alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 36-6 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 36-6 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 36-6 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 36-6 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 4 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 32 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 32 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 32 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 3 of 3
EX-35 (e)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

March 13, 2007

Renaissance Mortgage Acceptance Corp.

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Renaissance Home Equity Loan Trust
2006-3

Per Section 3.09 of the Servicing Agreement, dated as of 9/28/2006, the
undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer), hereby
certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(i)   A review of the activities of such party during the preceding calendar
      year or portion thereof and of such party's performance under this
      Agreement or such other applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing
      Function Participant has been made under such officers' supervision.

(ii)  To the best of such officers' knowledge, based on such review, such party
      has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement or such other
      applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function Participant in
      all material respects throughout such calendar year, or, if there has been
      a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect,
      specifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature and
      status of cure provisions thereof.

(iii) Notwithstanding anything herein to contrary (and noting that, to the
      extent of any inconsistency, any and all other statements, certifications
      or assertions herein are subject to the following): instances of
      noncompliance related to the subject transaction for the applicable
      reporting period are identified on Schedule A hereto.


Certified By:
/s/ Reid Denny
Reid Denny, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary


(page)


Schedule A

Payment/Distribution Calculation Errors

During the reporting period, certain errors were made in connection with the
calculation of payments/distributions on the securities. To the best of the
signing officer's knowledge, each such error, which may or may not have been
material, has been identified and remedied and any related corrective action has
been disclosed in a report previously filed with the SEC in respect of the
reporting period.
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 30-3 Filed 11/22/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 30-3 Filed 11/22/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### United Artists Television, Inc., Appellant, v. Quality Bakers of America Cooperative, Inc., Respondent.

Appeal from order entered September 13, 1965, unanimously dismissed, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent. This order, in effect, is one denying reargument, and therefore no appeal lies. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.
52.241-7 Change in Rates or Terms and Conditions of Service for Regulated Services.       As prescribed in 41.501(d)(1), insert a clause substantially the same as the following:          Change in Rates or Terms and Conditions of Service for Regulated Services (Feb 1995)                                       (a) This clause applies to the extent services furnished under this contract are subject to regulation by a regulatory body. The Contractor agrees to give *________________ written notice of (1) the filing of an application for change in rates or terms and conditions of service concurrently with the filing of the application and (2) any changes pending with the regulatory body as of the date of contract award. Such notice shall fully describe the proposed change. If, during the term of this contract, the regulatory body having jurisdiction approves any changes, the Contractor shall forward to the Contracting Officer a copy of such changes within 15 days after the effective date thereof. The Contractor agrees to continue furnishing service under this contract in accordance with the amended tariff, and the Government agrees to pay for such service at the higher or lower rates as of the date when such rates are made effective.                                          (b) 						            The Contractor agrees that throughout the life of this contract the applicable published and unpublished rate schedule(s) shall not be in excess of the lowest cost published and unpublished rate schedule(s) available to any other customers of the same class under similar conditions of use and service.                                          (c) 						            In the event that the regulatory body promulgates any regulation concerning matters other than rates which affects this contract, the Contractor shall immediately provide a copy to the Contracting Officer. The Government shall not be bound to accept any new regulation inconsistent with Federal laws or regulations.                                          (d) 						            Any changes to rates or terms and conditions of service shall be made a part of this contract by the issuance of a contract modification unless otherwise specified in the contract. The effective date of the change shall be the effective date by the regulatory body. Any factors not governed by the regulatory body will have an effective date as agreed to by the parties.                * Note: Insert language prescribed in 41.501(d)(1).                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.241 Utility Services Provisions and Clauses.
52.214-3 Amendments to Invitations for Bids.

As prescribed in 14.201-6(b)(1), insert the following provision:

Amendments to Invitations for Bids (Dec 2016)

(a) If this solicitation is amended, then all terms and conditions which are not modified remain

unchanged.

