alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### E. F. Hutton & Company, Inc., Appellant, v Paul Cuomo, Jr., et al., Respondents.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 1, 1978, which, *inter alia,*denied plaintiffs motion to consolidate an action pending in Queens County with the instant action, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of justice, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of ordering a joint trial of the within action, as already consolidated, with the Queens action, with the trial to be held in Queens County, and except, as thus modified, affirmed. While, as Special Term correctly held, this is not a matter for consolidation with the conversion action pending in Queens County, we are of the view that the issues involved in both actions are ideally suited for resolution at a joint trial and exercise our discretion accordingly. (See *Roseman v Weisman,*36 AD2d 587; *Padilla v Greyhound Lines,*29 AD2d 495.) Settle order. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Henry Washington, Appellant.

Determination of appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on December 1, 1978, unanimously held in abeyance and the matter remanded for a hearing on the issue of defendant’s speedy trial motion. *(People v Berkowitz,*50 NY2d 333, 349.) No opinion. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Lupiano, Lynch and Carro, JJ.
Exhibit
      35 a)





[Aurora
      Loan Services Logo]





Depositor:
            Structured
                Asset Securities Corporation


745
      Seventh Avenue , 8th Floor


New
      York
      , NY 10019





Trustee:
            US
                Bank , N.A.


One
      Federal Street , 3rd Floor


Boston
      ,
      MA 02110





Securities
      Administrator:





Subject:
            Annual
                Officer's Certification


Fiscal
              Year:
            2006


Securitization:
            FFMLT
                2006-FF12








I,
      E.
      Todd Whittemore, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora Loan
      Services LLC (the “Master Servicer”), do certify the following for the Calendar
      Year 2006:





1.
        A
        review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period beginning
        on
        the Cut-off Date and ending on December 31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period")
        and of
        its performance under the Agreement for such period has been made under my
        supervision.





2.
        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 aspects throughout
        such Reporting Period .




Certified
      by:  AURORA
      LOAN SERVICES LLC







By:
      /s/:
      E. Todd Whittemore


Name:
      E.
      Todd Whittemore


Title:
      Executive Vice President
**Exhibit 32.1**

**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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SkyTerra Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alexander H. Good, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, hereby 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; 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/ Alexander H. Good                 |
| Alexander H. Good                     |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |

 

August 4, 2008
Exhibit 32

     CERTIFICATIONS OF PATRICK A. CUSTER, PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
       PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of VPGI Corp.
 (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
 Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, the
 undersigned officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S1350, as
 adopted pursuant to S906 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) 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.


 Date:  May 13, 2005           /s/    PATRICK A. CUSTER
                               -------------------------------
                               Patrick A. Custer
                               Chief Executive Officer
                               and Principal Financial Officer


 The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form
 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as
 part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
 Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any
 filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
 regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
162 So.2d 11

#### NATIONAL DISTILLERS AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION v. FEDERAL BARGE LINES, INC., Chotin Transportation Company, Inc., Clifford C. Northon, Jr., d/b/a Star Towing Company, and The Travelers Insurance Company.

No. 47159.

March 31, 1964.

In re: Clifford C. Northon, Jr., d/b/a Star Towing Company, and Star Towing Company, Inc. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 159 So.2d 717.

The application is denied. We find no merit to applicants’ claim.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ALFREDO GOMEZ-MARTINEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-10288

D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00868-RCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 26, 2016** 

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Alfredo Gomez-Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for reentry of a

removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Gomez-Martinez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there

FILED

AUG 03 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. 

Gomez-Martinez has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has

been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. All other pending motions

are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 15-10288
#### § 4280.19 REDG Grants.

Intermediaries receiving Grants must partially finance a Revolving Loan Fund that the Intermediary will operate and administer, by providing supplemental funds of at least 20 percent of the Grant. Grants are subject to 2 CFR parts 200, 400, 415, 417, 418, 421 as applicable.

[79 FR 76015, Dec. 19, 2014]
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ CHRISTOPHER A. FINGER, Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

__________________________ 2012-3122

__________________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case no. AT3330110522-I-1.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ O R D E R Christopher A. Finger moves without opposition for a 58-day extension of time, until Ja nuary 9, 2013, to file his reply brief. Upon consideration thereof, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Case: 12-3122 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 12/06/2012FINGER V
. MSPB 2 The motion is granted. F OR T HE C OURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s27 Case: 12-3122 Document: 48 Page: 2 Filed: 12/06/2012
Filed 5/28/14 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2014 ND 100

Casey Phillips, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20130151

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce B. Haskell, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Robert W. Martin, North Dakota Public Defenders’ Office, 11 First Avenue SW, Minot, N.D. 58701, for petitioner and appellant.

