alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
32.608-2 Interest credits.

(a) An equitable interest credit shall be applied under the following circumstances:

(1) When the amount of debt initially determined is subsequently reduced; e.g., through a successful

appeal.

(2) When any amount collected by the Government is in excess of the amount found to be due on

appeal under the Disputes Clause of the contract.

(3) When the collection procedures followed in a given case result in an overcollection of the debt

due.

(4) When the responsible official determines that the Government has unduly delayed payments to

the contractor on the same contract at some time during the period to which the interest charge

applied, provided an interest penalty was not paid for such late payment.

(b) Any appropriate interest credits shall be computed under the following procedures:

(1) Interest at the rate under 52.232-17 shall be charged on the reduced debt from the date of

collection by the Government until the date the monies are remitted to the contractor.

(2) Interest may not be reduced for any time between the due date under the demand and the period

covered by a deferment of collection, unless the contract includes an interest clause; e.g., the clause

prescribed in 32.611.

(3) Interest shall not be credited in an amount that, when added to other amounts refunded or

released to the contractor, exceeds the total amount that has been collected, or withheld for the

purpose of collecting the debt. This limitation shall be further reduced by the amount of any

limitation applicable under paragraph (b)(2) of this subsection.

Parent topic: 32.608 Interest.
EX-34 (j)
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG

* Ernst & Young LLP
  220 South Sixth Street, Ste. 1400
  Minneapolis, MN 55402-4509

* Phone: (612) 343-1000
  www.ey.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S.
Bank National Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform (the Platform) as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2006, except for criteria 1122 (d)(1)(i),
1122 (d)(1)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(i) through 1122 (d)(2)(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i)
through 1122 (d)(3)(iv), and 1122 (d)(4)(iv) through 1122 (d)(4)(xv), which the
Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them
with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria 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 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 assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2006, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 26, 2007

A Member Practice of Ernst & Young Global
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 237 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

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.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pay to Play Reform Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. PAY TO PLAY REFORM.