(b)

(1) Bidders shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this solicitation-

(i) By signing and returning the amendment;

(ii) By identifying the amendment number and date in space provided for this purpose on the form

for submitting a bid;

(iii) By letter;

(iv) By facsimile, if facsimile bids are authorized in the solicitation; or

(v) By email, if email bids are authorized in the solicitation.

(2) The Government must receive the acknowledgement by the time and at the place specified for

receipt of bids.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.214 [Reserved]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06- cr-169-WHA 

 )

WILLIAM EARL ULMER )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the motion for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum (Doc.#27),

filed February 21, 2007, and for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of this Court is hereby DIRECTED

to issue a WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM addressed to the Lafayette Parish

Jail, Lafayette, LA, commanding them to deliver the said prisoner, WILLIAM EARL ULMER, to

any United States Marshal or Deputy United States Marshal and directing said Marshal or Deputy

to bring said prisoner, before this Court at Montgomery, Alabama, for arraignment at 10am on

March 7, 2007, and to return said prisoner, to said official when the Court has finished with him.

Done, this 21st day of February, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 32 Filed 02/21/2007 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2962 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2962

   To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Methyl-4-trifluor 
              omethoxyphenyl-N-(chlorocarbonyl) carbamate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Methyl-4-trifluor 
              omethoxyphenyl-N-(chlorocarbonyl) carbamate.

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

SECTION 1. METHYL-4-TRIFLUOR OMETHOXYPHENYL-N-(CHLOROCARBONYL) 
              CARBAMATE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.29.91 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Methyl-4-trifluor 
omethoxyphenyl-N-(chlorocarbonyl) carbamate) is amended by striking 
``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (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 enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EX-33 (f)
(logo) REGULUS


Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria

1. Pursuant to Subpart 229.1100 - Asset Backed Securities, 17 C.F.R. section
   229. 1100-229.1123 ("Regulation AB"), Regulus Group LLC, for itself and its
   wholly-owned subsidiaries (individually and collectively "Regulus"), is
   responsible for assessing its compliance with the servicing criteria
   applicable to the remittance processing services it provides to customers who
   are issuers or servicers of asset backed securities transactions and who have
   requested confirmation of Regulus' compliance in connection with loan and/or
   receivables portfolios that include pool assets for asset backed securities
   transactions (the "Platform"). Remittance processing is a service whereby
   check payments that are remitted by mail to a post office box are collected,
   processed through a highly automated data capture system, and prepared for
   deposit to a bank account held by the beneficiary of the payment.

2. The servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB were used
   in Regulus' assessment of compliance. Regulus has concluded that the
   servicing criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of
   Regulation AB are applicable to the servicing activities it performs with
   respect to the Platform (such criteria the "Applicable Servicing Criteria").
   Regulus has concluded that the remainder of the servicing criteria set forth
   in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are inapplicable to the activities it
   performs with respect to the Platform because Regulus does not participate in
   the servicing activities referenced by such servicing criteria.

3. As of and for the year ending December 31, 2006, Regulus has complied in all
   material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria set forth in Item
   1122(d) of Regulation AB.

4. KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation
   report on Regulus' assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing
   Criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2006. A copy of that
   attestation report is attached hereto as Exhibit A.


/s/ Kimberlee Clark
Kimberlee Clark
Chief Financial Officer

February 22, 2007


860 LATOUR COURT | NAPA, CA | 94558 | TEL: 707.254.4000 | FAX: 707.254.4070
| REGULU5GROUP.COM
(June 29, 1970)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Willie Dupuis, Appellant.

