alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

KPMG
                         KPMG LLC
                         1601 Market Street
                         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499

              Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:

We have examined management's assessment for those customers that management
has informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included in the
accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those issuers
of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios
that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform)
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Regulus Group LLC has determined
that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the
activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with
those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assessment about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the 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
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that
comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the servicing criteria Furthermore, 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 determine whether
errors may have occurred either 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 for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. 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 assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

                               /s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, PA
February 22, 2007

           KPMG LLP, a U.S. Limitied Liability partnership in the U.S.
           member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative
```
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:97-cr-00020-MP-AK

WILLIAM RAY HOLMES,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 39, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending denial of Defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief at

Doc. 38. The Magistrate issued the Report on Thursday, September 18, 2008. Defendant has

been furnished a copy of the Report and has been afforded an opportunity to file an objection. 

Defendant has filed an objection. Doc. 40. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo review of those portions to which an objection has

been made. 

Defendant’s petition is styled as a petition for writ of audita querela or, alternatively, for

the issuance of a writ pursuant to the All Writs Act. However, a writ of audita querela may not

be granted where, as here, relief is cognizable under Title 28 of the United States Code, Section

2255. United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005). Defendant argues that he

was improperly given an enhanced sentence as an armed career criminal. Because Defendant is

proceeding pro se, the Court liberally construes his petition as a motion to vacate under § 2255. 

See id. Defendant’s first motion to vacate was denied, see Doc. 35, and Defendant has not

sought leave to file a second or successive motion pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code,

Case 1:97-cr-00020-MP-GRJ Document 41 Filed 10/10/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:97-cr-00020-MP-AK

Sections 2244(b)(3) & 2255. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Defendant’s motion to vacate, Doc. 38, is DENIED. The Report and Recommendation of

the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated herein to the extent it recommends

denial of Defendant’s motion as an unauthorized second or successive motion to vacate. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of October, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:97-cr-00020-MP-GRJ Document 41 Filed 10/10/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DANIEL GODWIN,

 Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5899-MCR-HTC

OKALOOSA COUNTY SHERIFF

LARRY ASHLEY, OKALOOSA

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,

 Defendants.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated December 17, 2020. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was furnished 

with a copy of the Report and Recommendation and was afforded an opportunity to 

file an objection pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have 

made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections 

thereto timely filed, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-05899-MCR-HTC Document 8 Filed 01/19/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5899-MCR-HTC

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 7, is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to 

state a claim.

3. The clerk is directed to close this file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of January 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05899-MCR-HTC Document 8 Filed 01/19/21 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-46766, 333-62206, and 333-105507) of our
report dated April 29, 2009 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial
statements of ANTs software inc. included in the 2008 annual report on Form
10-K. Our report contains an emphasis of a matter paragraph regarding
substantial doubt as to the ability of the Company to continue as a going
concern.


/s/ Weiser LLP

New York, NY
April 29, 2009


                                       84
<PAGE>

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-46766, No. 333-62206 and No. 333-105507) of ANTs software inc.
of our report dated March 13, 2008, except for Note 2, 14 and 16 as to which the
date is April 29, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of ANTs
software inc. as of December 31, 2007 and for each of the two years in the
period then ended included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of ANTs software,
inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008.




/s/ Burr, Pilger & Mayer LLP


San Francisco, California
April 29, 2009

                                       85
