alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[LETTERHEAD OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP]





             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors of Residential Capital, LLC:

We  have  examined   management's   assertion,   included  in  the  accompanying
Management's  Assertion  Concerning  Compliance  with  Regulation  AB Item  1122
Servicing  Criteria,  that  Homecomings  Financial,   LLC  (the  "Company"),   a
subsidiary of Residential Capital, LLC, complied with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's  Regulation AB
for the HFN Primary Servicing Platform (the "Platform"),  as of and for the year
then  ended   December  31,  2006,   excluding   criteria   1122(d)(1)(i),(iii);
1122(d)(2)(iv);  1122(d)(3)(i),(ii);  and  1122(d)(4)(i),(ii),(iii),  which  the
Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing  activities performed
by it  with  respect  to the  Platform.  Appendix  A of  management's  assertion
identifies  individual  asset-backed  transactions  and  securities  defined  by
management as  constituting  the Platform.  Management  is  responsible  for the
Company's  compliance  with the servicing  criteria.  Our  responsibility  is to
express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis,  evidence  about the Company's  compliance  with the applicable
servicing  criteria  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as we  considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of loans within
selected  asset-backed  transactions  and securities that comprise the Platform,
testing  of  selected  servicing   activities  related  to  the  Platform,   and
determining  whether the  Company  processed  those  selected  transactions  and
performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable  servicing
criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing
activities  performed by the Company  during the period  covered by this report.
Our  procedures  were not designed to detect  noncompliance  arising from errors
that may  have  occurred  prior  to or  subsequent  to our  tests  that may have
affected the balances or amounts  calculated  or reported by the Company  during
the period covered by this report.  We believe that our  examination  provides a
reasonable  basis for our  opinion.  Our  examination  does not  provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the  Company  complied  with the
aforementioned  applicable  servicing  criteria  as of and  for the  year  ended
December 31, 2006, for the HFN Primary  Servicing  Platform is fairly stated, in
all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


New York, New York
March 6, 2007
EXHIBIT 22. LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES  OF CHELL GROUP  CORPORATION AS AT NOVEMBER 26,
            2002

Name of Subsidiary(1)                              Jurisdiction of Incorporation
---------------------                              -----------------------------

Logicorp Data Systems Ltd. (2)...........................................Alberta
Logicorp Service Group Ltd (2)...........................................Alberta
123557 Alberta Ltd. (2)..................................................Alberta
591360 Alberta Ltd. (2)..................................................Alberta
eTelligent Solutions Inc. (3)............................................Alberta
Chell Merchant Capital Group, Inc........................................Ontario
NTN Interactive Network Inc. (sold December 2003).........................Canada
3484751 Canada Inc........................................................Canada
GalaVu Entertainment Network Inc. (sold April 2003)......................Ontario
Viewer Services (4)......................................................Ontario
Chell.com (USA) Ltd.......................................................Nevada

----------

NOTES:
      (1)   Unless  otherwise  indicated,  all named  entities are  wholly-owned
            subsidiaries of Chell Group Corporation
      (2)   Wholly-owned subsidiary of Chell Merchant Capital Group, Inc.
      (3)   Wholly-owned subsidiary of Logicorp Data Systems Ltd.
      (4)   Wholly-owned subsidiary of NTN Interactive Network Inc.

<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 22. LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF CHELL GROUP CORPORATION AS AT NOVEMBER 26,
            2001

Name of Subsidiary(1)                              Jurisdiction of Incorporation
---------------------                              -----------------------------

Chell Merchant Capital Group, Inc........................................Ontario
Logicorp Data Systems Ltd. (2) ..........................................Alberta
Logicorp Service Group Ltd. (2) .........................................Alberta
123557 Alberta Ltd. (2) .................................................Alberta
591360 Alberta Ltd. (2) .................................................Alberta
eTelligent Solutions Inc. (3) ...........................................Alberta
NTN Interactive Network Inc...............................................Canada
1113659 Ontarion Ltd. ("Viewer Services) (4).............................Ontario
3484751 Canada Inc........................................................Canada
GalaVu Entertainment Network Inc. .......................................Ontario
Chell.com (USA) Ltd.......................................................Nevada

----------

NOTES:
      (1)   Unless otherwise indicated, all named entities are wholly-owned
            subsidiaries of Chell Group Corporation.
      (2)   Wholly-owned subsidiary of Chell Merchant Capital Group.
      (3)   Wholly-owned subsidiary of Logicorp Data Systems Ltd..
      (4)   Wholly-owned subsidiary of NTN Interactive Network Inc.
Page 1 of 1

Cases No. 4:10cr95-RH and 4:97cr49-RH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASES NO. 4:10cr95-RH

 4:97cr49-RH

LEROY ABNER GIBBS,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER ON MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

The defendant Leroy Abner Gibbs has moved to appoint an attorney, 

apparently for purposes unrelated to the judgment that has been entered and upheld 

on appeal. 