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Clinton County, rendered August 4, 1966 upon a verdict convicting the appellant and two others of the crime of committing a felony murder (Penal Law, § 1044, subd. 2). The appellant and two others, Guy Beaudet and Rene Pilón, were convicted for the murder of a bank employee killed during the March 22, 1965 robbery of a bank at Ellenburg Depot! The relevant facts as to this ease are set forth in the prior decisions, of this court upon the appeals brought by the appellant’s codefendants *(People*v. *Pilón,*30 A D 2d 365; *People*v. *Beaudet,*31 A D 2d 705). Several of the contentions raised by the appellant are governed by the decisions in the *Pilón*
      *1039and *Beaudet*cases *(supra)*and no longer have merit, to wit: that appellant’s motion for a separate trial should have been granted; that the trial court should have ruled that Roland Berube was an accomplice as a matter of law; that the length of the trial court’s charge and its manner of marshalling the evidence was prejudicial; that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction; that one attorney represented the eodefendants in the pretrial stages of the proceedings; and that the trial court erroneously denied appellant’s motion for inspection of the Grand Jury minutes. This appellant’s additional contention that the trial court after striking the testimony of one John Beaupre as to the manner and method of his arrest of the appellant and Pilón should have granted appellant’s motion for a mistrial is without merit. The trial court directed the jury that the testimony of Beaupre was not to be considered and the argument of the appellant that this testimony by innuendo attacked his character is speculative. Assuming that this testimony was prejudicial to the appellant, it does not appear that it requires a finding that the appellant did not have a fair and impartial trial. The fact that the appellant’s counsel more or less allowed the counsel for his codefendant to initially make most of the objections upon the trial does not indicate that the appellant’s counsel was ineffective. The appellant’s contentions as to an illegal search and seizure are likewise without merit. As a part of his briefs upon this appeal, the appellant includes various written signed statements which would tend to show that a codefendant, Albert Couture, a witness for the People, committed perjury upon the trial. This new matter is not properly before this court upon this appeal. However, we would note that independently of the testimony of Couture and Berube, there was additional and convincing evidence introduced which tended to connect the appellant Dupuis with the commission of the robbery and which corroborates the identification of him by Berube. Judgment affirmed. Herlihy, P. J., Aulisi, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.
52.236-18 Work Oversight in Cost-Reimbursement Construction Contracts.       As prescribed in 36.518, insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when cost-reimbursement construction contracts are contemplated:          Work Oversight in Cost-Reimbursement Construction Contracts (Apr 1984)          The extent and character of the work to be done by the Contractor shall be subject to the general supervision, direction, control, and approval of the Contracting Officer.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.236 [Reserved]
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.4



Summary Sheet of Ameren Corporation Non-Management Director Compensation 
(revised by Ameren Corporation’s Board of Directors on August 11, 2017, and effective as of September 1, 2017)    


	
		
	$90,000
	Base cash annual retainer payable in twelve equal installments;



	Approximately $120,000 of shares


	Shares of the Company’s common stock to be awarded to new Directors upon election and annually to all Directors on or about January 1 of each year;

	$25,000
	Additional annual cash retainer for Lead Director;



	$20,000
	Additional annual cash retainer for Audit and Risk Committee and 
Nuclear and Operations Committee Chair;



	$15,000
	Additional annual cash retainer for Human Resources Committee Chair; 



	$12,500
	Additional annual cash retainer for all other Committee Chairs (currently Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and Finance Committee); 



	$12,500
	Additional annual cash retainer for Audit and Risk Committee and Nuclear and Operations Committee members; 



	$10,000
	Additional annual cash retainer for Human Resources Committee members; and 



	$7,500
	Additional annual cash retainer for members of all other Committees.



	 
	Customary and usual travel expenses to be reimbursed and eligibility to
participate in a nonqualified deferred compensation program.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2885 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Desmedipham. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2006 

Mr. BURR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Desmedipham. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESMEDIPHAM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.13.77 3- 

EthoxycarbonylaminophenylN-phenylcarbamate 

(Desmedipham) (CAS No. 

13684–56–5) in bulk or 

mixed with application adjuvants (provided for in subheadings 2924.29.43 and 

3808.30.15) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 2885 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06cr169-WKW

)

JAMES CALVIN TALLEY )

MOTION FOR A FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE

The United States of America (United States), by its

undersigned counsel, respectfully submits its Motion for a Final

Order of Forfeiture in the above-entitled case and states as

follows:

1. On December 21, 2007, this Court entered a Preliminary

Order of Forfeiture (Doc. # 478) ordering defendant James Calvin

Talley to forfeit the following property to the United States:

Thirty Thousand One Hundred Forty One and

84/100 Dollars ($30,141.84) in United States

currency seized from Mutual Savings Credit

Union account in the name of James C. Talley,

Jr. On April 14, 2006.