37.304 Contract clauses.       (a) 						            The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.237-4, Payment by Government to Contractor, in solicitations and contracts solely for dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements whenever the contracting officer determines that the Government shall make payment to the contractor in addition to any title to property that the contractor may receive under the contract. If the contracting officer determines that all material resulting from the dismantling or demolition work is to be retained by the Government, use the basic clause with its AlternateI.                                          (b) 						            The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.237-5, Payment by Contractor to Government in solicitations and contracts for dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements whenever the contractor is to receive title to dismantled or demolished property and a net amount of compensation is due to the Government, except if the contracting officer determines that it would be advantageous to the Government for the contractor to pay in increments and the Government to transfer title to the contractor for increments of property only upon receipt of those payments.                                          (c) 						            The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.237-6, Incremental Payment by Contractor to Government, in solicitations and contracts for dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements if (l) the contractor is to receive title to dismantled or demolished property and a net amount of compensation is due the Government, and (2) the contracting officer determines that it would be advantageous to the Government for the contractor to pay in increments, and for the Government to transfer title to the contractor for increments of property only upon receipt of those payments. This determination may be appropriate, for example, if it encourages greater competition or participation of small business concerns.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 37.3 - Dismantling, Demolition, or Removal of Improvements
#### § 51.691 Standard pack.

(a) Fruit shall be fairly uniform in size. When packed in approved containers, fruit shall be arranged according to approved and recognized methods.

(b) “Fairly uniform in size” means that not more than 10 percent of fruit in any lot, and not more than double that amount in any sample, are outside the ranges of diameters given in Table 1.

Table 1 to [§ 51.691](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-51.691) Paragraph (b)—7/10 Bushel Carton

| Pack size/Number of oranges | Diameter in inches | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Minimum | Maximum |
| 24 | 3-12/16 | 5-1/16 |
| 32 | 3-6/16 | 4-9/16 |
| 36 | 3-4/16 | 4-6/16 |
| 40 | 3-2/16 | 4-4/16 |
| 48 | 2-15/16 | 4 |
| 56 | 2-13/16 | 3-13/16 |
| 64 | 2-11/16 | 3-10/16 |
| 72 | 2-9/16 | 3-8/16 |
| 88 | 2-8/16 | 3-4/16 |
| 113 | 2-7/16 | 3 |
| 138 | 2-6/16 | 2-12/16 |
| 163 | 2-3/16 | 2-8/16 |

(c) In order to allow for variations, other than sizing, incident to proper packing, not more than 5 percent of the packages in any lot may fail to meet the requirements of standard pack.

[[85 FR 68427](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/85-FR-68427), Oct. 29, 2020]
#### § 29.59 How to make application.

Application for inspection, sampling, or weighing of tobacco shall be made to the Division, the office of inspection, or as the case may be, to an official inspector, sampler, or weigher. It may be made orally or in writing and delivered in person, by mail, by telegraph, or otherwise. If made orally, the Division or the official receiving it may require a written confirmation.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-10837 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JUVENCIO MAGANA, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:09-CR-236-2
Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney a ppointed to r epresent Juvencio Magana has m o v e d f o r l e a ve to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. C a l i f o r n i a , 386 U

. S

. 7 3 8 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 2 29 (5th Cir. 2011). M a g a na has filed a response. The record i s insufficiently developed t o a l l o w consideration at this time of Magana’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal w hen the claim has not b een raised before the district court since n o opportunity existed to develop U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May22, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-10837 Document: 00512250456 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2013No. 12-10837

the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell , 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant p ortions of the record reflected therein, as well as M agana’s response. We c onc u r w i th counsel’s assessment that the appeal p resents no nonfrivolous issue for a ppellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-10837 Document: 00512250456 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2013
Case 1:20-cr-00029-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 10/21/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:20-cr-00029-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 10/21/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:20-cr-00029-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 10/21/20 Page 3 of 3
#### Forest Bay Homes, Inc., Respondent, v Robert E. Kosinski et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Joseph Trapasso et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered March 16, 1979, as (1) granted that part of the plaintiffs and third-party defendants’ motion which was for a protective order with respect to 18 of defendants’ 26 interrogatories, and (2) granted plaintiffs and third-party defendants’ motion for a protective order to vacate defendants’ notice to produce documents, upon the ground of lack of specificity. Order modified, on the law, by adding a provision thereto vacating defendants’ Interrogatories Nos. 24 through 26. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to the respondents. Special Term should also have vacated Interrogatories Nos. 24 through 26. In those interrogatories defendants demand facts upon which respondents will rely at the trial to support certain denials or averments contained in plaintiff-respondent’s reply to defendants’ answer and counterclaim. Such demands are too vague and broad in scope, and impermissibly seek matter made in preparation for trial, which is privileged (attorney work product). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Mangano, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.3





Exhibit 10.3




SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE




THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE (“Second Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of
April 28, 2009 (the “Effective Date”), by and between SUMO HOLDINGS IRVINE, LLC, a California
limited liability company (“Lessor”) and OCB LLC, a California limited liability company (“OCB” or
“Lessee”).



RECITALS





	A.	 	On or about April 1, 1999, Lessor and American Reprographics Company, L.L.C., a California
limited liability company (“ARC”) then the lessee, entered into a Lease Agreement related to
certain real property commonly known as 17721 Mitchell North, Irvine, California 91714, as
amended by that certain Amendment to Lease effective as of August 2, 2005 (collectively, the
“Lease”).
	 
	B.	 	Lessor, ARC and OCB entered into an Assignment of Lease and Consent effective as of April 28,
