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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3077 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Mixtures of famoxadone and Cymoxanil. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Mixtures of famoxadone 

and Cymoxanil. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF FAMOXADONE AND CYMOXANIL. 

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: 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
2 

•S 3077 IS 

‘‘ 9902.12.45 Mixtures of 5-methyl-5-(4- 

phenoxyphenyl)–3- 

(phenylamino)–2,4- 

oxazolidinedione] 

(famoxadone) (CAS No. 

131807–57–3), 2-cyano-N- 

[(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2- 

(methoxyimino)acetamide 

(Cymoxanil) (CAS No. 

57966–95–7) and application adjuvants (provided for 

in subheading 3808.20.15) .. 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2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 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 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DEVIN A. PEMBERTON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20cv453-TKW-MAF

ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY,

Defendant.

/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 9). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the case file.

Case 4:20-cv-00453-TKW-MAF Document 10 Filed 01/05/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00453-TKW-MAF Document 10 Filed 01/05/21 Page 2 of 2
§ 766.111 Writedown. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 65044 , Aug. 8, 2024.
( a ) *Borrower eligibility.* The Agency will only consider a writedown if the borrower: ( 1 ) Meets the eligibility criteria in § 766.104;
( 2 ) Is delinquent;
( 3 ) Has not previously received debt forgiveness on any FLP direct loan; and
( 4 ) Complies with the Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation requirements of 7 CFR part 12.
( b ) *Conditions.* The conditions required for approval of writedown are: ( 1 ) Rescheduling, consolidation, reamortization, deferral or some combination of these options on all of the borrower's loans would not result in a feasible plan with a 110 percent debt service margin. If a feasible plan is achieved with a debt service margin of 101 percent or more, the Agency will permit a borrower to accept a non-writedown servicing offer and waive the right to a writedown offer when the writedown offer will require additional time and appraisals to fully develop. If after obtaining an appraisal a feasible plan is achieved with and without a writedown and the borrower meets all the eligibility requirements, both options will be offered and the borrower may choose one option.
( 2 ) The present value of the restructured loan must be greater than or equal to the net recovery value of Agency security and any non-essential assets.
( 3 ) The writedown amount, excluding debt reduction received through Conservation Contract, does not exceed $300,000.
( 4 ) A borrower who owns real estate must execute an SAA in accordance with § 766.201.
( c ) *Associated loan servicing.* Loans written down will also be serviced in accordance with §§ 766.107 and 766.108, as appropriate.
[72 FR 63316, Nov. 8, 2007, as amended at 86 FR 43392, Aug. 9, 2021]
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 of Centenary International
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Hector A. Patron Costas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Hector A. Patron Costas
------------------------------------
Hector A. Patron Costas
Chief Executive Officer
March 2, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB solely
pursuant to 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 are not
being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2875 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2875

   To suspend temporarily the duty on (5-cyclopropyl-4-isoxazolyl)[2-
 (methylsulfonyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]methanone (Isoxaflutole).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   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 (5-cyclopropyl-4-isoxazolyl)[2-
 (methylsulfonyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]methanone (Isoxaflutole).

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

SECTION 1. (5-CYCLOPROPYL-4-ISOXAZOLYL)[2-(METHYLSULFONYL)-4-
              (TRIFLUOROMETHYL)PHENYL]METHANONE (ISOXAFLUTOLE).

    (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:

``      9902.11.46       (5-cyclopropyl-4-  4.8%         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         isoxazolyl)[2-                                                     31/2009
                         (methylsulfonyl)-
                         4-
                         (trifluoromethyl)
                         phenyl]methanone
                         (Isoxaflutole)
                         (CAS No. 141112-
                         29-0) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         2934.99.15)......