Mr. Gibbs already has an appointed attorney in this case. To the extent he 

seeks relief in connection with this case, that attorney is still available to him. Mr. 

Gibbs is not entitled to another appointed attorney in this case or to appointment of 

an attorney for other purposes. Accordingly,

IT IS DENIED:

The motion to appoint an attorney, ECF No. 46, is DENIED.

SO ORDERED on April 9, 2014.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:97-cr-00049-RH Document 431 Filed 04/09/14 Page 1 of 1
11.702 Construction contracts.

Construction contracts may authorize a variation in estimated quantities of unit-priced items. When

the variation between the estimated quantity and the actual quantity of a unit-priced item is more

than plus or minus 15 percent, an equitable adjustment in the contract price shall be made upon the

demand of either the Government or the contractor. The contractor may request an extension of

time if the quantity variation is such as to cause an increase in the time necessary for completion.

The contracting officer must receive the request in writing within 10 days from the beginning of the

period of delay. However, the contracting officer may extend this time limit before the date of final

settlement of the contract. The contracting officer shall ascertain the facts and make any adjustment

for extending the completion date that the findings justify.

Parent topic: Subpart 11.7 - Variation in Quantity
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 305



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III No. CR-13-948

WALLACE E. HUDSON, JR. APPELLANT V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered MAY 14, 2014 APPEAL FROM THE WHITE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-13-115] HONORABLE ROBERT EDWARDS, JUDGE AFFIRMED
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge On May 4, 2012, appellant Wallace Hudson was stopped, arrested, and charged with failure to maintain liability insurance (later amended to failure to provide proof of insurance), driving left of center, and driving while intoxicated. Hudson was found guilty in district court of all three offenses. He appealed to circuit court, where he was again convicted of all three offenses in a bench trial. On appeal, Hudson argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s finding that he was intoxicated based his admission that he had taken his prescription medication (oxycodone) thirty minutes prior to being stopped. However, this issue is not preserved for appellate review. In a bench trial, a motion for dismissal shall be made at the close of all evidence and shall state the specific grounds for dismissal. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1(b) (2013). A defendant’s failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at the time and inCite as 2014 Ark. App. 305

the manner specified in Rule 33.1(b) constitutes a waiver of any question pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1(c). Rule 33.1 is strictly construed. McClina v. State , 354 Ark. 384, 123 S.W.3d 883 (2003). Here, though Hudson’s counsel and the prosecuting attorney both made closing arguments to the circuit court, Hudson’s counsel never moved for a dismissal of the charges. Our supreme court has held that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence made during a closing argument, instead of at the close of the evidence, does not preserve a sufficiency argument for appellate review. Id . Because there was no motion to dismiss, Hudson has waived any argument pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for driving while intoxicated. Affirmed. G LADWIN , C.J., and H IXSON , J., agree. Lightle, Raney, Streit & Streit, LLP, by: Jonathan R. Streit, for appellant. Dustin McDaniel , Att’y Gen., by: Brad Newman , Ass’t Att’y Gen., and Richmond Giles , Law Student Admitted to Practice Pursuant to Rule XV of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of the Arkansas Supreme Court under the supervision of Darnisa Evans Johnson , Deputy Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2
## Ove **rco ming Barriers to Med** **ical Equipment**

Liz Persaud Georgia Tech / Tools for Life May 8, 2012 **Medical Diagnosis**  Muscular Dystrophy, Spinal Muscular Atrophy Type 2  Progressive neuromuscular/neurodegenerative disease  Curvature of the spine (spinal fusion at 9 years old)  Long - term Progressive muscle weakness  Everyday effects: o Muscle and joint pain o Muscle fatigue o Rely on physical assistance for transferring, bathing, dressing, eating, and transportation **Defining the Barriers** There are 2 main barriers that I encounter during doctors visits and medical procedures: 1. Accessibility 2. Attitudinal **Accessibility Barriers** 1. Check
- in at reception area 2. Scale 3. Exam room table 4. Procedures  Mammography and X
- ray machine 5. Check out [Photo: on the left Liz is in a power wheelchair in front of a check in counter at her doctor’ s office. She is the same height as the counter and unable to reach the sign in sheet .] [ Photo of exam room table that is not accessible. On the right is the counter with drawers and medical supplies. ] **Accessibility Barriers**  Transferring in and out of wheelchair  Cannot be transferred without transfer lift – too painful and dangerous  Bring my own transfer sheet whenever I go to doctor’s visits, ER visits or to medical procedures. [Photo: Power wheelchair with transfer sheet. This is an all
- black power wheelchai r with a joystick. There is a light gray thick material that is spread half way up the back of the wheelchair down over the cushion and hanging off of the front about 5 inches. This sheet is used to transfer or someone in and out of a wheelchair. ]**Attitu dinal Barriers** 

