alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-35 (e)
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

GSAA 2006-14

I, Michael De Francesco, an authorized officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding,
Inc. (the "Servicer"), certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and including
January 1, 2006 through and including December 31, 2006 (or applicable portion
thereof) and of the Servicer's performance under the applicable servicing
agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.


Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Agreement.

Date: February 28, 2007


/s/ Michael De Francesco
Michael De Francesco
Senior Vice President, Loan Administration
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.20(c)(4)

                            KENDLE INTERNATIONAL INC.

                                AWARD AGREEMENT(1)

1. The Company, pursuant to the Kendle International Inc. 1997 Stock Option and
Stock Incentive Plan, hereby grants to the following Participant a Restricted
Stock Award on the terms set forth herein:

        Participant:___________________________

        No. of Shares:_________________________

        Date of Grant:_________________________

2. The Shares issued to the Participant pursuant to this Award Agreement shall
be subject to the following transfer restrictions:

      (a) One-third of the Shares shall be restricted from Transfer during the
period from the Date of Grant to the first anniversary thereof.

      (b) One-third of the Shares shall be restricted from Transfer during the
period from the Date of Grant to the second anniversary thereof.

      (c) One-third of the Shares shall be restricted from Transfer during the
period from the Date of Grant to the third anniversary thereof.

      If the Participant ceases to be an Eligible Employee, Non-Employee
Director or Advisor of the Company (other than as a result of the death or
Disability of the Participant) prior to the lapsing of the transfer restrictions
on the Shares subject to this Award, any Shares subject to such transfer
restriction shall be returned to the Company without consideration. If the
Participant ceases to be an Eligible Employee, Non-Employee Director or Advisor
of the Company as a result of death or Disability, the transfer restrictions on
the Shares shall be removed.

3. The certificate(s) representing the Shares will contain a legend prohibiting
the transfer thereof in accordance with the terms of this Award Agreement.

4. The original certificate(s) issued pursuant to this Award Agreement shall be
maintained in the custody of the Company, along with duly signed stock transfer
powers, endorsed in blank by the Participant, until the transfer restrictions
have lapsed.

5. The Shares subject to this Award Agreement shall have the same dividend and
voting rights as the Company's common stock.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this Agreement on this ____ day of
______________, 2005.

                            KENDLE INTERNATIONAL INC.

                            BY:_________________________
                                Name:
                                Title:

I hereby accept the above Restricted Stock Award in accordance with and subject
to the terms and conditions hereof.

Date Accepted:                         PARTICIPANT
   _________________, 2005

_____________________________

--------------------------------------
(1) Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning
ascribed to such terms in the Kendle International Inc. 1997 Stock Option and
Stock Incentive Plan.
#### § 407.10 Area risk protection insurance for barley.

The barley crop insurance provisions for Area Risk Protection Insurance for the 2014 and succeeding crop years are as follows:

# UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

# Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

## Area Risk Protection Insurance

### Barley Crop Insurance Provisions

### 1. Definitions

*Harvest.* Combining or threshing the barley for grain.

*Planted acreage.* In addition to the definition contained in the Area Risk Protection Insurance Basic Provisions, land on which seed is initially spread onto the soil surface by any method and which subsequently is mechanically incorporated into the soil in a timely manner and at the proper depth will also be considered planted.

### 2. Insured Crop

The insured crop will be all barley:

(a) Grown on insurable acreage in the county listed on the accepted application;

(b) Properly planted by the final planting date and reported on or before the acreage reporting date;

(c) Planted with the intent to be harvested;

(d) Not planted into an established grass or legume;

(e) Not interplanted with another crop; and

(f) Not planted as a nurse crop, unless seeded at the normal rate and intended for harvest as grain.

### 3. Payment Dates

(a) Unless otherwise specified in the Special Provisions the final county revenues and final county yields will be determined prior to April 1 following the crop year.

(b) If an indemnity is due, unless otherwise specified in the Special Provisions we will issue any payment to you prior to May 1 following the crop year and following the determination of the final county revenue or the final county yield, as applicable.