    Section 112 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(h) Construction.--Nothing in this section prohibits a State from 
enacting a law or issuing an order that limits the amount of money an 
individual who is doing business with a State agency for a Federal-aid 
highway project may contribute to a political campaign.''.
                                 <all>
```
The *Transportation Safety Regulatory Bulletins* are are periodically issued to inform packaging and transportation personnel of current issues and requirements.  The bulletins are prepared and issued by Dana M. Willaford, Transportation Safety, SE-33, DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office.  The bulletins are presentedhere in their entirety.  Simply click on the month of issue that you wish to review.
**Bulletins Issued During 1998:**
**September**
**Bulletins Issued During 1997:**
**January**
**Bulletins Issued During 1996:**
**February** **March** **May**      **July****October**
**Bulletins Issued During 1995:**
**January**   **March****September** **November** 
**Bulletins Issued During 1994:**
**March** **April** **July**  **September**
**Bulletins Issued During 1993:**
**February**  **March**    **April** **June**      **July**     **August** **September** **October**  **November**
For additional information, please contact:Dana M. Willaford, Tele: (423) 576-5338; Email: [email protected]
#### § 610.5 Interdisciplinary assistance.

Technical assistance is based on the principle that soil, water, plant, and related resources are interdependent and must be managed accordingly. Soil conservationists integrate the various technical fields in providing for the conservation of land and water resources. Staff scientists and specialists develop conservation standards, prepare necessary specifications, provide training, and review work performance, NRCS uses consultants for conservation problems that require special expertise.
#### § 3565.404 Transfer of loans or mortgage servicing.

Transfer of servicing is prohibited unless the Agency determines that circumstances warrant such action, the proposed lender is an eligible lender approved by the Agency, and the transfer of servicing is approved by the Agency in advance.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Robert Lee Johnson, Appellant, v. Daniel J. McMann, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal as academic granted. (See *People ex rel. Grubbs*v. *Herold,*17 N Y 2d 584.) Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur.
Space for public service posters 

at Dulles Airport

An airport ready to assist passengers

Presenter: Charlie Leocha, Director 

Consumer Travel Alliance

December 16, 2013

1
Dulles Airport displays - Example 1

2
Dulles Airport displays - Example 2

3
Dulles Airport displays - Example 3

4
Dulles Airport displays - Example 4

5
Dulles Airport displays - Example 5

6
Dulles Airport displays - Example 6

7
Dulles Airport displays - Example 7

8
Dulles Airport displays - Example 8

9
#### In the Matter of Lewis Allinson and Julius M. Gerzof, Attorneys, Respondents. Samuel Greason, Petitioner.

In a proceeding to discipline respondents (attorneys and counselors at law), based upon six charges (speci- ; fications 7A through E and G), of professional misconduct, the Referee to; whom the issues were referred, after hearings held from June 22, 1964 through ■ March 26, 1965, has filed a report finding, as to both respondents, that they are guilty of the charge contained in specification A (failing to maintain an escrow account for money received on claims of clients in negligence actions) and that respondent Gerzof, for want of knowledge, is not guilty of the charges *554contained in the remaining specifications. The Referee also found respondent Allinson not guilty of' the charges save those contained in specifications B (employing laymen to negotiate settlements of negligence eases); D (lending money to clients in negligence cases; and G (submitting in three eases *“*doctors’ exaggerated medical bills with a resultant build-up of the special damages”). Although the Referee has found respondent Allinson also guilty of specification C (paying doctors less than billed amounts on settlement of clients’ cases), the Referee does not consider this an act of misconduct. Petitioner moves to confirm the report of the Referee. Respondents cross-move to disaffirm findings of guilt and for dismissal of all charges. With respect to specification A, the evidence shows that no funds of clients and of the respondents were commingled, and that there was an immediate disposition of each settlement check. Under these circumstances, the failure of respondents to maintain the escrow account is not sufficient to warrant discipline. The findings of the Referee as to failure to sustain the remaining charges against respondent Gerzof, for lack of his knowledge, under the circumstances disclosed by the proof, are warranted. The findings of Allinson’s guilt by the Referee with respect to Specifications B, C and G are amply supported by the evidence and are sustained. .Considering all of the findings upon which respondent has been found guilty of misconduct, but considering also other extenuating circumstances, including the full co-operation of respondent in connection with the investigation of his conduct, we are of the opinion that the suspension of respondent should be limited to one year. The motion of petitioner is granted to the extent indicated. The cross motion of respondents is granted to the extent above indicated and otherwise denied. The proceeding is dismissed as to respondent Gerzof. Respondent Allinson is suspended for a period of one year, effective January 15, 1967. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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: April 15, 2011 |   |                                                          |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 | Name:  | /s/ John J. Lennon                                            |
|                 |   | John J. Lennon                                                |
|                 |   |                                                          |
|                 | Title: | President, Chief Executive Officer                            |
|                 |   | Secretary and Treasurer                                       |
|                 |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                                 |
|                 |   |                                                          |
|                 |   |                                                          |
|                 | Name:  | /s/ John J. Lennon                                            |
|                 |   | John J. Lennon                                                |
|                 |   |                                                          |
|                 | Title: | President, Chief Executive Officer                            |
