alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Millu Rosenblatt-Roth, Appellant, v Olga Rosenblatt-Roth, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously modified, by deleting the first decretal paragraph insofar as it dismisses plaintiffs cause of action for a divorce, and a new trial granted on that cause of action in the interest of justice, and otherwise judgment affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this matrimonial action in April, 1972 seeking an annulment of his marriage to the defendant on the ground of fraud or, in the alternative, a divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. The defendant’s counterclaim for a divorce was also based on alleged cruel and inhuman treatment. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs causes of action and defendant’s counterclaim. Plaintiff appealed, contending that the trial court erred in refusing to grant plaintiff judgment inasmuch as it found defendant guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment, and the record supported such a finding. We reserved decision and remitted the matter to the trial court to make findings of fact *(Rosenblatt-Roth*v *Rosenblatt-Roth,*64 AD2d 856). The trial court, however, reported its present inability to make findings and recommended a trial *de novo.*We have no alternative but to reverse the judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action for a divorce based on cruel and inhuman treatment and grant a new trial in the interest of justice. An intelligent review of' the decision of the trial court cannot be had in the absence of findings essential to the trial court’s decision (CPLR 4213, subd [b]; *Matter of Gray v Rose,*30 AD2d 138, 142; *Conklin v State of New York,*22 AD2d 481, 485). The inability of the trial court to state any facts in support of its determination after the case was remitted for the purpose of formulating findings of fact constitutes fundamental error and, in the interest of justice, there should be a new trial (see *Rodriguez v Cato,*63 AD2d 922, 923; *Di Grazia v Castronova,*48 AD2d 249; *Power v Falk,*15 AD2d 216). (Resubmission of appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court— divorce.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
52.215-3 Request for Information or Solicitation for Planning Purposes.       As prescribed in 15.209(c), insert the following provision:          Request for Information or Solicitation for Planning Purposes (Oct 1997)                                       (a) 						            The Government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this solicitation or to otherwise pay for the information solicited except as an allowable cost under other contracts as provided in subsection 31.205-18, Bid and proposal costs, of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.                                          (b) 						            Although "proposal" and "offeror" are used in this Request for Information, your response will be treated as information only. It shall not be used as a proposal.                                          (c) This solicitation is issued for the purpose of: ___________________________ [*state purpose*].                                 (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.215 [Reserved]
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Forest Road Stormwater Discharges

FROM: Prasad Chumble

Rural Branch

Water Permits Division, 4203M

TO: The File

DATE: 5/26/16

EPA met with the National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) and other industry stakeholders on 3 / 1 /16,

to discuss the potential of the regulation of stormwater discharges from forest roads under section

402(p)(6) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)

. The stakeholders des cribed the variety of best management

practices (BMP) programs that are being implem ented to reduce stormwater runoff from forest roads.

The stakeholders also discussed the increasing importance of third party certifications.
Editorial Note on Part 91
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 91 appear at 61 FR 51350, Oct. 2 1996.

§ 91.20 Shipping. ( a ) Samples must be submitted to the laboratory in a condition (including temperature) that does not compromise the quality and validity of analytical results.
( b ) All samples must be submitted in sealed, leakproof containers.
( c ) Containers for perishable refrigerated samples should contain ice or ice packs to maintain temperatures of 0° to 5 °C, unless a different temperature is required for the sample to be tested.
( d ) Containers for frozen samples should contain dry ice or other effective methods of maintaining samples in a frozen state.
( e ) The applicant is responsible for providing shipping containers and paying shipping costs for fee basis tests.
( f ) A courier charge may apply for the shipment of some samples.
#### § 927.102 Order.

*Order* means Marketing Order No. 927, as amended (§§ 927.1 to 927.81), regulating the handling of pears grown in the States of Oregon and Washington.

[71 FR 7676, Feb. 14, 2006]
#### Walter R. Conlin, Respondent, v Terry Spath, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Defendant moves to vacate a default judgment against him by which plaintiff was awarded damages for injuries sustained in a barroom assault. In his moving papers, defendant alleges that rather than being the aggressor he was the victim in the brawl and acted only in self-defense. When sued, he retained an attorney who submitted an answer on his behalf and took various pretrial steps in the litigation. When the case reached the Trial Calendar, defendant’s counsel withdrew without notice to his client, however, and permitted a default judgment to be entered. Thus, defendant submitted evidence of excusable default and a meritorious defense and his motion to vacate should have been granted (CPLR 5015, subd [a], par 1; *Ladd v Stevenson,*112 NY 325). (Appeal from order of Oswego Supreme Court—vacate default.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Moule, JJ.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3226 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain capers in containers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain capers in 

containers. 

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 CAPERS IN CONTAINERS. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.10.28 Capers, prepared or preserved by vinegar in immediate containers each holding 

more than 3.4 kg (provided 

for in subheading 

2001.90.10) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 3226 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 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRY DEESE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:06cv643-MHT

) 

HOMES OF LEGEND, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED as follows:

(1) Defendant Homes of Legend, Inc.’s motion to

supplement (Doc. No. 65) is granted.