 Equal treatment  Strong focus on my “Life Expectancy”  Often denied tests in a casual manner Attitudes are the Real Disability. I do not think about my Disability until I encounter somewhere I can not access or someone who focuses on my weaknesses. **Recommendations**  Check
- in/check

- out counters should be crenulated to accommodate wheelchair height and various other needs  More space in exam room (not enough room for power wheelchair, attendant, doctor, nurse, exam table, chairs, etc.)  Accessible exam table and diagnostic machines (easily accessed with a transfer lift and be used while lying down)  Disability Awareness training **Suggested Next Steps** Accessible Workout Equipment!  If workout equipment was accessible and easy to access by individuals with various abilities (from a wheelchair) more people with disabilities would be inclined to exercise.  Assisting in preventative measures could decrease the amount of doctors visits a nd medical procedures. **Thank You for Listening!**
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Library of Congress

###### Copyright Office

          - [Docket No. 2010-4]

# AGENCY:

Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

# ACTION:

Notice of inquiry; correction.

This document corrects the reply comment date contained in the notice of inquiry published Wednesday, November 3, 2010 (75 FR 67777). The correct reply comment date is January 19, 2011.

      ( print page 70705)    
Dated: November 15, 2010.

David O. Carson,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2010-29139 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### § 30.1 Definitions of terms used in classification of leaf tobacco.

For the purpose of §§ 30.1 through 30.44 the terms appearing in §§ 30.2 through 30.21 shall be construed as explained therein.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA DIVISION

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.5:94CR5036-SPM/AK

JESUS MEJIA,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the Court on Defendant’s amended motion to vacate. Doc.

325. Defendant was convicted of various drug offenses and was sentenced on

December 4, 1995, to a term of 270-months imprisonment. Doc. 201.

On this occasion, Defendant maintains that he has been subjected to an

unconstitutionally enhanced sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines in contravention

of Booker and argues that the motion is timely under § 2255(2), (3), and (4). Doc. 323.

Following its decision in Blakely v. Washington, which involved the

constitutionality of state sentencing guidelines, the United States Supreme Court

determined that Blakely applies to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as well. United

States v. Booker, ____ U.S. ____, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed. 2d 442 (2004). However,

Case 5:94-cr-05036-RS-AK Document 337 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.5:94cr5036-spm/ak

the Eleventh Circuit has recently determined that Booker is not retroactively applicable

to cases on collateral review, as “Booker’s constitutional rule falls squarely under the

category of new rules of criminal procedure that do not apply retroactively to § 2255

cases on collateral review.” Varela v. United States, 400 F.3d 864, 868 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Defendant’s patently untimely claims are therefore not saved by Booker.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That Defendant’s amended motion to vacate, Doc. 325, be DENIED.

IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida, this 6th day of August, 2007.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 10 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case 5:94-cr-05036-RS-AK Document 337 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      4,451,900 
<SECURITIES>                                1,273,300 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  63,200 
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            5,788,400       
<PP&E>                                     18,774,800      
<DEPRECIATION>                              6,361,100    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             23,848,200      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,493,500    
<BONDS>                                             0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                            0 
<OTHER-SE>                                 22,307,700       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               23,848,200         
<SALES>                                             0          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,074,000          
<CGS>                                               0          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 417,300          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               44,900       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               521,900       
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           521,900      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                  521,900 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    9.50 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    9.50 
        

</TABLE>
§ 3565.10 Conflict of interest. ( a ) *Objective.* It is the objective within the Rural Development mission area to maintain the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and impartiality by employees.
( b ) *Rural Development requirement.* To reduce the potential for employee conflict of interest, all Rural Development activities will be conducted in accordance with 7 CFR part 1900, subpart D, or successor regulation by Rural Development employees who: ( 1 ) Are not themselves a beneficiary;
( 2 ) Are not family members or known relatives of any beneficiary; and
( 3 ) Do not have any business or personal relationship with any beneficiary or any employee of a beneficiary.
( c ) *Rural Development employee responsibility.* Rural Development employees must disclose any known relationship or association with a lender or borrower or their agents, regardless of whether the relationship or association is known to others. Rural Development employees or members of their families may not purchase a Real Estate Owned property, security property from a borrower, or security property at a foreclosure sale.
( d ) *Loan closing agent responsibility.* Loan closing agents (or members of their families) who have been involved with a particular property are precluded from purchasing such properties.
( e ) *Lender and borrower responsibility.* Lenders, borrowers, and their agents must identify any known relationship or association with a Rural Development employee.
EXHIBIT 31.2


                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Eric Bello, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Quipp, Inc.; and

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.





ERIC BELLO
Eric Bello
Treasurer (principal financial officer)

Date:    April 28, 2006
27.202 Royalties.

27.202-1 Reporting of royalties.

27.202-2 Notice of Government as a licensee.

27.202-3 Adjustment of royalties.

27.202-4 Refund of royalties.

27.202-5 Solicitation provisions and contract clause.

Parent topic: Subpart 27.2 - Patents and Copyrights