2009 whereby ARC assigned all of its right, title and interest in and to the Lease to OCB.
	 
	C.	 	The Lessor and Lessee desire to amend the Lease, effective as of the Effective Date, in order
to extend the term of the Lease on the terms set forth herein.





AGREEMENT




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and of the covenants set forth below, the
parties hereto agree as follows:




	1.	 	As of the Effective Date, Paragraph 1.3 of the Lease is amended to read as follows:






1.3 Term: 5 years and 0 months (“Extended Term”) commencing April 1, 2009 and ending March
31, 2014 (“Extended Expiration Date”).



2. All other terms and conditions of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect except as
expressly modified by this Amendment.



3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall
be deemed an original but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.



[Signature page follows]




 


 









 







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, having read and considered the above provisions, indicate
their agreement by their authorized signatures below:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	LESSOR:	 	 	 	LESSEE:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	SUMO HOLDINGS IRVINE, LLC, a 

California limited liability company	 	 	 	OCB LLC, a California
limited liability 

company	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Kumarakulasingam Suriyakumar
 

Name: Kumarakulasingam Suriyakumar
	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Jonathan R. Mather
 

Name: Jonathan R. Mather
	 	 
	 

	 	Its: Managing Director
	 	 	 	 	 	Its: Chief Financial Officer
# L_2022043DE.01009501.xml

| 24.2.2022 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 43/95 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2022

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 43/95

---

Berichtigung der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2021/1257 der Kommission vom 21. April 2021 zur Änderung der Delegierten Verordnungen (EU) 2017/2358 und (EU) 2017/2359 im Hinblick auf die Einbeziehung von Nachhaltigkeitsfaktoren, -risiken und -präferenzen in die Aufsichts- und Lenkungsanforderungen an Versicherungsunternehmen und Versicherungsvertreiber sowie in die für den Vertrieb von Versicherungsanlageprodukten geltenden Informationspflichten und Wohlverhaltensregeln

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 277 vom 2. August 2021
  )

Seite 22, Artikel 2 Nummer 1 zur Anfügung der Nummern 4 und 5 in Artikel 2 der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2017/2359, Nummer 4, einleitender Satzteil:

Anstatt:

„
  ‚Nachhaltigkeitspräferenzen‘ die Entscheidung eines Kunden oder potenziellen Kunden darüber, ob und, wenn ja, inwieweit eines der folgenden Finanzprodukte in seine Anlage einbezogen werden sollte:“

muss es heißen:

„
  ‚Nachhaltigkeitspräferenzen‘ die Entscheidung eines Kunden oder potenziellen Kunden darüber, ob und, wenn ja, inwieweit eines oder mehrere der folgenden Finanzprodukte in seine Anlage einbezogen werden sollten:“

---
# 13.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes policies and procedures for the *acquisition* of *supplies* and services, including *construction*, research and development, *commercial products*, and *commercial services*, the aggregate amount of which does not exceed the *simplified acquisition threshold* (see 2.101). subpart  13.5 provides special authority for *acquisitions* of *commercial products* and *commercial services* exceeding the *simplified acquisition threshold* but not exceeding $7.5 million ($15 million for *acquisitions* as described in 13.500 (c)), including *options*. See part  12 for policies applicable to the *acquisition* of *commercial products* and *commercial services* exceeding the *micro-purchase threshold*. See 36.602-5 for simplified procedures to be used when acquiring *architect-engineer services*.

**Parent topic:**Part 13 - Simplified Acquisition Procedures
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 the Annual Report of Transnational Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended ended January 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Paul L. Dailey, Executive Vice President and 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:

       (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/ Paul L. Dailey
------------------
Paul L. Dailey
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Dated: April 28,2004

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
#### § 51.765 Firm.

*Firm* means that the fruit is not soft, or noticeably wilted or flabby, and the skin is not spongy or puffy.
25.302-6 Contract clause.

(a) Use the clause at 52.225-26, Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the

United States, in solicitations and contracts for performance outside the United States in an area of-

(1) Combat operations, as designated by the Secretary of Defense; or

(2) Other significant military operations, as designated by the Secretary of Defense and only upon

agreement of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State.

(b) The clause is not required to be used for-

(1) Contracts entered into by elements of the intelligence community in support of intelligence

activities; or

(2) Temporary arrangements entered into by non-DoD contractors for the performance of private

security functions by individual indigenous personnel not affiliated with a local or expatriate security

company.

Parent topic: 25.302 Contractors performing private security functions outside the United States.
42.1107 Contract clause.

(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.242-2, Production Progress Reports, in

solicitations and contracts when production progress reporting is required; unless a construction

contract, or a Federal Supply Schedule contract is contemplated.

(b) When the clause at 52.242-2 is used, the contracting officer shall specify appropriate reporting

instructions in the Schedule (see 42.1106(a)).

Parent topic: Subpart 42.11 - Production Surveillance and Reporting
29.402-4 Taxes—Foreign Contracts in

Afghanistan.

(a) Use the clause at 52.229-13, Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan, in solicitations and

contracts with performance in Afghanistan awarded by or on behalf of U.S. Forces, unless the clause

at 52.229-14 is used.

(b) Use the clause at 52.229-14, Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan (North Atlantic Treaty

Organization Status of Forces Agreement), instead of the clause at 52.229-13, Taxes—Foreign

Contracts in Afghanistan, in solicitations and contracts with performance in Afghanistan awarded on

behalf of or in support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which are governed by the

NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

Parent topic: 29.402 Foreign contracts.