trust Wind-Up Event under the terms of the Trust Agreement governing SATURNS Trust No. 2004-7, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 99.1 hereto.





| |  | 
| |  | 





---







SIGNATURES



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereto duly authorized.



Date: February 6, 2006

MS STRUCTURED ASSET CORP.

(Registrant)

By: /s/ Madhu Philips

Name:     Madhu Philips
Title:     Vice President





| |  | 
| |  | 





---







EXHIBIT INDEX

|Exhibit 99.1 | Press release, dated February 2, 2006
|------------ | -------------------------------------







| |  | 
| |  | 





---
Order filed May 13, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00725

- CR

____________ EX PARTE BRENT JUSTI CE , Appellant

On Appeal from the 176th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1385768



### O R D E R

Th is appeal arises from an order denying appellant’s application for a pre

- trial writ of habeas corpus. On February 29, 2016, an appeal from appellant’s conviction
in this trial court cause number was assigned to this court ( Appeal Number 14

- 16

- 00153

- CR )

. Thus it appears that appellant’s habeas claim is moot.
Accordingly, t he Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record in this appeal on or before May 23, 2016 , containing the judgment of conviction entered in Bre nt Justice v. The State of Texas (176 th District Court, Harris County, Trial Court Cause No. 1385768 ).

PER CURIAM
### §136t. Delegation and cooperation

#### (a) Delegation

All authority vested in the Administrator by virtue of the provisions of this subchapter may with like force and effect be executed by such employees of the Environmental Protection Agency as the Administrator may designate for the purpose.

#### (b) Cooperation

The Administrator shall cooperate with Department of Agriculture, any other Federal agency, and any appropriate agency of any State or any political subdivision thereof, in carrying out the provisions of this subchapter, and in securing uniformity of regulations.

(June 25, 1947, ch. 125, §22, as added Pub. L. 92–516, §2, Oct. 21, 1972, 86 Stat. 996.)

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

#### Effective Date

For effective date of section, see section 4 of Pub. L. 92–516, set out as a note under section 136 of this title.
NUMBER 13-14-00752-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JOAQUIN DANIEL QUINTERO, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE.

On appeal from the 24th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on its own motion because parts of the reporter’s 

record in this appeal contains sensitive and confidential information. Volume 9 of the 

reporter’s record was filed as sealed; however, Volume 8, which was not sealed, also 

contains confidential data. Given the nature of this case and its current status on appeal, 

the Court enters the following order regarding the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 
2

34.

This Court ORDERS Volume 8 and Volume 9 of the reporter’s record in this cause 

to be SEALED. Any access to the record shall be determined by written motion filed with 

this Court, with appropriate notice to the parties, and upon a showing of good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

30th day of June, 2015.
#### In re MORRISON. In the matter of the application of George H. Morrison to be restored to practice as an attorney and counselor at law, under section 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 11, 1903.)

No opinion. Motion denied.
No. 8005.

#### Rissler et al. *v.*Keller.

(Decided January 19, 1904.)

Error to Circuit Court of Richland county.

*Messrs. Twitchell &*Hartman, for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Douglass & Mengert,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | Registration
 Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-45348, 33-75466, 33-88826, 333-87153, 333-89308 and
 333-123712) pertaining to the 2005 Equity Compensation Incentive Plan, 1999
 Stock Option Plan and 1994 Stock Option Plan of Enzo Biochem, Inc.;

of our report dated October 14, 2009, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Enzo Biochem, Inc., and our report dated
October 14, 2009, with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Enzo Biochem, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) of Enzo Biochem, Inc.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Melville, New York 
October 14, 2009

---
#### LEE et al. v. CALLAHAN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Injury to Animal—Evidence of Value—Sufficiency.

In an action for a negligent injury to a horse, the estimate of one plaintiff, who does not appear to have ever bought an animal, and a statement of the other plaintiff as to what he paid for the horse a year and a half before, with an admission that he does not know its market value, are insufficient to sustain a finding as to its value.

2. Same—Manner of Raisins Objection.

Defendant’s motion, at the close of the case, to dismiss the complaint for failure to show facts constituting the cause of action, is sufficient to raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a finding of the value of the animal for injury to which suit is brought.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District.

Action by Irving H. Lee and James M. Gale, doing business under the firm name of the West End Delivery Company, against William H. Callahan and Frank McDermott, doing business under the firm name of the O. K. Bottling Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

James E. Smith, for appellants.

Morris Kamber, for respondents.

*168MacLEAN, J.

