alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  9
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000


<CAPTION>



<S>
                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                      28,950
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          72
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    951
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      78,436
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        78,176
<LOANS>                                    457,100
<ALLOWANCE>                                  4,784
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             590,108
<DEPOSITS>                                 522,670
<SHORT-TERM>                                19,325
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,255
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,131
<COMMON>                                     8,110
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,617
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             590,108
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             27,553
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,198
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                73
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            30,824
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          12,491
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          13,650
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       17,174
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  828
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             18,836
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,935
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   3,935
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,098
<EPS-BASIC>                                  19.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                19.43
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                7.96
<LOANS-NON>                                  3,122
<LOANS-PAST>                                   596
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             4,136
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  596
<RECOVERIES>                                   416
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            4,784
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         4,784
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0




</TABLE>
SUBPART 50.1 EXTRAORDINARY

CONTRACTUAL ACTIONS

Parent topic: PART 50 –– EXTRAORDINARY CONTRACTUAL ACTIONS AND THE SAFETY ACT

50.102 Delegation of and limitations on exercise of

authority.

50.102-2 Contract adjustment boards.

The DISA Contract Adjustment Board shall be composed of the following members:

SPE Chairperson

HCA Vice Chairperson and Member

General Counsel Member

The Board considers and evaluates requests for contract adjustments and recommends appropriate

action to the Director. The findings of the Board are advisory. The HCA shall assume staff and

administrative cognizance of contract adjustment matters and supply secretarial and recorder

services for the operation of the Board.

A majority constitutes a quorum for any purpose and the concurring vote of a majority of the total

board membership constitutes an action of the board. Alternates may be appointed to act in the

absence of any member.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Ellen Galioto, Respondent, v Jay Dee Transportation et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Third Department,

July 10, 1980

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Peter M. Pryor (Joseph F. Manes*and *Victoria E. Manes*of counsel), for appellants.

*Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Theresa E. Wolinski*and *Henriette Frieder*of counsel), for Workers’ Compensation Board, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Kane, J.

We are called upon to decide whether the Workers’ Compensation Law allows the board to direct an employer or its insurance carrier to provide homemaking services for an injured employee. In this case the facts are not in dispute. *349Claimant sustained a compensable accident and thereafter required hospitalization and surgery. She had small children at home. The board has decided that homemaking services should be provided during the period of her hospitalization and for an extended time following surgery.

In our view, while the motive of the majority of the board panel in directing such service is commendable, there is no statutory authorization for such a direction. Subdivision (a) of section 13 of the Workers’ Compensation Law provides, in relevant part, as follows: "The employer shall promptly provide for an *injured employee*such medical, surgical, optometric or other attendance or treatment, nurse and hospital service, medicine, optometric services, crutches, eye-glasses, false teeth, artificial eyes and apparatus for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require.” (Emphasis added.) We are unable to discover, from any reasonable reading of that statutory language, any obligation to provide services for the children of an injured claimant. Nor do we find any such authority in section 58 of the Workers’ Compensation . Law, which, in our view, merely directs workers’ compensation coverage for those who provide housekeeping and nursing services as wage earners. Any expansion of the services to be provided injured employees under the Workers’ Compensation Law is a matter for the Legislature.

The decision should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

Greenblott, J. P., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Decision reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
#### § 900.106 Assignment of mediator.

The Director of the Division shall assign a mediator, from the group designated by the Administrator, to act in such capacity.
Case 3:06-cv-00663-MHT-DRB Document 2 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-00663-MHT-DRB Document 2 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-00663-MHT-DRB Document 2 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 3 of 3
#### § 955.24 Acceptance.

Any person nominated to serve as a member or alternate member of the committee shall, prior to selection by the Secretary, qualify by filing a written acceptance indicating such person's willingness to serve in the position for which nominated.
EX-35 (e)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

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

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 12, 2007

Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mortgage
Loan Trust, Series 2006-AR4

Per Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 9/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities Administrator),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:


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

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



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

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
#### In the Matter of J. David Golub, Appellant, v Commissioner of Taxation and Finance for State of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 18, 2007;

decided September 4, 2007

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied with $100 dollars costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see*8 NY3d 811].
1092510

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY SCOTT, 

 Plaintiff,

vs.

NORMENT SECURITY GROUP, 

INC.,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 2:06-CV-00654-MEF

JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

Your counsel apologize s to the Court for misstating that a scheduling order had not been 

entered. For reasons unknown, neither counsel for either party had the order in their pleadings 

files. The order the Court has already entered does moot the need to extend the discovery cutoff, 

but a review of it reveals that the dispositive motion cutoff remains a problem due to the 

deposition difficulties averred in the prior motion. The motion cutoff is now July 3, 2007. The 

Parties ask that it be extended fourteen days, until July 17, 2007, so that any motion can be filed 

after depositions set for June 19th and 20th.

Dated this the 6

th day of June, 2007.

s/Braxton Schell, Jr.

BRAXTON SCHELL, JR.

Attorney for Plaintiff Gregory Scott

OF COUNSEL:

Braxton Schell, Jr., P.C.

1330 - 21st Way S.

