alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Edward A. McMahon et al., Appellants, v Travelers Indemnity Company, Respondent.

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered October 24, 1978 in Albany County, which granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. On July 21, 1977, a strong wind blew down a large maple tree and two limbs from a box elder tree on property belonging to plaintiffs, and two fences on the property were also damaged by the falling trees. As a consequence, plaintiffs commenced the present action based upon a homeowners’ insurance policy issued to them by defendant, and in this action they seek to recover from defendant as damages the value of the maple tree, the cost of estimating the value of the maple tree, the cost of removing the debris which resulted from the falling tree and limbs and the cost of repairing the two fences. In its answer, defendant concedes its liability for the damage to the two fences, but asserts that the other damages alleged by plaintiffs are not covered by the insurance policy in question. Ultimately, at Special Term, both parties moved for summary judgment, and the court granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed. Upon our examination of plaintiffs’ homeowners’ policy, we find it clearly and unambiguously affords coverage against all risks of direct physical loss only to dwellings and appurtenant private structures, and trees, such as those at issue here, are obviously not included in either of these two categories of covered structures. Moreover, the policy specifically extends coverage to trees in another of its provisions, but this latter coverage is expressly limited to losses resulting from causes other than wind or storm. Under these circumstances, with no triable factual issues presented, the clear and unambiguous language of the policy must be given effect and plaintiffs must be denied any recovery for the damage to their trees (cf. *Trimble-Waterman Assoc, v Certain Underwriters at Lloyds,*41 NY2d 934; *McLeod & Henry Co. v Employers’ Fire Ins. Co.,*46 AD2d 242). This result does not affect plaintiffs’ claim relative to their fences, however, and, as noted above, defendant concedes its liability for the repair of the damaged fencing. Such being the case, plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment in the sum of $39.58, i.e., $89.58, the uncontested amount of damage sustained by the fences, less $50, the applicable deductible amount as provided in plaintiffs’ homeowners’ policy. Order modified, on the law, by granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment in the sum of $39.58, and, as so modified, affirmed without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane Staley, Jr., Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-41368 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARLOS CASTILLO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-99-CR-342-2

-------------------- June 13, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Castillo-Hernandez (“Castillo”) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Castillo has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from furtherNo. 99-41368 -2- responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JODIE MILLER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 5:03cv318/LAC/WCS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation dated June 7, 2007. Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the report and

recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United

States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the report and recommendation, I have determined that the report and

recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 44) is GRANTED, and this action is dismissed

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2007.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-00318-LC-WCS Document 46 Filed 07/10/07 Page 1 of 1
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

To Board of Directors                                           December 1, 1999
And Stockholders of
The Saint James Company

         I have  audited  the  Balance  Sheets of The Saint  James  Company,  (A
Development Stage Company), as of September 30, 1999, December 31, 1998, and the
related Statements of Stockholders'  Equity for September 30, 1999, and December
31, 1998, and Statements of Operations and Cash Flows for the three months ended
September 30, 1999, and September 31, 1998, and the two years ended December 31,
1998,  and December 31, 1997,  and the period  January 7, 1993  (inception),  to
September 30, 1999.  These financial  statements are the  responsibility  of the
Company's  management.  My  responsibility  is to  express  an  opinion on these
financial statements based on my audit.

         I conducted my audit in accordance  with  generally  accepted  auditing
standards.  Those standards  require that I plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the  accounting  principles  used and  significant  estimates  made by
management,  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
I believe that my audit provides a reasonable basis for my opinion.

         In my opinion,  the  financial  statements  referred  to above  present
fairly,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  position of The Saint James
Company,  (A Development Stage Company),  as of September 30, 1999, and December
31, 1998, and the related  statements of Stockholders'  Equity for September 30,
1999, and December 31, 1998, and the related statements of Stockholders'  Equity
for  September  30, 1999,  and  September  30,  1998,  for the nine months ended
September 30, 1999, and September 30, 1998, and the two years ended December 31,
1998,  and December 31, 1997,  and the period  January 7, 1993  (inception),  to
September 30, 1999, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

         The accompanying  financial  statements have been prepared assuming the
Company  will  continue  as a  going  concern.  As  discussed  in Note #3 to the
financial  statement,  the Company has no  established  source of revenue.  This
raises  substantial  doubt about its  ability to  continue  as a going  concern.
Management's  plan in regard to these matters are also described in Note #3. The
financial  statements do not include any adjustments  that might result from the
outcome of this uncertainty.


\s\  Barry L. Friedman
--------------------------------
     Barry L. Friedman
     Certified Public Accountant
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2859 

To reduce temporarily the duty on acrylic or modacrylic synthetic filament 

tow. 

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 reduce temporarily the duty on acrylic or modacrylic 

synthetic filament tow. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ACRYLIC OR MODACRYLIC SYNTHETIC FILA4 MENT TOW. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.10.21 Synthetic filament tow: 

acrylic or modacrylic (provided for in subheading 

5501.30.00) ......................... 6.8% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2859 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Exhibit 33.1.3.1

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas, L.P. (an indirect subsidiary of the First American Corporation and the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2006, and for the period from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the “Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d)(1)(iv), (d)(2)(v), (d)(2)(vi), (d)(2)(vii), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii) and (d)(4)(xiii) of the Code of Federal Regulation (the “CFR”) applicable to the Asserting Party (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”). The transactions covered by this repot include all loans for residential mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Asserting Party served as the residential tax service provider (the “Platform”).

 

The Asserting has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that, except as set forth hereinbelow, the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2006, and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

 

The Asserting Party assessed it compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has identified a material instance of noncompliance with the servicing criterion set forth in Section 229.1122(d)(2)(vii)(B) of the CFR with respect to the Platform. Specifically the Asserting Party did not prepare reconciliations for all asset-backed securities related bank accounts within 30 calendar days after the statement cut-off date or such number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2006, and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

 

FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESATE SOLUTIONS OF TEXAS, L.P.

By: First American Real Estate Solutions LLC

|   | General Partner |
|--------|-----------------|

 

 

/s/ Lucy A. Przybyla

Lucy A. Przybyla

Senior Vice President

February 28, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,654
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,469
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,878
<INVENTORY>                                     31,842
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,259
<PP&E>                                         162,151
<DEPRECIATION>                                  87,749
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 257,161
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,958
<BONDS>                                        251,755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     41,021
<COMMON>                                            74
<OTHER-SE>                                   (125,301)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   257,161
<SALES>                                        265,840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               267,906
<CGS>                                           84,625
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  252,662
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,210
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,966)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,099
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,065)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,065)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    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 the Treasury

###### Office of Thrift Supervision

          - [Docket ID: OTS-2010-0034]

# AGENCY:

Office of Thrift Supervision, Department of the Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of Closed Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The OTS Mutual Savings Associations Advisory Committee (MSAAC) will convene a meeting on Monday, December 20, beginning at Noon, Eastern Time. The meeting will be closed to the public.

# DATES:

The closed meeting will be held on Monday, December 20, 2010, at Noon, Eastern Time.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. The public is invited to submit written statements to the MSAAC by any one of the following methods:
      -  E-mail address: mutualcommittee@ots.treas.gov;                          or                    
      -  Mail:                          To Charlotte Bahin, Designated Federal Official, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552 in triplicate.                    

The agency must receive statements no later than December 13, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charlotte M. Bahin, Designated Federal Official, (202) 906-6452, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

By this notice, the Office of Thrift Supervision is announcing that the OTS Mutual Savings Association Advisory Committee will convene a closed meeting on Monday, December 20, 2010, beginning at Noon, Eastern Time. The meeting will not be open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to advise OTS on what regulatory changes or other steps OTS may be able to take to ensure the continued health and viability of mutual savings associations, and other issues of concern to the existing mutual savings associations.

Dated: December 1, 2010.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Deborah Dakin,

Acting Chief Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2010-30704 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
52.252-2 Clauses Incorporated by Reference.

As prescribed in 52.107(b), insert the following clause:

Clauses Incorporated By Reference (Feb 1998)

This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if

they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available.

Also, the full text of a clause may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

_____________________________________________ _____________________________________________

_____________________________________________ [Insert one or more Internet addresses]

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.252 [Reserved]
#### D. B. Bentley, appellee, v. L. J. Lippert, appellant.

Gen. No. 37,016.

Opinion filed October 24, 1934.

Rehearing denied November 15, 1934.

George C. Bliss, for appellant. John A. Bloomingston, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7171

JOHN WOODLAND, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden Maryland House of Correction; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA99-352-PJM) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Woodland, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., AttorneyGeneral, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Woodland appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Woodland v. Corcoran , No. CA-99-352-PJM (D. Md. filed July 10, 2001; entered July 11, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 31.2** **SECTION 302    CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**     I, William J. Gervais, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on    Form 10-Q    of Qualstar Corporation;     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(s) 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) [Paragraph (b) is omitted pursuant to SEC    Release Nos.    33-8238 and    34-47986]     (c) 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     (d) 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(s) 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 the 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: November 13, 2006     /s/  WILLIAM    J.    GERVAIS  William J. Gervais
52.202-1 Definitions.       As prescribed	in 2.201, insert the	following clause:          Definitions (Jun 2020)          When a solicitation provision or contract clause uses a word	or term that is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR),	the word or term has the same meaning as the definition in FAR 2.101 in effect at the	time the solicitation was issued, unless-                                       (a) 						            The	solicitation, or amended solicitation, provides a different definition;                                          (b) 						            The contracting	parties agree to a different definition;                                          (c) 						            The part,	subpart, or section of the FAR where the provision or clause is	prescribed provides a different meaning;                                          (d) 						            The word	or term is defined in FAR part  31, for use	in the cost principles and procedures;	or                                          (e) 						            The word or term defines an	acquisition-related threshold, and if the threshold is adjusted	for inflation as set forth in FAR 1.109(a), then the changed	threshold applies throughout the remaining term of the contract,	unless there is a subsequent threshold adjustment; see FAR 1.109(d).                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.202 [Reserved]