Marjorie R. Kohls, Assistant State’s Attorney, Courthouse, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for respondent and appellee.

Phillips v. State

No. 20130151

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Casey Phillips appeals from an order denying his application for post- conviction relief.  When Phillips originally appealed the order denying his application, the district court denied his request for the post-conviction hearing transcript.  In Phillips v. State, 2014 ND 10, 841 N.W.2d 731, we reversed and remanded with instructions for the court to provide a transcript of the post-conviction hearing so Phillips could properly pursue his appeal from the order denying post- conviction relief.  A transcript has been provided, and the matter is before this Court for rehearing.

[¶2]Phillips argues the district court erred in determining his counsel was not ineffective.  He claims the advice of counsel induced an uninformed, or misinformed, plea of guilty in the underlying action to this post-conviction proceeding.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), concluding the district court did not err in dismissing Phillips’s application for post-conviction relief.

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring, S.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

[¶4]The Honorable Mary Muehlen Maring, Surrogate Judge, sitting in place of McEvers, J., disqualified.
#### § 56.27 Order of service.

Grading service shall be performed, insofar as practicable and subject to the availability of qualified graders, in the order in which applications therefore are made except that precedence may be given to any application for an appeal grading.

[20 FR 671, Feb. 1, 1955; 20 FR 757, Feb. 4, 1955, as amended at 42 FR 2970, Jan. 14, 1977. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, as amended at 71 FR 42009, July 24, 2006]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2216 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2216

   To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,4-Benzenedicarboxylic Acid, 
  Polymer With N,N-Bis(2-Aminoethyl)-1,2-Ethanediamine, Cyclized, Me 
                               Sulfates.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2006

  Mr. DeMint introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,4-Benzenedicarboxylic Acid, 
  Polymer With N,N-Bis(2-Aminoethyl)-1,2-Ethanediamine, Cyclized, Me 
                               Sulfates.

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

SECTION 1. 1,4-BENZENEDICARBOXYLIC ACID, POLYMER WITH N,N-BIS(2-
              AMINOETHYL)-1,2-ETHANEDIAMINE, CYCLIZED, ME SULFATES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.08.04       1,4-               Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Benzenedicarboxyl                                                  31/2008
                         ic Acid, Polymer
                         With N,N-Bis(2-
                         Aminoethyl)-1,2-
                         Ethanediamine,
                         Cyclized, Me
                         Sulfates (CAS No.
                         68187-22-4)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3908.90.70)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2257 

To provide for an enhanced refundable credit for families who resided in 

the Hurricane Katrina disaster area on August 28, 2005. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2006 

Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide for an enhanced refundable credit for families 

who resided in the Hurricane Katrina disaster area on 

August 28, 2005. 

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 ‘‘Hurricane Katrina 

5 Working Family Tax Relief Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 
2 

•S 2257 IS

1 (1) The child tax credit is the Federal Govern2 ment’s largest subsidy for children, with an annual 

3 value of over $55,000,000,000. 

4 (2) More than 25 percent of all children, includ5 ing nearly 50 percent of all African-American chil6 dren and 46 percent of all Latino children, are in 

7 families too poor to qualify for the full $1,000 per 

8 year child tax credit, in spite of the fact that the 

9 vast majority of these children are in working fami10 lies. 

11 (3) Parents who have 2 children and who both 

12 work full time for a full year at the minimum wage 

13 will earn too little to be eligible for the full child tax 

14 credit, and a single mother who works full time for 

15 a full year at the minimum wage will earn too little 

16 to be eligible for even a partial child tax credit. 

17 (4) The damage caused by Hurricane Katrina 

18 covered 90,000 square miles along America’s Gulf 

19 Coast, and many of the devastated counties and par20 ishes already had among the highest rates of poverty 

21 and child poverty in the nation. 

22 (5) Mississippi and Louisiana are two States 

23 with the highest proportions of children left out of 

24 the full child tax credit. 
3 

•S 2257 IS

1 SEC. 3. WORKING FAMILY TAX RELIEF. 

2 For purposes of section 24(d) of the Internal Revenue 

3 Code of 1986 (relating to portion of child tax credit made 

4 refundable), in the case of any taxable year beginning dur5 ing 2006 or 2007, with respect to any taxpayer who had 

6 a primary residence in the Hurricane Katrina disaster 

7 area (as defined in section 1400M(2) of such Code) on 

8 August 28, 2005, clause (i) of section 24(d)(1)(B) of such 

9 Code shall be applied by substituting 10 percent of the 

10 taxpayer’s earned income for such taxable year for the 

11 amount which would otherwise be determined under such 

12 clause for such taxable year. A taxpayer may elect not to 

13 have this section apply for any taxable year. 

