alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 34.1.5.1

 

[Letterhead of KPMG LLP]

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board 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 receivable 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 theCompany’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 notdesigned 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
Case 3:06-cv-00631-MHT-VPM Document 8-3 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00631-MHT-VPM Document 8-3 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 2 of 2
52.236-15 Schedules for Construction Contracts.       As prescribed in 36.515, insert the following clause:          Schedules for Construction Contracts (Apr 1984)                                       (a) The Contractor shall, within five days after the work commences on the contract or another period of time determined by the Contracting Officer, prepare and submit to the Contracting Officer for approval three copies of a practicable schedule showing the order in which the Contractor proposes to perform the work, and the dates on which the Contractor contemplates starting and completing the several salient features of the work (including acquiring materials, plant, and equipment). The schedule shall be in the form of a progress chart of suitable scale to indicate appropriately the percentage of work scheduled for completion by any given date during the period. If the Contractor fails to submit a schedule within the time prescribed, the Contracting Officer may withhold approval of progress payments until the Contractor submits the required schedule.                                          (b) 						            The Contractor shall enter the actual progress on the chart as directed by the Contracting Officer, and upon doing so shall immediately deliver three copies of the annotated schedule to the Contracting Officer. If, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer, the Contractor falls behind the approved schedule, the Contractor shall take steps necessary to improve its progress, including those that may be required by the Contracting Officer, without additional cost to the Government. In this circumstance, the Contracting Officer may require the Contractor to increase the number of shifts, overtime operations, days of work, and/or the amount of construction plant, and to submit for approval any supplementary schedule or schedules in chart form as the Contracting Officer deems necessary to demonstrate how the approved rate of progress will be regained.                                          (c) 						            Failure of the Contractor to comply with the requirements of the Contracting Officer under this clause shall be grounds for a determination by the Contracting Officer that the Contractor is not prosecuting the work with sufficient diligence to ensure completion within the time specified in the contract. Upon making this determination, the Contracting Officer may terminate the Contractor’s right to proceed with the work, or any separable part of it, in accordance with the default terms of this contract.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.236 [Reserved]
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 Annual Report of Atlas Resources Public 16-2007 (A) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the MGP, 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
      Partnership.
 
 By:
              /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
              Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
              Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
              March
      31, 2008
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2847 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear with open toes or 

heels. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18, 2006 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear with 

open toes or heels. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN FOOTWEAR WITH OPEN TOES OR 

4 HEELS. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2847 IS 

‘‘ 9902.13.78 Footwear with outer soles of 

rubber or plastics and uppers of vegetable fibers, with 

open toes or open heels, 

other than house slippers 

(provided for in subheading 

6404.19.25) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
**Exhibit 34.2**

Reportof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

First Data Resources. Inc. and

REMITCOLLC

We have examined management’s assertion,included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with SECRegulation AB Servicing Criteria, that First Data Resources, Inc. and itsaffiliate, REMITCO LLC (jointly, First Data) complied with the servicingcriteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’sRegulation AB for the remittance payment platform as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2006, except for 1122 (d)(l)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii)-(vii),1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(iii) and (v)-(xv), which First Data hasdetermined are not applicable to the activities performed by it with respect tothe servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible forFirst Data’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion on management’s assertion about First Data’s compliance withthe servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance withstandards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about First Data’scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such otherprocedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examinationincluded testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactionsand securities that comprise the platform, testing of less than all of theservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether FirstData processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, ourprocedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activitiesperformed by First Data during the period covered by this report. Ourprocedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurredeither prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balancesor amounts calculated or reported by First Data during the period covered bythis report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believethat our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Ourexamination does not provide a legal determination on First Data’s compliancewith the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management’s assertionthat First Data complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of andfor the year ended December 31, 2006, for the remittance payment platform isfairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

February 26, 2007

** **

----
# Supreme Court of Louisiana

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #073

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Per Curiam handed down on the **5th day of December, 2016** , is as follows:

**PER CURIAM** :
2015 -C A -1 659 ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH SCHOOL BOARD v. STATE OF LOUISIANA; THE LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION; THE STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (Parish of E. Baton Rouge) For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court is vacated and set aside, and the petition is hereby dismissed with prejudice. HUGHES, J., would grant and docket. WEIMER, J., dissents and assigns reasons.SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2015-CA-1659 ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.
PER CURIAM The State of Louisiana, the Louisiana State Board of Elementary & Secondary Education, and the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Education lodged this direct appeal pursuant to La. Const. Art. V, §5(D), seeking review of the district court’s judgment declaring 2010 HRC 243 and 2011 HRC 130 violate La. Const. Art. VIII, §2(A)(4)(a). Pretermitting the merits, we find this case fails to present a justiciable controversy upon which relief can be granted. See Council of the City of New Orleans v. Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans , 06-1989 (La. 4/11/07), 953 So.2d 798; Hoag v. State , 04-0857 (La. 12/01/04), 889 So.2d 1019; see also St. John the Baptist Parish School Board v. State of Louisiana , 15-0264 (La. App. 1 Cir. st 7/12/16) (unpublished), writ denied , 16-1798 (La. 12/5/16), ___ So. 3d ___. Accordingly, on our own motion pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 927(B), we recognize the failure of the petition to state a cause of action, vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss the suit.