### 4. Program Dates

| State and county | Cancellation and termination dates | Contract change date |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Kit Carson, Lincoln, Elbert, El Paso, Pueblo, Las Animas Counties, Colorado and all Colorado Counties south and east thereof; all New Mexico counties except Taos County; Kansas; Missouri; Illinois; Indiana; Ohio; Pennsylvania; New York; Massachusetts; and all states south and east thereof | September 30 | June 30. |
| Arizona; California; and Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada | October 31 | June 30. |
| All Colorado counties except Kit Carson, Lincoln, Elbert, El Paso, Pueblo, and Las Animas Counties and all Colorado counties south and east thereof; all Nevada counties except Clark and Nye Counties; Taos County, New Mexico; and all other states except: Arizona, California, and (except) Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts and all States south and east thereof | March 15 | November 30. |
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 18

- 00339

- CV

Cairo DeAngelis, Appellant

v.

The Arts at Turtle Creek, LLC, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COUR T AT LAW NO. 2 OF TR AVIS COUNTY NO. C

- 1

- CV

- 18

- 002651 , THE HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUD GE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s brief was originally due on September 10, 2018 . On September 12,

2018 , this Court sent a notice to appellant informing him that his brief was overdue and that a

failu re to file a satisfactory response by September 24, 2018

, would result in the dismissal of this

appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension

of time. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of pr osecution. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.3(b).

__________________________________________ Michael Toth, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Field and Toth

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: October 10, 2018
CEASAR MONTOYA SOLTERO,

Appellant, 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00146-CR

Appeal from the

109th District Court

of Winkler County, Texas

(TC# DC18-5722)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no reversible 

error in the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be 

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 9 TH OF DECEMBER, 2020.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Nathalie N., Respondent, v Jerome W., Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 268]

In a proceeding to establish paternity pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the putative father appeals, by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (O’Shea, J.), dated March 30, 2005, which denied his application for a DNA marker test and directed the entry of an order of filiation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In a paternity proceeding, the Family Court’s findings are entitled to deference and “generally, should not be disturbed on appeal unless they are found to be contrary to the weight of the evidence” *(Matter of Everlyn T. v Willis Charles T.,*155 AD2d 546, 546 [1989], quoting *Matter of Shirley R. v Ricardo B.,*144 AD2d 472, 473 [1988]).

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in *913declining to order a DNA marker test and properly adjudicated the appellant to be the father of the subject children. Assuming that the mother fraudulently deceived the appellant by leading him to erroneously believe that he was the father of the subject children, the appellant held himself out to be their father since their births, 8 and 10 years earlier, signed an acknowledgment of paternity at the time of their respective births, established a viable and ongoing parent-child relationship with them, and is the only father that they had ever known *(see Matter of Maurice T v Mark P.,*23 AD3d 567 [2005]; *Matter of Griffin v Marshall,*294 AD2d 438 [2002]; *Hammack v Hammack,*291 AD2d 718, 719-720 [2002]). Although the appellant and the mother were never married, the court properly sought to protect the important interest of the operative parent-child relationship *(see Matter of Baby Boy C.,*84 NY2d 91, 102 [1994]).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel to prohibit the appellant from challenging paternity.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Adams, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.
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

     In connection with Igene Biotechnology, Inc. (the "Company")
Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  December
31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the  date  hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward J. Weisberger,  Chief
Financial  Officer of the Company, 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, as amended; and

          (2)  The  information  contained in the  Report  fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: May 1, 2008           By: /S/  EDWARD J. WEISBERGER
                                _________________________________
                                     EDWARD J. WEISBERGER
                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                    (principal financial officer)

A  signed original of this written statement required by  Section
906  has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission
or its staff upon request.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

	As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 1, 2001, included in this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000, into the Company's previously filedRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-41279).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

					ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

 

 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

May 16, 2001
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TWC Holding LLC (the “Company”)for the thirteen weeks ended October 1, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian A. Lutes,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of TheSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date:  November 15, 2005

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Brian A. Lutes      |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Brian A. Lutes          |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided tothe Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### § 4279.118 [Reserved]
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------

                         COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWHEQ, INC.
             CWHEQ REVOLVING HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-G
         REVOLVING HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2006-G


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby
further certify pursuant to Section 3.09 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement
for the above-captioned Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------


Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
#### § 457.127 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 5:02cr19-RH/WCS

5:05cv68-RH/WCS

COLLIS EDWARD HOBBY,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING §2255 MOTION

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 97) and the objections thereto (document 99). I have

reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion

of the court. The clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Defendant’s motion for relief

under 28 U.S.C. §2255 (document 79) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.” The

clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED this 9th day of January, 2008.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 5:02-cr-00019-RH-WCS Document 100 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:96-cr-00016-MP

RICHARD DUTTON,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 97, Motion for Rule 35 Relief by Richard Dutton. 