In this action, brought “for damages arising out of negligence,” the plaintiffs adduced evidence to show, among other things, that the leg of their horse was broken in a collision between their vehicle and that of the defendants. They recovered judgment for their loss, in which an important item was the value of the horse, as to which no evidence was given, except the statement by one of the plaintiffs who does not appear to have ever bought an animal, and of the other that he had paid $65 for it a year and a half before, and that he did not know what was its market value. Much of the evidence might or should have been excluded upon proper objection. The defendants’ motion, however, at the close of the case, to dismiss the complaint for failure to show facts constituting a cause of action, is sufficient to require reversal of the judgment founded upon an arbitrary judicial estimation of the value of the horse.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 54 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 54

  To prohibit the creation of an immigration-related registry program 
  that classifies people on the basis of religion, race, age, gender, 
        ethnicity, national origin, nationality, or citizenship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 5, 2017

   Mr. Booker (for himself, Ms. Warren, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Markey, Mrs. 
Murray, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Hirono, and Mr. Wyden) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the creation of an immigration-related registry program 
  that classifies people on the basis of religion, race, age, gender, 
        ethnicity, national origin, nationality, or citizenship.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLES.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protect American Families from 
Unnecessary Registration and Deportation Act of 2017'' or the ``Protect 
American Families Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN IMMIGRATION-RELATED REGISTRY PROGRAMS.

    (a) Prohibition.--Subject to subsection (b) and notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, including sections 263, 265, and 266 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1303, 1305, and 1306)--
            (1) the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of 
        Justice, or any other Federal department may not create or 
        implement a law enforcement or national security program that 
        requires, or has the effect of causing, people to register or 
        check in on the basis of religion, race, age, gender, 
        ethnicity, national origin, nationality, or citizenship; and
            (2) consistent with the prohibition under paragraph (1), no 
        Federal funds may be used to create or implement an immigration 
        registry or check-in program.
    (b) Inapplicability to Certain Federal Programs.--The prohibitions 
under subsection (a) shall not apply to any Federal program that--
            (1) merely collects and compiles data about aliens entering 
        or exiting the United States; or
            (2) issues visas, grants United States citizenship, confers 
        an immigration benefit to nationals of a foreign country, or 
        temporarily or permanently protects noncitizens from removal.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 37.505 What resources are available to assist me during the pre-award business evaluation?

Administrative agreements officers of the Defense Contract Management Agency and the Office of Naval Research can share lessons learned from administering other TIAs. Program officials can be a source of information when you are determining the reasonableness of proposed funding (*e.g.,* on labor rates, as discussed in § 37.520) or establishing observable and verifiable technical milestones for payments (*see* § 37.575). Auditors at the Defense Contract Audit Agency can act in an advisory capacity to help you determine the reasonableness of proposed amounts, including values of in-kind contributions toward cost sharing.
##### 



(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 R.H. Donnelley
Corporation as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ David C. Swanson
    
    
    
    /s/ Steven M. BlondyDavid C. Swanson 
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Steven M. Blondy
Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial OfficerOctober 26, 2007
    
    
    
    October 26, 2007
  53
June 20, 1960

#### Frank Castaldo, Respondent, v. Transportation Vehicles, Inc., Appellant.

Motion referred to the court that rendered the decision. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur. Motion to amend the decision of this -court, dated May 9,1960, granted. The decision is amended: (1) by striking out the provision that, pursuant to statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 480), interest on the award of $22,500 shall be computed from the date of the entry of the order entered on such decision; and (2) -by substituting therefor a provision that interest on such award shall be computed from December 18, 1958, the date of entry of the original judgment. Beldoek, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Mildred Porteck, Respondent, and Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant.

Order, entered on October 24, 1962, denying respondent-appellant’s motion to stay arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant; the matter is remanded for a hearing upon the issues of coverage raised by respondent-appellant; and arbitration is stayed pending determination of such issues. As petitioner-respondent’s notice of intention to arbitrate fails to meet the requirements of subdivision 2 of section 1458 of the Civil Practice Act, the 10-day limitation period therein provided is inapplicable *(Matter of Double E Food Markets*v. *Beatson,*18 A D 2d 976; and, see, CPLR, § 7503, subd. [e]). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### William O’Neill et al., Plaintiffs, v. Samuel Zanghi et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. (Action No. 1.) Edward Dixon, Respondent, v. Village of Pawling et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. (Action No. 2.)