DECREE For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court is vacated and set aside, and the petition is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 12/05/1612/05/16

S UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA 2 015 - CA - 1659 S T. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH SCHOOL BOARD VS . STA TE OF LOUISIANA; THE LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION; THE STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION O N APPEAL FROM THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
H ughes, J., would grant and docket.

### SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 15-CA-1659 ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA; THE LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION; THE STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE 19 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TH PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE WEIMER, J. , dissenting. I believe matters of great public significance, such as this one, which is related to the funding of public education, merit the state supreme court’s full consideration. On this basis, I would docket this matter for full briefing and argument before rendering a considered opinion. 12/05/16
Exhibit 21.1   Subsidiaries of the Company
 
    
    Synthesis Energy Holdings, Inc. (Florida corporation)
 
    
    Owns 100% of:
 
    
    Synthesis Energy Systems, Inc. (British Virgin Islands corporation)
 
    
    Owns 100% of:
 
    
    Radiance Generation, Inc. (British Virgin Islands corporation)
    
    Synthesis Energy Systems Investments, Inc. (Mauritius corporation)
    
    Synthesis Energy Investment Holdings, Inc. (Mauritius corporation)
    
    Synthesis Energy Technology Holdings, Inc. (Mauritius corporation)
    
    Synthesis Energy Systems (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (Chinese corporation)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           6,418
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,940
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,567
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       286,142
<OTHER-SE>                                   (296,231)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       478
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      483
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 309
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (792)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       261
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,053)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,053)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
158 So.2d 605

#### STATE of Louisiana v. William BROWN.

No. 46755.

Dec. 16, 1963.

*444I. Edwin Henderson, Lake Charles, for .appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank T. Salter, Jr., Dist. Atty., Jack C. Watson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

SANDERS, Justice.

The defendant was convicted of the theft of $55.46 in currency. The court sentenced him to imprisonment for two years in the Louisiana State Penitentiary. The defendant has appealed from the conviction and sentence.

During the course of the trial, the defendant reserved four bills of exception. The case was assigned for argument in this Court for November 15, 1963. On October 29, the defendant filed a motion for permission to file a typewritten brief and for an extension of time within which to file it. The Court granted this motion. On the day fixed for argument, the defendant made no appearance, in person or through counsel, and filed no brief. Neither had he filed a motion for a continuance. Defense counsel advised the Court that he would make no appearance. Under these circumstances the bills of exception are considered to have been abandoned. State v. Perry, 239 La. 131, 118 So.2d 130; City of Natchitoches v. Dorfer, 226 La. 822, *77*So.2d 407; State v. Brumfield, 226 La. 103, 75 So.2d 23; State v. Carter, 226 La. 57, 74 So.2d 902; State v. Weaver, 222 La. 148, 62 So.2d 255 ; State v. DeSoto, 221 La. 624, 60 So.2d 65.

Remaining for consideration are errors patent on the face of the record. Our review of the record has failed to disclose such an error. •

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
EX-35 (a)
(logo) Bank of America


Bank of America
475 CrossPoint Parkway
PO Box 9000
Getzville, NY 14068-9000


Annual Statement as to Compliance
BAFC 2006-5


I, H. Randall Chestnut, Senior Vice President of Bank of America, N.A.,
(the "Servicer"), hereby certify as pursuant to section 3.20 of the Servicing
Agreement between Banc of America Funding Corporation (together with its
permitted successors and assigns, the "Depositor") and Bank of America National
Association, as Servicer (together with its permitted successors and assigns,
the "Servicer"), and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as trustee (together with its
permitted successors and assigns, the "Trustee") that: (a) a review of the
activities during the 2006 calendar year under this Agreement has been made
under my supervision and (b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review,
Bank of America, N.A. has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement
throughout the 2006 calendar year.


March 1, 2007


Bank of America, N.A.
as Servicer


By:/s/ H. Randall Chestnut
Name:  H. Randall Chestnut
Title: Senior Vice President
Exhibit 32(i)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the Form 10-K of National Bankshares, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2006, I, James G. Rakes, Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer of National Bankshares, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief that:

(1) such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securties Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2006, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of National Bankshares, Inc.


/s/ JAMES G. RAKES
-----------------------------------
James G. Rakes
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 31.2

           Certificate Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities
             Exchange Act of 1934 of the Principal Financial Officer

I, Jon Lambert, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Transforma Acquisition
Group Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting.

Dated: March 22, 2007

                                                /s/Jon Lambert
                                               ---------------------
                                          Name:    Jon Lambert
                                         Title:    Principal Financial Officer