In the motion, Mr. Dutton argues that amendment 591 of the Sentencing Guidelines requires a

modification of his sentence. In order to facilitate determination of this matter, the Court directs

the United States to file a response to the motion by Friday, August 5, 2005. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of July, 2005

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:96-cr-00016-WTH-GRJ Document 98 Filed 07/26/05 Page 1 of 1
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 10-49]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 10-49 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: November 23, 2010.

Morgan F. Park,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 74015)          ( print page 74016)          ( print page 74017)          ( print page 74018)          ( print page 74019)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P

[FR Doc. 2010-30044 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 237 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to ensure that certain States remain 

eligible for Federal highway funds. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2005 

Mr. LAUTENBERG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL

To amend title 23, United States Code, to ensure that 

certain States remain eligible for Federal highway funds.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pay to Play Reform 

5 Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PAY TO PLAY REFORM. 

7 Section 112 of title 23, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(h) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section pro10 hibits a State from enacting a law or issuing an order that 
2

•S 237 IS

1 limits the amount of money an individual who is doing 

2 business with a State agency for a Federal-aid highway 

3 project may contribute to a political campaign.’’.

Æ
§ 51.1437 Tolerances for defects. In order to allow for variations incident to proper grading and handling in each of the foregoing grades, the following tolerances, by weight, are as follows: ( a ) U.S. Extra Fancy grade: ( 1 ) No foreign material;
( 2 ) 0.01 percent for shell, and center wall;
( 3 ) Zero tolerance is provided for pecan weevil larvae;
( 4 ) 3 percent for portions of kernels which are “light amber” or darker color, or darker than any specified lighter color classification, but which are not otherwise defective; and
( 5 ) 3 percent for portions of kernels which fail to meet the remaining requirements of the grade, including therein not more than 0.50 percent (one-half of 1 percent) for defects causing serious damage: *Provided,* That any unused portion of this tolerance may be applied to increase the tolerance for kernels which are “light amber” or darker color, or darker than any specified lighter color classification.
( b ) U.S. Fancy grade: ( 1 ) No foreign material;
( 2 ) 0.01 percent for shell and center wall;
( 3 ) No more than 2 pecan weevil larvae;
( 4 ) 5 percent for portions of kernels which are “amber” or darker color, or darker than any specified lighter color classification, but which are not otherwise defective; and
( 5 ) 5 percent for portions of kernels which fail to meet the remaining requirements of the grade, including therein not more than 0.50 percent (one-half of 1 percent) for defects causing serious damage, including pecan weevil larvae: *Provided,* That any unused portion of this tolerance may be applied to increase the tolerance for kernels which are “amber” or darker color, or darker than any specified lighter color classification.
( c ) U.S. Choice grade: ( 1 ) No foreign material;
( 2 ) 0.01 percent for shell and center wall;
( 3 ) No more than 5 pecan weevil larvae;
( 4 ) 15 percent for portions of kernels which are “dark amber” or darker color, or darker than any specified lighter color classification, but which are not otherwise defective; and
( 5 ) 8 percent for portions of kernels which fail to meet the remaining requirements of the grade, including therein not more than 1 percent for defects causing serious damage, including pecan weevil larvae.
( d ) U.S. Standard grade: ( 1 ) No foreign material;
( 2 ) 0.01 percent for shell and center wall;
( 3 ) 25 percent for portions of kernels which are darker than a specified color classification, but which are not otherwise defective; and
( 4 ) 15 percent for portions of kernels which fail to meet the remaining requirements of the grade, including therein not more than 1 percent for defects causing serious damage, including pecan weevil larvae.
#### § 3560.627 Response to resident complaints.

The management plan submitted in accordance with § 3560.623 (a) will include a provision for dealing with resident complaints.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cirino Salerno, Also Known as Charles Salerno, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on July 16, 1979, unanimously affirmed in view of the letter from defendant’s counsel dated April 28, 1980, wherein he requests this court permit appellant to withdraw from consideration and deliberation that part of the appeal relating to the illegality of the conditional sentence in the trial court. No opinion. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Markewich and Silverman, JJ.