alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harry Watley, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 8, 1967, convicting defendant of robbery in the third degree, unarmed, on his plea of guilty during trial, and sentencing him to a prison term of from 5 to 10 years. Judgment reversed, on the law, and case remitted to the Criminal Term for the purposes of (1) holding a hearing upon defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, limited to (a) his claim of innocence and (b) his claim that the trial court coerced his guilty plea through his attorney, (2) making a determination thereon *de novo*and (3) further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Since it is anticipated that the Justice who accepted the plea may be a witness on the issue of coercion, it is further directed that the hearing be conducted before another Justice. No questions of fact hearing on the merits of the aforesaid claims were considered on this appeal. Predicated on the record before us, we find that defendant was unduly frustrated in his attempts to explain his position and that the trial court did not afford him an adequate opportunity to substantiate his aforesaid claims. Accordingly we are of the opinion that the informed discretion envisioned by the statute was not exercised (Code Crim. Pro., § 337; *People*v. *Vignera,*29 A D 2d 657; *People*v. *Klein,*26 A D 2d 559) and it was error for the trial court to decide defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty without permitting him to adduce such proof as he might have been advised in support of his aforesaid claims *(People*v. *Jones,*30 A D 2d 560). We have also considered defendant’s other bases for his claim that his plea was induced and find them patently *792without merit and not persuasive that he should have been afforded a hearing with respect thereto. With respect to defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of new counsel on his motion to withdraw his plea, we are of the opinion that defendant waived this when he stated to the court that he would argue the motion himself. In any event, in view of our determination that defendant is entitled to a hearing as limited, and, since it is anticipated that new counsel will be assigned to represent him thereat, if defendant be so advised, the question is academic with respect to the claims to be considered at the hearing. Brennan, Hopkins and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Christ, Acting P. J., and Rabin, J., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment.
----

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|

**REG      AB 1123 Statement of Compliance**

| a)   | A                review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and                of its                performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made                under                my supervision. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| b)   | To                the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth                below                IndyMac                Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the agreement in                all                material respects                throughout the reporting                period. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| c)   | None |
|----------------|------|

|                  By:              |  /s/  Robert              M. Abramian |
|---------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |  Robert              M. Abramian                |
|                                        |  First              Vice President              |
|                                        |  Home              Loans Servicing              |
|                                        |  Investor              Reporting                |
|                                        |  IndyMac              Bank                      |
|                                        |                                                 |
|                                        |                                                 |
|                    By:  |  /s/  Bart              Vincent       |
|                                        |  Bart              Vincent                      |
|                                        |  First              Vice President              |
|                                        |  HLS-Finance                                    |
|                                        |  Financial                                      |
|                                        |  IndyMac              Bank                      |

|  Prepared              for: |  Aurora              Loan Services |
|----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                             |                                    |
|  Date:                      |  February              28, 2007    |
|                             |                                    |
|  Ref:                       |  EXHIBIT              A            |

----

**EXHIBIT        A**

----
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 2 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 2 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 2 of 2
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Arthur J. Hood et al., Respondents, v Valerie Connaughton, Appellant.

In a proceeding brought by grandparents for, *inter alia,*visitation with the children of their deceased daughter, the children’s guardian appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, entered September 24, 1979, which denied a motion to dismiss the petition and (2) an order of the same court, entered October 24, 1979, which granted visitation to the grandparents. Appeal from order entered September 24, 1979 dismissed (see Family Ct Act, § 1112). This order is reviewable on the appeal from the order entered October 24, 1979. Order entered October 24, 1979 modified by (1) deleting therefrom the provision ordering visitation for "3 continuous weeks every Summer, dates to be arranged between the parties. Alternating Christmas and Easter vacations, ten days each, to include Christmas Day and Easter Sunday, Christmas in odd numbered years, Easter in even numbered years, commencing Christmas, 1979” and (2) substituting therefor a provision ordering visitation for two continuous weeks during the summer and for two four-day periods during the year, neither of which, unless otherwise agreed, shall encompass Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, or Easter Sunday, the dates to be arranged between the parties. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The unique value of the relationship between grandchil*583dren and grandparents is beyond dispute. Nonetheless, of paramount importance to a child, and in particular to these children, placed in a new family setting as the result of the sudden loss of both natural parents, is the need for a stable home environment. In our opinion, the visitation rights granted by Family Court would result in a divisive sharing of the children as if between divorced spouses. To this extent, the visitation rights were overly extensive and are reduced accordingly. Furthermore, the children, adjusting to what is now their immediate family, should not be separated from it on traditional family holidays. The visitation, as modified, will adequately allow development of the important relationship between grandparents and child. These provisions, of course, remain subject to the condition imposed by Family Court that the grandparents affirmatively encourage the familial relationship between the guardian and the children. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3429 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3429

       To reduce temporarily the duty on sulfentrazone technical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2006

  Mr. Durbin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To reduce temporarily the duty on sulfentrazone technical.

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

SECTION 1. SULFENTRAZONE TECHNICAL.

    (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:

 
``      9902.05.94      N-[2,4-dichloro-5-  1.2%         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         [4-                                                                31/2009
                         (difluoromethyl)-
                         4,5-dihydro-3-
                         methyl-5-oxo-1H-
                         1,2,4-triazol-1-
                         yl]phenyl]methane
                         sulfona- mide
                         (Sulfentrazone)
                         (CAS No. 122836-
                         35-5) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         2935.00.75)......

    (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 enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

BRIAN BONNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv715-MHT

) 

NORINCO a/k/a CHINA NORTH )

INDUSTRIES CORP., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to file sur-reply (Doc.

No. 90) is granted.

DONE, this the 27th day of March, 2008.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 91 Filed 03/27/2008 Page 1 of 1
§ 905.147 Certificate of privilege. ( a ) *Application.* Application for Certificate of Privilege by a Special Purpose Shipper shall be made on forms furnished by the committee. Each application may contain, but need not be limited to, the name and address of each handler; a list of certified organic citrus fruit growers, including addresses; a list of receivers; the quantity and variety of citrus to be shipped; a certification to the Secretary of Agriculture and to the committee as to the truthfulness of the information shown thereon; and any other appropriate information or documents deemed necessary by the committee or its duly authorized agents for the purposes stated in § 905.146.
( b ) *Approval.* The committee or its duly authorized agents shall give prompt consideration to each application for a Certificate of Privilege. Approval of an application based upon a determination as to whether the information contained therein and other information available to the committee supports approval, shall be evidenced by the issuance of a Certificate of Privilege to the applicant. Each certificate shall expire at the end of the fiscal period.
( c ) *Suspension or Denial of Certificate of Privilege.* The committee may investigate the handling of special purpose shipments under Certificates of Privilege to determine whether Special Purpose Shippers are complying with the requirements and regulations applicable to such certificates. Whenever the committee finds that a Special Purpose Shipper or consignee is failing to comply with the requirements and regulations applicable to such certificates, the Certificate of Privilege issued to such Special Purpose Shipper may be suspended or, in the case of an application for the issuance of an initial Certificate of Privilege, may be denied. Such suspension of a certificate shall be for a reasonable period of time as determined by the committee, but in no event shall it extend beyond the end of the current fiscal period. In the case of the denial of an application for the issuance of an initial certificate, such certificate shall be denied until the applicant comes into compliance with the requirements and regulations applicable to such certificates. Prior to suspending or denying an application for a Certificate of Privilege, the committee shall give the shipper or applicant reasonable advance notice in writing of its intention and the facts and reasons therefor, and afford the shipper or applicant an opportunity, either orally or in writing, to present opposing facts and reasons. The shipper or applicant shall be informed of the committee's determination in writing and in a timely manner.
[43 FR 9456, Mar. 8, 1978, as amended at 59 FR 26929, May 25, 1994]
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-67 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
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 State

          - [Public Notice 7264]

Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this matter pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (“INA”), and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the 2004 re-designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization have not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of the designation.

Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization, pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be maintained.

                    This determination shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: December 6, 2010.

James B. Steinberg,

Deputy Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2010-31348 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

________________________ DIVISION

_________________________________, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. __________________

)

_________________________________, )

)

Defendants, )

CONFLICT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

COMES NOW ___________________, a in the above-captioned

matter, and in accordance with the order of this Court, making the following disclosure

concerning parent companies, subsidiaries, partners, limited liability entity members and

managers, trustees (but not trust beneficiaries), affiliates, or similar entities reportable under

the provisions of the Middle District of Alabama’s General Order No. 3047:

This party is an individual, or

This party is a governmental entity, or

There are no entities to be reported, or

The following entities and their relationship to the party are hereby reported:

Reportable Entity Relationship to Party

________________________________ _________________________________

________________________________ _________________________________

________________________________ _________________________________

________________________________ _________________________________

 

Date (Signature)

 

(Counsel’s Name)

 

Counsel for (print names of all parties)

 

Address, City, State Zip Code

 

Telephone Number

Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 65 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

________________________ DIVISION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I,____________________________________, do hereby Certify that a true and correct copy

of the foregoing has been furnished by ___________________________(manner of service,

i.e., U.S. Mail, electronic mail, etc.) on this _______day of ____________ 20__, to:

 

 

 

Date Signature

Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 65 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00719-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00719-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### § 981.87 Derogation.

Nothing contained in this subpart is, or shall be construed to be, in derogation or in modification of the rights of the Secretary or of the United States to exercise any powers granted by the act or otherwise, or, in accordance with such powers, to act in the premises whenever such action is deemed advisable.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3351 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3351

 To suspend temporarily the duty on 1-(P-Tolyl)-3-Methyl-5-Pyrazolone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 5, 2006

  Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on 1-(P-Tolyl)-3-Methyl-5-Pyrazolone.

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

SECTION 1. 1-(P-TOLYL)-3-METHYL-5-PYRAZOLONE.

    (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:

      

``      9902.31.21        1-(P-Tolyl)-3-Methyl-5- Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           Pyrazolone (CAS No.                                               31/2009          ''
                           86-92-0) (provided                                                                  .
                           for in subheading
                           2933.19.04)..........

    (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>
```
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2860 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Acrylic or modacrylic synthetic staple 

fibers, not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning. 

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 Acrylic or modacrylic 

synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed, or otherwise 

processed for spinning. 

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 STAPLE 

4 FIBERS, CARDED, COMBED, OR OTHERWISE 

5 PROCESSED FOR SPINNING. 

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

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2860 IS 

‘‘ 9902.10.22 Synthetic staple fibers, 

carded, combed, or otherwise 

processed for spinning: 

acrylic or modacrylic (provided for in subheading 

5506.30.00) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### CONNORS, Respondent, v. NYAHAY et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by Thomas P. Connors, as administrator, etc., against Stephen Nyahay and another, co-partners, etc.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Case 2:06-cv-00689-MEF-DRB Document 2 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 1 of 1
5215.606 Agency procedures.

(a) HCAs are responsible for establishing procedures.

(b) HCAs are responsible for establishing contact points.

Parent topic: Subpart 5215.6 - UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS
945.671 Contractor inventory in foreign

countries.

Contractor inventory located in foreign countries will be utilized and disposed of in accordance with

41 CFR 109-43.5 and 45.41, or its successor and 48 CFR 45.302.

Parent topic: Subpart 945.6 - Reporting, Reutilization, and Disposal
#### § 956.93 Derogation.

Nothing contained in this part is, or shall be construed to be, in derogation or in modification of the rights of the Secretary or of the United States to exercise any powers granted by the Act or otherwise, or, in accordance with such powers, to act in the premises whenever such action is deemed advisable.