(2) Plaintiff Terry Deese is allowed until January

22, 2008, to respond.

DONE, this the 4th day of January, 2008.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 66 Filed 01/04/2008 Page 1 of 1
EX-35 (c)
(logo) CHASE


SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


RE: Bank of America Funding 2006-6 Trust (BAFC 2006-6): The Pooling and
Servicing Agreement by and among U.S. Bank, NA as Assignee, Bank of America as
Assignor, CitiMortgage Inc. as Master Servicer (the "Agreement")


The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National
Association, as Servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the Bank of America
Funding 2006-6 Trust (BAFC 2006-6) (The "Agreement"), does hereby certify that:


     (1)   A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year
           ending December 31, 2006 and of the performance of the Servicer
           under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

     (2)   To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
           fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material
           respects throughout such year.


Date: 02/28/2007


JPMorgan Chase Bank,
National Association,
as Servicer
By:/s/ David Lowman
Name:  David Lowman
Title: Executive Vice President
§ 955.43 Accounting. ( a ) All funds received by the committee pursuant to the provisions of this part shall be used solely for the purposes specified in this part.
( b ) The Secretary may at any time require the committee, its members and alternates, employees, agents and all other persons to account for all receipts and disbursements, funds, property, or records for which they are responsible. Whenever any person ceases to be a member or alternate of the committee, such person shall account for all receipts and disbursements and deliver all property and funds in such member's possession to the committee, pertaining to the committee's activities for which such person was responsible, and shall execute such assignments and other instruments as may be necessary or appropriate to vest in the committee full title to all of the property, funds, and claims vested in such person.
( c ) The committee may make recommendations to the Secretary for one or more of the members thereof, or any other person, to act as a trustee for holding records, funds, or any other committee property during periods of suspension of this part, or during any period or periods when regulations are not in effect and, upon determining such action is appropriate, the Secretary may direct that such person or persons shall act as trustee or trustees for the committee.
#### § 955.86 Separability.

If any provision of this part is declared invalid, or the applicability thereof to any person, circumstance, or thing is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this part, or the applicability thereof to any other person, circumstance, or thing shall not be affected thereby.
EX-34 (j)
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG


Ernst & Young LLP
Suite 2800
600 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2215

Phone: (404) 874-8300
www.ey.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that ZC Sterling Insurance Agency, Inc. (the Company)
complied with certain servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the ZC Sterling
Integrated Product Solution (ZIPS) hazard insurance outsourcing Platform
(Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. The Company has
determined that only certain servicing criteria 1122 (d) 1(iv), 1122 (d) 2(vi),
1122 (d) 4(xi), 1122 (d) 4(xii), and 1122 (d) 4(xiii) are applicable to the
activities performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by this
report. The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the
Platform covered by this report. See Appendix A of management's assertion for
the Platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with those servicing criteria, Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with 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 applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than
all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing
criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed 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 Platform. 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 assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
for the ZIPS Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 20, 2007


A Member Practice of Ernst & Young Global
Exhibit 33.1.3.2

 

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH**

**§1122(d)(2)(vi) and §1122(d)(4)(xi)**

**of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA**

 

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc. (affiliates of Assurant Inc., collectively 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 §1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs with respect to all mortgage loan-tracking transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered by this report include all mortgage loan-tracking transactions for which the Asserting Party served as a Vendor on behalf of Servicers for such asset-backedsecurities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Platform”). The scope of the Asserting Party assertions excludes §1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, which relates to servicing activities that are performed by the Asserting Party with respect to the Platform, but are not reported on herein.

 

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with §1122(d)(2)(vi) and §1122(d)(4)(xi) ("the Applicable Servicing Criteria") for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform taken as a whole. The Asserting Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

 

The Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.

 

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 and for the Reporting Period ending December 31, 2006 as set forth in this assertion. 

 

|   | American Security Insurance Company |
|--------|-------------------------------------|

|   | Standard Guaranty Insurance Company |
|--------|-------------------------------------|

|   | Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ John Frobose |
|--------|------------------|

|   | By: John Frobose |
|--------|------------------|

|   | Senior Vice President |
|--------|-----------------------|

 

 

|   | Date: February 23, 2007    |
|--------|---------------------------------|
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 868.7 Procedures for establishing regulations and standards.