In two negligence actions to recover damages for injury to person and property arising out of the collision between an automobile and an ambulance, Action No. 1 being a consolidated action pending in the Supreme Court, Putnam County, originally commenced as separate actions by William O’Neill, the owner and operator of the automobile, and by Samuel Zanghi, the operator of the ambulance, against each other and against the Pawling Fire Department which owned the ambulance; and Action No. 2 being an action pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, by Edward Dixon, a passenger in the ambulance, against said Fire Department, O’Neill and Zanghi, and against the Village of Pawling, with whose consent and for whose benefit the ambulance was being operated: the said Fire Department and Zanghi as defendants in Action No. 1, and the said Fire Department, Zanghi and village as defendants in Action No. 2, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, dated March 15, 1962 and entered in Dutchess County on March 22, 1962, which denied their motion to consolidate the two pending actions and, as so consolidated, to remove them to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. One of the principal grounds for the relief sought was that section 341-e of the Village Law requires that the “ place of trial of all actions and proceedings against a village or any of its officers or boards shall be in the county in which the village is situated.” This section of the Village Law does not operate to deprive the Supreme Court of its discretion with respect to consolidation of actions and change of venue. Nor does it bar any village from waiving its right thereunder. Under all the circumstances here, we believe the denial of the motion at Special *817Term was a proper exercise of its discretion. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### § 61.26 Applicability.

This subpart applies to OSD, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (referred to in this subpart as the “DoD Components”).
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                   CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   OF ELKCORP

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.
1350):

         I, Thomas D. Karol, Chief Executive Officer of ElkCorp, certify to my
knowledge and belief pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C.ss. 1350) that:

         (1)      The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
                  31, 2003, which this statement accompanies, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
                  for the period ended March 31, 2003 fairly presents, in all
                  material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of ElkCorp.

Date:  May 15, 2003
                                                  By /s/ Thomas D. Karol
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                         Thomas D. Karol
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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 Company.
 /s/ John K. GrelleName:
    
    John K. GrelleTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    April 12, 2010
NUMBER 13

- 14

- 00 752

- CR



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

JOAQUIN DANIEL QUINTERO

, A PPELLANT

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, A PPELLEE

.

On appeal from the 2 4 th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.



### ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, a nd Longoria

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on its own motion because parts of the reporter’s

record in this appeal contains sensitive and confidential information. Volume 9 of the

reporter’s record was filed as sealed; however, Volume 8 , which was not sealed, also

contains confidential data. Give n the nature of this case and its current status on appeal,

t he Court enters the following order regarding the appellate record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.2

34.

This Court ORDERS Volume 8 and Volume 9 of the reporter’s record in this cause

to be SEALED . Any access to the record shall be determined by written motion filed with

this Court, with appropriate notice to the parties, and upon a showing of good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and file d the

30 th day of June , 20 1 5

.
Robert Eugene LAMB, individually, James Morris Loft on, individually, Robert C. Lee, individually, William Gordon Bailey, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. TURBINE DESIGNS, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-10565. United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

Feb. 5, 2001. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (No. 99-00024-1-CVWBH), Willis B. Hunt, Jr., Judge. Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, and WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges. HILL, Circuit Judge: Robert Eugene Lamb, James Morris Lofton, Robert C. Lee, and William Gordon Bailey, non-residents of Georgia, brought this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia claiming that Turbine Design, Inc., also a non -resident of Georgia, violated the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the Georgia Trade Secrets Act, as well as a variety of other state statutory and common law duties, by misappropriating proprietary flight and engineering data and then improperly disclosing this information in an application filed with the Federal Av iation Administration in Atlanta, Georgia. The district court held that it had no jurisdiction over Turbine Design, Inc. and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs brought this appeal. After review, we concluded that this diversitycase presented the following question of law: in Georgia, is a nonresident subject to personal juri sdiction under the Georgia long-arm statute when he improperly discloses another nonresident's trade secret to a federal agency at its Georgia office? As there was no controlling Georgia authority, we certified this issue to the Georgia Supreme Court. On January 9, 2001, the Georgia Supreme Court an swered this question in the negative. In a well-reasoned opinion, the court adopted the "government contacts" exception to the exercise of personal jurisdiction under Georgia's long-arm statute and held th at where a nonresident's sole contact with Georgia is with a governmental entity located within Georgia, that contact is insufficient to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a Georgia court over that nonreside nt. Since the sole contact of the defendants in this case with Georgia was the petitioning of the Federal Avia tion Administration in Atlanta, we conclude that the Georgia district court correctly held that it did not have personal juri sdiction over these defendants.Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.