|                 |   | Secretary and Treasurer                                       |
|                 |   | (Principal Executive Officer and PrincipalAccounting Officer) |

----
#### § 51.1535 Badly misshapen.

“Badly misshapen” means that the fruit is so malformed or rough that its appearance is seriously affected. Doubles shall be considered badly misshapen, except that doubles of Italian type prunes which have approximately equal halves shall not be considered badly misshapen.
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 Amalgamated Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10- KSB for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), I, Wang Xiao Peng, Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.





June 20, 2011




/s/Wang Xiao PengWang Xiao Peng, President and Chief Executive OfficerPrincipal Executive Officer &Principal Financial Officer
#### § 3560.450 OMB control number.

The information collection requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control number 0575-0189. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from 15 minutes to 18 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. A person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Chester Smith, Respondent, v. Refrigerated Food Express et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board that the claimant was employed by the appellant. The board found that there existed a relationship of employer-employee and the appellants contend that the claimant was an independent contractor. The claimant was the operator of a tractor-trailer and hauling articles of the employer when he was involved in an accident. There is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the finding of the board which this court on numerous occasions has referred to as a factual one. (See *Matter of Denman*v. *Many & Zanetti,*8 A D 2d 576, affd. 8 N Y 2d 799; *Matter of Williams*v. *Solomon,*13 A D 2d 159.) Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur with Herlihy, J.
#### § 52.32 Suspension or revocation of license of licensed sampler or licensed inspector.

Pending final action by the Secretary, the Administrator may, whenever he deems such action necessary, suspend the license of any licensed sampler, or licensed inspector, issued pursuant to the regulations in this part, by giving notice of such suspension to the respective licensee, accompanied by a statement of the reasons therefor. Within seven days after the receipt of the aforesaid notice and statement of reasons by such licensee, he may file an appeal, in writing, with the Secretary supported by any argument or evidence that he may wish to offer as to why his license should not be suspended or revoked. After the expiration of the aforesaid seven days period and consideration of such argument and evidence, the Secretary shall take such action as he deems appropriate with respect to such suspension or revocation.
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 Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 Centana Intrastate Pipeline, LLC
Docket No. PR10-84-001.Centana Intrastate Pipeline, LLC
Docket No. PR10-85-001.Not Consolidated.
 
 
 Take notice that on November 23, 2010, the applicants listed above submitted a revised baseline filing of their Statement of Operating Conditions for services provided under section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA). Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at 
                    *http://www.ferc.gov.*
                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at 
                    *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
                    *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659. *Comment Date:*
                     5 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, December 6, 2010. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2010-30258 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
§ 301.87-8 Attachment and disposition of certificates and limited permits. ( a ) A certificate or limited permit required for the interstate movement of a regulated article, at all times during such movement, shall be securely attached to the outside of the container containing the regulated article, securely attached to the article itself if not in a container, or securely attached to the consignee's copy of the accompanying waybill or other shipping document; provided however, that the requirements of this section may be met by attaching the certificate or limited permit to the consignee's copy of the waybill or other shipping document only if the regulated article is sufficiently described on the certificate, limited permit, or shipping document to identify the article.
( b ) The certificate or limited permit for the movement of a regulated article shall be furnished by the carrier to the consignee at the destination of the shipment.
#### In the Matter of Wanda Panetta, Respondent, v Michael P. Panetta, Appellant.

Appeal from so much of an order of the Family Court of Albany County, entered July 9, 1979, as denied respondent’s application for downward modification of a support order. In this proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, petitioner alleged that respondent was in violation of a support order of October 20, 1978 and requested that he be dealt with in accordance with section 454 of the Family Court Act. Respondent filed a petition for downward modification of the support order, which required that he pay $100 per week for the support of petitioner and their child, contending that there had been a change of the parties’ circumstances and that he should pay support in the amount of $50 per week. Family Court denied respondent’s application for modification and ordered that the regular payments continue and that payments be made on the accumulated arrearages at the rate of $50 per month. In our view, there should be an affirmance. At the time of the October 20, 1978 order, respondent earned a net weekly salary of $258. Petitioner was not employed and had no income. At the hearing of February 27, 1979, it was established that respondent’s net weekly salary had decreased to $222 and that the petitioner was earning $195 every two weeks. We reject respondent’s contention that Family Court erred in failing to consider the change of the parties’ circumstances. The evidence reveals that petitioner is now paying $200 per month for rent and about $200 per month for utilities, whereas prior to the hearing she had not incurred such expenses because she had been living in her mother’s house. Petitioner is in no better position than she was prior to the hearing; her income must now be used to pay rent and utilities. Accordingly, respondent has not shown that the parties’ relative situations have significantly changed since the original support order was made (see *Farino v Farino,*63 AD2d 691; *Matter of Gajewski v Williams,*56 AD2d 627, 628). We have examined respondent’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Casey, JJ., concur.