Notice of proposals to prescribe, amend, or revoke regulations and standards shall be published in accordance with applicable provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 551 *et seq.*). Any interested person desiring to file a petition for the issuance, amendment, or revocation of regulations or standards may do so in accordance with 7 CFR 1.28 of the regulations of the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Subpart 731.1—Applicability

Parent topic: PART 731—CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

731.109 Advance agreements.

Advance agreements on selected costs may be negotiated with USAID contractors by the Bureau for

Management, Office of Acquisition and Assistance, Cost Audit Support Division, Overhead and

Special Cost and Contract Close-Out Branch (M/OAA/CAS/OCC). Such advance understandings will

be applicable to all USAID contracts with that contractor.
48.101 General.    (S-90) When a contracting officer receives a Value Engineering Change Proposal (VECP) from the contractor, the contracting officer / acquisition team shall:       (1) Acknowledge receipt within 5 business days.       (2) Provide a copy to the Program Management Office (PMO) and copy the DISA VE Senior Management Official in the DISA Office of the Component Acquisition Executive; the evaluation shall convene within 10 business days and the KO shall be notified of the acceptance or rejection within 15 business days.       (3) If additional information is needed, the PMO will notify the contractor, and copy the Contracting Officer and VE Senior Management Official. If negotiation of the VE is required, the KO shall lead the negotiations.       (4) If accepted, the KO shall execute a bilateral modification to the contract citing the VE clause in the contract as the authority for the modification.       (5) If VECP is not accepted, the KO will notify the Contractor in writing, with an explanation of why the VECP was not accepted. The KO will copy the PMO and the VE Senior Management Official. **Parent topic:** SUBPART 48.1 – POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC NEUROMODULATION 

CORP.,

Appellant

v.

NEVRO CORP.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2021-1775

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-

01284.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

Z.W. JULIUS CHEN, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 

LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by PRATIK A. SHAH; MICHAEL P. KAHN, New York, 

NY; DAVID A. CAINE, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, 

Palo Alto, CA; MATTHEW WOLF, Washington, DC. 

 RYAN C. MORRIS, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, 

argued for appellee. Also represented by THOMAS ANTHONY 

BROUGHAN, III; CHING-LEE FUKUDA, SHARON LEE, New 

Case: 21-1775 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2022
York, NY; JON WRIGHT, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, 

PLLC, Washington, DC. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (MOORE, Chief Judge, CHEN and 

HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

March 10, 2022

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-1775 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 03/10/2022
Page 1 of 2 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 ) 

vs. ) 2:06CR169-WHA 

 ) 

 ) 

CECILLO PACACHE, et al. ) 

NOTICE OF INTENT TO CHANGE PLEA

COMES NOW the Defendant, JAMES EARL HUBBARD, by and through 

counsel of record, and gives notice that he intends to change his plea from not guilty to 

guilty.

 Respectfully submitted this the __2ND___day of October, 2007. 

 s/ William R. Blanchard

 WILLIAM R. BLANCHARD 

 Attorney for the Defendant 

BLANCHARD LAW OFFICES 

505 South Perry Street 

Post Office Box 746 

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0746 

(334) 269-9691 

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 354 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 ) 

vs. ) 2:06CR169-WHA 

 ) 

 ) 

CECILLO PACACHE, et al. ) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 2, 2007, 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: AUSA Clark Morris, and I hereby certify that I have mailed by 

United States Postal Service the document to the following non-CM/ECF participants: 

n/a. 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ William R. Blanchard 

BLANCHARD LAW OFFICES 

505 South Perry Street 

Post Office Box 746 

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0746 

Office: (334) 269-9691 

Fax: (334) 263-4766 

(BLA029) 

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 354 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 2 of 2
242.7302 Requirements.       (a)(1)  An in-depth CIPR as described at DFARS                 242.7301             (a)(1) shall be conducted only when—          (i)  A contractor has $50 million of qualifying sales to the Government during the contractor’s preceding fiscal year; and          (ii)  The ACO, with advice from DCMA insurance/pension specialists and DCAA auditors, determines a CIPR is needed based on a risk assessment of the contractor’s past experience and current vulnerability.          (2) Qualifying sales are sales for which certified cost or pricing data were required under 10 U.S.C. 3702, as implemented in FAR 15.403, or that are contracts priced on other than a firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment basis. Sales include prime contracts, subcontracts, and modifications to such contracts and subcontracts.          (b)  A special CIPR that concentrates on specific areas of a contractor’s insurance programs, pension plans, or other deferred compensation plans shall be performed for a contractor (including, but not limited to, a contractor meeting the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section) when any of the following circumstances exists, but only if the circumstance(s) may result in a material impact on Government contract costs:          (1)  Information or data reveals a deficiency in the contractor's insurance/pension program.          (2)  The contractor proposes or implements changes in its insurance, pension, or deferred compensation plans.          (3)  The contractor is involved in a merger, acquisition, or divestiture.          (4)  The Government needs to follow up on contractor implementation of prior CIPR recommendations.          (c)  The DCAA auditor shall use relevant findings and recommendations of previously performed CIPRs in determining the scope of any audits of insurance and pension costs.          (d)  When a Government organization believes that a review of the contractor’s insurance/pension program should be performed, that organization should provide a recommendation for a review to the ACO.  If the ACO concurs, the review should be performed as part of an ACO-initiated special CIPR or as part of a CIPR already scheduled for the near future.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 242.73 - CONTRACTOR INSURANCE/PENSION REVIEW