Ste. 210

Birmingham, AL 35205

s/Bruce J. Downey, III

BRUCE J. DOWNEY, III

Attorney for Defendant

Norment Security Group, Inc. 

OF COUNSEL:

CAPELL & HOWARD, P.C.

150 South Perry Street (36104)

Post Office Box 2069

Montgomery, Alabama 36102-2069

Telephone: (334) 241-8000

Facsimile: (334) 323-8888

Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 17 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Shawn Green, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Submitted October 22, 2007;

decided November 19, 2007

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*9 NY3d 886 (2007)].
# 50.104-4 Contract clause.

The *contracting officer**shall* insert the clause at 52.250-1, Indemnification Under Public Law 85-804, in contracts whenever the approving official determines that the contractor *shall* be indemnified against unusually hazardous or nuclear risks (also see 50.104-3(b)(3)). In cost-reimbursement contracts, the *contracting officer**shall* use the clause with its *Alternate* I.

**Parent topic:**50.104 Residual powers.
§ 765.501 Agency exception authority. On an individual case basis, the Agency may consider granting an exception to any regulatory requirement or policy of this part if: ( a ) The exception is not inconsistent with the authorizing statute or other applicable law; and
( b ) The Agency's financial interest would be adversely affected by acting in accordance with published regulations or policies and granting the exception would resolve or eliminate the adverse effect upon the Agency's financial interest.
PUBLIC LAW 107–237—OCT. 11, 2002 116 STAT. 1485

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 238 (H.R. 1883):

HOUSE REPORTS: Nos. 107–638 and 107–363 accompanying H.R. 1883 (both from

Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 107–22 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 147 (2001): Aug. 3, considered and passed Senate.

Vol. 148 (2002): Sept. 24, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 107–237

107th Congress

An Act

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies on water

optimization in the Burnt River basin, Malheur River basin, Owyhee River basin,

and Powder River basin, Oregon.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Burnt, Malheur, Owyhee, and

Powder River Basin Water Optimization Feasibility Study Act of

2002’’.

SEC. 2. STUDY.

The Secretary of the Interior may conduct feasibility studies

on water optimization in the Burnt River basin, Malheur River

basin, Owyhee River basin, and Powder River basin, Oregon.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are

necessary to carry out this Act.

Approved October 11, 2002.

Burnt, Malheur,

Owyhee, and

Powder River

Basin Water

Optimization

Feasibility Study

Act of 2002.

Oct. 11, 2002

[S. 238]
PART 31 –– CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES

AND PROCEDURES
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

  Banc of America Funding Corporation
  Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
  Series 2006-6

  I, Tommy R. Harris, Senior Vice President of CitiMortgage, Inc. (the
  "Master Servicer"), certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D
     required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
     on Form 10-K/A of the Banc of America Funding 2006-6 Trust (the
     "Exchange Act Periodic Reports");

  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, taken as a
     whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act Periodic
     Reports;

  4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
     master servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review
     conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
     in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the master servicer has fulfilled
     its obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement, in all material
     respects; and

  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with the servicing
     criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
     reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
     asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
     accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
     13a-18 and 15d- 18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
     except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
     of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
     this report on Form 10-K/A.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
     information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
     JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., Washington Mutual Bank
     and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.



     Dated:    May 29, 2008

     /s/ Tommy R. Harris
     Signature

     Senior Vice President
     (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master servicer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEBRA BEYAH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06cv659-CSC

)

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The parties filed on May 18, 2007, a joint motion to extend the deadline for filing

dispositive motions and to extend discovery. (Doc. # 25). Under the existing scheduling

order, the pre-trial hearing in this case is set for August 28, 2007. The dispositive motion

deadline is 90 days prior to the pretrial conference. The existing deadline established by the

uniform scheduling order insures that the parties have a reasonable period of time to conduct

discovery and prepare motions and that the court will have sufficient time to fully and

properly consider issues raised on a motion for summary judgment. The deadlines also

facilitate the court reaching a decision on the motion prior to the time set for the pretrial

conference. While the court is willing to afford the parties additional time to file dispositive

motions, the parties should understand that dispositive motions filed after the original

deadline may not be determined prior to the pretrial hearing because the court will give

priority to those matters which have been filed in accordance with the original schedule

established by the court. With that understanding, it is 

 ORDERED as follows:

1. The parties be and are hereby GRANTED an extension to and including July 16,

2007, to file dispositive motions.

2. The parties be and are hereby GRANTED an extension to complete discovery on

or before September 28, 2007.

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 26 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

3. To the extent the parties request a stay of the proceedings, the motion be and is

hereby DENIED. 

Done this 22nd day of May, 2007.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 26 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 2 of 2
Safety and Security

Leadership and Offices 

Visiting USDA Headquarters

Doing Business with USDA

### Operating Status

Status of USDA facilities in the National Capital Region, severe weather or employee working hours.

Learn More

### AskUSDA

Get answers to your questions and learn more about USDA topics.

Learn More

### Careers

Search for and apply to available career opportunities. 