2. On January 9, 2008, notice of this forfeiture was served

on John Robinson by the United States Marshals Service (Doc. #

502);

3. On January 11, 2008, notice of this forfeiture was served

upon Amy Williams, secretary for Attorney Amy Hayes Naylor, by the

United States Marshals Service (Doc. # 500);

4. Notice of this forfeiture notifying all third parties of

the intent of the United States to dispose of the property in

accordance with the law as specified in the Preliminary Order of

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 584 Filed 03/19/2008 Page 1 of 3
2

Forfeiture, and further notifying all third parties of their right

to petition the Court within thirty (30) days for a hearing to

adjudicate the validity of their alleged legal interest in the

property was published in the Montgomery Advertiser newspaper on

January 31 and February 7 and 14, 2008; additionally, notice of

this forfeiture was posted on an official government internet site

(www.forfeiture.gov) for a period of 30 consecutive days, beginning

on January 7, 2008, and ending on February 5, 2008, as required by

Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or

Maritime and Asset Forfeiture Claims (Doc. # 566);

6. No petition of interest has been filed on behalf of any

third-party. Therefore, any third-party interests are barred by

failure of those parties to file a timely petition.

Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that this

Court enter the proposed Final Order of Forfeiture filed herewith.

Respectfully submitted this 19 day of March, 2008. th

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/Tommie Brown Hardwick

TOMMIE BROWN HARDWICK

Assistant United States Attorney

Bar Number: ASB4152 W86T

131 Clayton Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 223-7280

Fax: (334) 223-7135

E-mail: tommie.hardwick@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 584 Filed 03/19/2008 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 19, 2008, I electronically

filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF

system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel

of record.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Tommie Brown Hardwick

TOMMIE BROWN HARDWICK

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 584 Filed 03/19/2008 Page 3 of 3
#### § 760.1700 Applicability.

This subpart specifies the terms and conditions for the Milk Loss Program. The Milk Loss Program will provide payments to eligible dairy operations for milk that was dumped or removed without compensation from the commercial milk market due to the results of droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, derechos, excessive heat, winter storms, freeze (including polar vortex), and smoke exposure that occurred in the 2020, 2021, and 2022 calendar year. The Milk Loss Program will also provide payments to eligible dairy operations for milk that was dumped or removed without compensation from the commercial milk market due to the results of tornadoes that occurred in the 2022 calendar year.

[88 FR 62288, Sept. 11, 2023]
#### METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. v. HEINZE et al.

(No. 6089.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Pleading (§ 323*)—Bill of Particulars—Conditions.

The court ordering a defendant to serve a bill of particulars should not insert in the order a provision precluding him from giving evidence in support of the defense, for that question can only be presented after the failure of' defendant to give the particulars, and plaintiff may then move to preclude him from giving the evidence.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 976-979; Dec. Dig. § 323.*]

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company against Ruth Noyes Heinze and another. From an order directing defendants to furnish a verified bill of particulars, they appeal.

Modified and affirmed.

Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.

Franklin Bien, of New York City, for appellants.

Dean, Tracy & McBarron, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. *&*Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

We think the court below was justified in requiring the defendants to serve the bill of particulars, as required by the order appealed from. It was, however, improper to insert in the order for the service of a bill of particulars a provision precluding the parties required to give the particulars from giving evidence in respect to a defense, as that question could only be presented after bill of particulars has been ordered, and defendants have failed to give the particulars required. If the defendants fail to furnish the particulars required, plaintiff may then move to preclude them from giving evidence as to the defense, for which they have failed to furnish such particulars.

The order appealed from is therefore modified by striking out the last paragraph, which precludes the defendants from giving evidence, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.