Æ
#### Albany Housing Authority, Respondent, v M. Scher & Son, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered January 31, 1979 in Albany County, which granted plaintiff’s cross motion to modify the bill of particulars demanded by defendant M. Scher & Son, Inc., and denied the motion of said defendant to preclude on condition that plaintiff serve the amended bill within 30 days. Having received no answer to its demand for certain particulars in this negligence and breach of warranty action, defendant M. Scher & Son, Inc., moved for an order of preclusion. Since plaintiff had not previously applied in a timely fashion to vacate or modify the notice requesting such particulars (CPLR 3042, subd [a]), Special Term should not have entertained its *996belated cross motion for that type of relief unless the items demanded by defendant were palpably improper *(Pratt & Sons v Kingsley Drilling & Blasting,*52 AD2d 997). In our opinion they were not, for they merely sought to narrow the theories and issues raised by the complaint in a manner that was not shown by plaintiff to constitute any particular burden (cf. *Peri v State of New York,*54 AD2d 997, with *Goldstein v Brogan Cadillac Oldsmobile Corp.,*46 AD2d 799). Accordingly, the order appealed from should be modified by reversing so much thereof as granted plaintiffs cross motion and by granting defendant’s motion for an order of preclusion unless plaintiff serves a bill of particulars in compliance with defendant’s original demand therefor within 30 days after service of the order to be entered on this decision. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by reversing so much thereof as granted plaintiff’s cross motion to modify defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars and by granting defendant’s motion for an order of preclusion unless plaintiff serves a bill of particulars in compliance with defendant’s original demand therefor within 30 days after service of the order herein, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.
#### § 457.4 OMB control numbers.

The information collection requirements contained in these regulations have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of 44 U.S.C. chapter 35 and have been assigned OMB number 0563-0053.

[62 FR 65154, Dec. 10, 1997]
#### § 51.2544 Tolerances.

(a) In order to allow for variations incident to proper grading and handling, the tolerances in Tables I, II, and III of this section are provided.

Table I—Tolerances

[Percent]

| Factor | U.S. fancy | U.S. extra No. 1 | U.S. No. 1 | U.S. select | U.S. artificially opened | U.S. non-split |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| External (shell) Defects (tolerances by weight): | | | | | | |
| (a) Non-split and not split on suture | 2 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 10 | N/A |
| (1) Non-split included in (a) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | N/A |
| (b) Adhering hull material | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| (c) Light stained | 7 | 12 | 25 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| (1) Dark stained, included in (c) | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| (d) Damage by other means | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 10 | N/A |
| (e) Total External Defects | 9 | 16 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| (f) Undersized (Less than 30/64 inch in diameter) | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 |

Table II—Tolerances

| Factor internal (kernel) defects (tolerances by weight) | U.S. fancy (percent) | U.S. extra No. 1 (percent) | U.S. No. 1 (percent) | U.S. select (percent) | U.S. artificially opened (percent) | U.S. non-split (percent) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (a) Damage | 3 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| (b) Serious Damage (Minor Insect or Vertebrate Injury, Mold, Rancid, Decay) | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| (1) Insect Damage, included in (b) | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| (c) Total Internal Defects | 4 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 |

Table III—Tolerances

[Percent]

| Factor | U.S. fancy | U.S. extra No. 1 | U.S. No. 1 | U.S. select | U.S. artificially opened | U.S. non-split |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Other Defects (tolerances by weight): | | | | | | |
| (a) Shell pieces and blanks | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| (1) Blanks, included in (a) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (b) Foreign material (No glass, metal or live insects shall be permitted) | .25 | .25 | .25 | .25 | .25 | .25 |
| (c) Particles and dust | .25 | .25 | .25 | .25 | .25 | .25 |
| (d) Loose kernels | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |

(b) [Reserved]

[[68 FR 50683](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/68-FR-50683), Aug. 22, 2003, as amended at [69 FR 76835](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/69-FR-76835), Dec. 23, 2004]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 6, 2011 

p0829 

Order 

 

September 6, 2011 

143090 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143090 

 COA: 302566 

Kent CC: 09-000871-FC 

ALICIA MARIE CAVASOS, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 14, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.