Apply Now

## Who We Are

Departmental Administration's (DA) mission is to provide management leadership to ensure that USDA administrative programs, policies, advice and counsel meet the needs of USDA people and projects, consistent with laws and mandates; and provide safe and efficient facilities and services to customers.
Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 2 Filed 07/26/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 2 Filed 07/26/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 2 Filed 07/26/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 2 Filed 07/26/2006 Page 4 of 4
§ 930.54 Prohibition on the use or disposition of inventory reserve cherries. Cherries that are placed in inventory reserve pursuant to the requirements of § 930.50, § 930.51, § 930.55, or § 930.57 shall not be used or disposed of by any handler or any other person except as provided in § 930.50 or in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section. ( a ) If the Board determines that the total available supplies for use in commercial outlets are less than the amount needed to meet the demand in such outlets, the Board may recommend to the Secretary that a portion or all of the primary and/or secondary inventory reserve cherries be released for such use.
( b ) The Board may recommend to the Secretary that a portion or all of the primary and/or secondary inventory reserve cherries be released for sale in certain designated markets. Such designated markets may be defined in terms of the use or form of the cherries.
( c ) Cherries in the primary and/or secondary inventory reserve may be used at any time for uses exempt from regulation under § 930.62.
( d ) Should the volume of cherries held in the primary inventory reserves and, subsequently, the secondary inventory reserves reach a minimum amount, which level will be established by the Secretary upon recommendation from the Board, the products held in the respective reserves shall be released from the reserves and made available to the handlers as free tonnage.
[67 FR 51714, Aug. 8, 2002, as amended at 75 FR 33678, June 15, 2010] Effective Date Note
Editorial Note: At 66 FR 232, Jan. 3, 2001, in § 930.54 paragraph (a), the word “normal” was suspended indefinitely.
432.1007 Administration and payment of performance-based payments.       The responsibility for receiving, reviewing, and approval of performance-based payment requests may not be transferred from the contracting officer.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 432.10 - Performance-Based Payments
§ 905.105 Tangerine and grapefruit classifications. ( a ) Pursuant to § 905.5(m), the following classifications of grapefruit are renamed as follows: ( 1 ) Marsh and other seedless grapefruit, excluding pink grapefruit, are renamed as Marsh and other seedless grapefruit, excluding red grapefruit;
( 2 ) Duncan and other seeded grapefruit, excluding pink grapefruit, are renamed as Duncan and other seeded grapefruit, excluding red grapefruit;
( 3 ) Pink seedless grapefruit is renamed as Red seedless grapefruit;
( 4 ) Pink seeded grapefruit is renamed as Red seeded grapefruit.
( b ) Pursuant to § 905.5(m), the term *variety* or *varieties* includes Sunburst and Fallglo tangerines.
[56 FR 49132, Sept. 27, 1991, as amended at 63 FR 55500, Oct. 16, 1998]
§ 97.12 Number and filing date of an application. ( a ) Applications shall be numbered and dated in sequence in the order received by the Office. Applicants will be informed in writing, by mail or email, as soon as practicable of the number and effective filing date of the application.
( b ) An applicant may claim the benefit of the filing date of a prior foreign application in accordance with section 55 of the Act. A certified copy of the foreign application shall be filed upon request made by the examiner. If a foreign application is not in the English language, an English translation, certified as accurate by a sworn or official translator, shall be submitted with the application.
[58 FR 42435, Aug. 9, 1993, as amended at 85 FR 431, Jan. 6, 2020]
§ 82.16 Refunds; joint and several liability. ( a ) In the event there is a failure to comply with any term, requirement, or condition for payment arising under the application of this part, and if any refund of a payment to AMS shall otherwise become due in connection with the application of this part, all payments made under this part to any grower shall be refunded to AMS together with interest.
( b ) All growers signing an application for payment as having an interest in such payment shall be jointly and severally liable for any refund, including related charges, that is determined to be due for any reason under the terms and conditions of the application of this part.
( c ) Interest shall be applicable to refunds required of any grower under this part if AMS determines that payments or other assistance were provided to a grower who was not eligible for such assistance. Such interest shall be charged at the rate of interest that the United States Treasury charges the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) for funds, as of the date AMS made benefits available to such grower. Such interest shall accrue from the date of repayment or the date interest increases as determined in accordance with applicable regulations. AMS may waive the accrual of interest if AMS determines that the cause of the erroneous determination was not due to any action of the grower.
( d ) Interest determined in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section may be waived on refunds required of the grower when there was no intentional noncompliance on the part of the grower, as determined by AMS. Such decision to waive or not waive the interest shall be at the discretion of the Administrator or delegatee.
( e ) Late payment interest shall be assessed on all refunds in accordance with the provisions of, and subject to the rates prescribed for, those claims which are addressed in 14 CFR part 1403.
( f ) Growers must refund to AMS any excess payments, as determined by AMS, with respect to such application. Such determinations shall be made by the Administrator or delegatee.
( g ) In the event that a benefit under this part was provided as the result of erroneous information provided by the grower, or was erroneously or improperly paid for any other reason, the benefit must be repaid with any applicable interest, subject to paragraphs (c) and (d) of § 82.6.