    (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>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank A. Lucier, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed and matter remitted to Brie County Court for a hearing. Memorandum: The petition was prima facie sufficient to entitle the petitioner to a hearing. (Appeal from order of Brie County Court denying, without a hearing, motion for resentence.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Veccliio, JJ.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2970 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide free credit monitoring 

and credit reports for veterans and others affected by the theft of 

veterans’ personal data, to ensure that such persons are appropriately 

notified of such thefts, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2006 

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

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide free 

credit monitoring and credit reports for veterans and 

others affected by the theft of veterans’ personal data, 

to ensure that such persons are appropriately notified 

of such thefts, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Identity Pro5 tection Act of 2006’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2970 IS

1 SEC. 2. CERTIFICATION BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS AF2 FAIRS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the 

4 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans 

5 Affairs (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall 

6 certify in writing to Congress that any individual whose 

7 personal information is compromised due to lax data secu8 rity precautions at the Department of Veterans Affairs 

9 has been appropriately notified in writing of such com10 promise. 

11 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The certification required by 

12 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any compromise 

13 of personal information at the Department of Veterans Af14 fairs occurring before or after the date of enactment of 

15 this Act, including with respect to the theft of data first 

16 publicly reported on May 22, 2006. 

17 SEC. 3. FREE SERVICES TO VICTIMS OF DATA SECURITY 

18 BREACHES. 

19 The Secretary shall provide, free of charge, to each 

20 individual whose personal information is (or was before 

21 the date of enactment of this Act) compromised due to 

22 lax data security precautions at the Department of Vet23 erans Affairs— 

24 (1) credit monitoring services, during the 1-year 

25 period beginning on the date of enactment of this 

26 Act; and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•S 2970 IS

1 (2) a copy of the credit report (as defined in 

2 section 603 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act) of the 

3 affected individual once annually during the 2-year 

4 period beginning on the date on which the credit 

5 monitoring services required by paragraph (1) termi6 nate, which shall be in addition to any other credit 

7 report provided to the individual under otherwise ap8 plicable law, free of charge or otherwise. 

9 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

10 There is authorized to be appropriated to the Sec11 retary to carry out this Act, $1,250,000,000. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL HILL,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 351 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
1

 The motion was filed on a form used to file civil actions in the District Court. However,

it is clear that the pleading filed by plaintiff is intended to seek the issuance of subpoenas in

the pending civil action, which is set for trial on October 2, 2006. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WAYNE BLACK, #137192, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:03cv734-MEF

)

LAMAR GLOVER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

On September 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion requesting the court to issue

subpoenas to Darien Bush, Anthony Boston, and Vallie Hathaway (Doc. # 39).1

 Upon

consideration of the motion to issue subpoenas, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is DENIED as moot. The court ordered

service of subpoenas on plaintiff's witnesses, including Bush, Boston and Hathaway, by order

entered September 22, 2006 (Doc. # 34). The Marshal has successfully served Bush and

Hathaway, although plaintiff did not provide any witness fees to accompany the subpoenas.

As plaintiff was informed by the court in a telephone conference on September 27, 2006,

Boston could not be found at the address provided. Plaintiff was unable to offer any other

address for use by the Marshal to locate Boston.

It is further ORDERED that the application to proceed without prepayment of fees

Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 41 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

filed September 28, 2006 (Doc. # 40) be and hereby is DENIED as moot in light of the

plaintiff's previous motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the court's order granting the

motion (Doc. ## 2 and 3).

DONE, this 28th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 41 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 2 of 2
env_EX_10_37


		
			Exhibit 10.37
		

		
			February 21, 2018
		

		
			 
		

		
			The Board of Directors
		

		
			Envestnet, Inc.:
		

		
			 
		

		
			Ladies and Gentlemen:
		

		
			 
		

		
			We hereby consent to the reference to this firm under the caption "Item 1. Business - Market
		

		
			Opportunity" in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 of
		

		
			Envestnet, Inc. (the "Company"), incorporated by reference into the Company's Registration
		

		
			Statements on Form S-8 nos. 333-169050, 333-181071, 333-204858 and 333-208107.
		

		
			 
		

		
			Very truly yours,
		

		
			 
		

		
			Cerulli Associates
EX-33 (e)
(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
1

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Oscar Axcel Duron v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-18-00376-CR

Trial court case number: 1507865

Trial court: 176th District Court of Harris County

We previously abated this appeal and remanded the case to the trial court to 

determine whether new counsel should be appointed to represent appellant on appeal. On 

March 11, 2019, the trial court appointed Abbie L. Russell to represent appellant. We 

then reinstated the case on the Court’s active docket and directed counsel to file (1) an 

amended brief on appellant’s behalf or (2) a motion to adopt the “Analysis of the 

Appellate Record in Accordance with Anders v. California,” filed in this appeal on 

January 2, 2019, along with a motion to withdraw that complied with Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 6.5 no later than May 2, 2019. Counsel has not filed an amended 

brief or a motion to adopt the Anders brief filed on January 2, 2019.

Accordingly, if counsel does not file (1) a motion to extend time with an amended 

brief on appellant’s behalf, (2) a motion to extend time to file an amended appellant’s 

brief, or (3) a motion to adopt the “Analysis of the Appellate Record in Accordance with 

Anders v. California,” filed in this appeal on January 2, 2019, along with a motion to 

withdraw that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5 within 10 days of the 

date of this order, this Court must order the trial court to immediately conduct a hearing 

on the record to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or, if not indigent, whether counsel has abandoned the appeal, and to 

make appropriate findings and recommendations. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Julie Countiss____________________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___June 4, 2019__
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RAHEEM HUTCHINSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 3 EAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of May, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

HAROLD KELLY MURPHY, * 

 * 

 Plaintiff, * 

 * 

v. * Case No.: 2:06-cv-618 

 * 

SOUTHERN ENERGY HOMES, INC., et al., * 

 * 

 Defendants. * 

TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

NOTICE OF PROCEEDING

COME NOW the Defendant, Southern Energy Homes, Inc., by and through its attorney 

of record, and hereby give notice to the Attorney General of the State of Alabama pursuant to '6-

6-227 of the Code of Alabama, 1975, of its challenge to the constitutionality and legality of the 

recovery of mental anguish damages and punitive damages in this action. A copy of the 

Defendant’s Answer is attached hereto and served with this Notice of Proceeding. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s Mitchel H. Boles 

 Robert D. Segall (ASB-7354-E68R) 

 Lee H. Copeland (ASB-3461-O72L) 

 Mitchel H. Boles (ASB-0813-S69M) 

 

Attorney for Southern Energy Homes, Inc. 

OF COUNSEL: 

Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A. 

444 South Perry Street 

P. O. Box 347 

Montgomery, AL 36101-0347

Phone: 334/834-1180 

Facsimile: 334/834-3172 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 5 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on 20th day of July, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

following: 

• Charles Lance Gould

lance.gould@beasleyallen.com holly.stroh@beasleyallen.com 

• Carter Gibson Vance

gibson.vance@beasleyallen.com heidi.bowers@beasleyallen.com

and I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the 

following non-CM/ECF participants: 

 Honorable Troy King 

Attorney General for State of Alabama 

11 South Union Street, Suite 301 

 Montgomery, Alabama 36130 

 /s Mitchel H. Boles 

 Of Counsel 

2

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 5 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### Flushing Plumbing Supply Co., Inc., Respondent, v F&T Management & Parking Corp. et al., Appellants.

[815 NYS2d 257]

In an action to recover damages for breach of a commercial lease, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated November 9, 2005, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground that the action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A fundamental concern underlying the doctrine of res judicata is fairness *(see Matter of Hodes v Axelrod,*70 NY2d 364, 374 [1987]; *McMahan & Co. v Bass,*255 AD2d 238 [1998]). In determining the fairness of applying the doctrine in a particular *856case, a relevant question is whether the issues involved in the earlier litigation and those presented in the subsequent litigation are “so closely related in time, space, motivation, or origin, that treating them as a unit would have been convenient for trial and would have conformed to the parties’ expectations” *(McMahan & Co. v Bass, supra*at 238). In this case, the Supreme Court properly found that the action for rent allegedly due under the court-extended portion of the lease was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

The earlier litigation dealt with the provisions of a right-of-first-refusal clause contained in a contract between the parties, and was commenced before there was any issue as to rents due. Additionally, the contract and rent issues were related only collaterally. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ CPLR 3211 (a) (5) motion to dismiss the current action on the ground that it is barred by res judicata. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Anthony C. Cuty, Appellant, v. Charles L. McKendrick, as Warden of Wallkill Prison, Respondent.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, on the ground that relator has been released on parole (see *People ex rel. Wilder*v. *Marhley,*26 N Y 2d 648). Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur.