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

Judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered May 24, 1968, reversed, on the law, and ease for resentencing in accordance with the procedures mandated in sections 207 and 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law and section 60.15 of the Penal Law. The findings of fact below are affirmed. Defendant was found guilty of eight counts of dangerous drug offenses under article 220 of the Penal Law. There was evidence at his trial that he was a user of narcotics. On the date set for sentencing, defendant’s counsel indicated to the court that he had previously made application for an examination pursuant to section 207 of the Mental Hygiene Law but that through inadvertence he had failed to prepare the necessary papers. When he asked for additional time in which to prepare these papers the court advised him that this would be a futile gesture since, even if defendant were found to be a narcotics addict, the court did not intend to give him the benefits of article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law. No examination was made and defendant stood for sentence. Under section 207 of the Mental Hygiene Law, if a defendant is charged with a violation of any of the offenses listed in article 220 of the Penal Law (Dangerous Drug Offenses), and it appears that he may be a narcotics addict, he *“*shall undergo a medical examination to determine whether he is a narcotic addict” (subd. 1). Under section 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law, where a defendant has undergone such examination and is found guilty of a felony, “ the court shall not impose sentence prior to receiving the report of such medical examination” (subd. 1). If on the basis of the report and any other relevant information before the court, it believes that the defendant may be an addict, the defendant is given a chance to admit, deny or stand mute with respect to whether he is an addict. If he admits it, and the court is satisfied of such fact, the court has the discretion to sentence him in accordance with the Penal Law or to certify him to the care of the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission (Penal Law, § 60.15). The court exceeded the bounds of its discretion when it told defendant’s counsel that the section 207 examination would be futile. Sections 207 and 208 are worded in mandatory language. The examination and finding concerning defendant’s status as an addict are required. Only then is the court vested with discretion as to sentencing. The effective denial by the court of the application of the relevant sections of the Mental Hygiene Law precluded defendant from obtaining adequate review of the discretion exercised by the court in sentencing him. We have reviewed appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
224.203 Policy.

(S-90) Upon receipt of a request under this subpart, the DISA employee shall inform the requester

that they must file a Freedom of Information Act request to the address below. Requests can be sent

via USPS, fax or e-mail. Advise requester(s) that the FOIA Office is the focal point of all such

information and that official information may only be released through the FOIA Office or their

authorized designee.

Defense Information Systems Agency

ATTN: Headquarters FOIA Requester Service Center

P.O. Box 549

Ft Meade, MD 20755-0549 FAX: (301) 225-0510

disa.meade.gc.mbx.foia@mail.mil

(S-91) This policy does not apply to those infrequent situations in which a DISA employee may be

under court order, subpoena, or otherwise directed to provide such information in a matter under

litigation. All such situations should be directed to the DISA Office of General Counsel, before the

release of any information occurs or before any appearance, testimony, or other statement before

any tribunal.

Parent topic: SUBPART 24.2 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
_____MARYLANDDEPARTMENTOFTHEENVIRONMENTP.0.Box2037•BaltimoreMD21203-2037410-537-3000•1-800-633-6101MartinO’MalleyShariT.WilsonGovernorSecretaryAnthonyG.BrownRobertM.Summers,Ph.D.LieutenantGovernorDeputySecretaryc..DL_November30,200770Ms.JudithM.Katz2)Director,AirProtectionDivisionEPARegionIII(3APOO)1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,PA,19103-2029DearMs.Katz:ThisletterisintendedtosupplementtheMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE)July27,2007,StateImplementationPlan(SIP)revisiontitledthe“Implementation,MaintenanceandEnforcementofthe8-HourozoneNationalAmbientAirQualityStandardStateimplementationplan,”SIPnumber07-06,datedJune15,2007.ThatsubmittalidentifiedhowtheStateofMarylandhassatisfiedthe“infrastructure”elementsforStateImplementationPlans(SIPs)requiredundersections110(a)(2)(A)—(M)oftheCleanAirAct(CAA)forthe19978-hourOzonenationalambientairqualitystandards(NAAQS).Withrespecttotheadequatecontingencyplansrequiredundersection110(a)(2)(G).webelievethatCOMAR26.11.05,AirPollutionEpisodeSystem,currentlyintheMarylandSIP,codifiedat40CFR52.1070(c),isadequatetomeetthisrequirement.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsregardingthissubmittal,orrequireadditionalinformation,pleasecontactMr.George(Tad)S.Aburn,Jr.,DirectoroftheAirandRadiationManagementAdministrationat410-537-3255,toll-freeat800-633-6101,orviaemailgaburnmde.state.md.us.Hewillbepleasedtoassistyou.Sincere’y,Q%11/AL—ShariT.WilsonSecretaryRecycledPaperwww.mde.state.md.usTTYUsers:1-800-735-2258ViaMarylandRelayService
Subpart 403.1 - Safeguards

Parent topic: PART 403 - IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST

403.101 Standards of conduct.

403.101-3 Agency regulations.

(a) The standards of conduct for USDA procurement officials are the uniform standards established

by the Office of Government Ethics in 5 CFR Part 2635, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees

of the Executive Branch, and FAR 3.104, Procurement integrity.

(b) Procurement officials and other employees who require advice concerning the application of

standards of conduct to any acquisition issue shall obtain ethics advisory opinions from ethics

advisory officials in their agency personnel offices.

403.104 Procurement integrity.

403.104-5 [Reserved]

403.104-7 Violations or possible violations.

The contracting officer shall forward information concerning any violation or possible violation of

the Procurement Integrity Act (41 U.S.C. 423) to the chief of the contracting office.
[LETTERHEAD OF SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.]



GMAC-RFC
2255 N. Ontario Street, Ste 400
Burbank, CA  91504
Attention: Compliance Officer


        Re: Annual Compliance Statement for RALI SERIES 2006-QS12 TRUST

        In connection  with the loans serviced by SunTrust  Mortgage,  Inc. (the
"Company")  pursuant to the Company's Servicing  Agreement(s)/Purchase  and Sale
Agreement(s)  with  GMAC-RFC  and  any  applicable  Reconstitution  Agreement(s)
(together,  the "Transaction  Agreements"),  I, the undersigned officer,  hereby
certify the following as of December 31, 2006:

(i)  The Company  conducted a review of its  activities  during the  immediately
     preceding  calendar  year  (or  applicable  portion  thereof)  and  of  its
     performance  under the Transaction  Agreements  during such period has been
     made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the  best  of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Company  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations  under the  Transaction  Agreements in all
     material  respects  throughout  such calendar year (or  applicable  portion
     thereof),  except  that as of  January 1, 2006,  the  Company  did not have
     procedures for monitoring  compliance with requirements as specified in the
     applicable transaction agreements governing SEC Regulation AB transactions.
     To address the absence of such  procedures,  the Company's  management  has
     undertaken and completed the following  actions:  (a) completed a review of
     each  Transaction  Agreement and identified if there was specific  language
     affecting any of the Servicing  Criteria  outlined in Section 1122;  (b) to
     the degree that the Transaction  Agreements  required  specific  procedures
     related to the servicing  criteria,  the Company's  Reference Point Library
     (where all  policies and  procedures  are  maintained)  was updated to this
     effect;  (c)  for  each  pool,  a  Control  Matrix  was  completed  (and is
     maintained on a current basis)  identifying  which  Transaction  Agreements
     control each pool;  and (d)  established a monthly review process where the
     Company's  managers  review key factors of  performance  under  Transaction
     Agreements and respond to a questionnaire  indicating  compliance with such
     factors.



        IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I do hereby  certify the  foregoing as of the date
hereof.

        /s/ John R. Purcell, Jr.

        John R. Purcell, Jr.
        Senior Vice President - Manager, Servicing Division

        Date:  February 27, 2007
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3179 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain compounds of lanthanum, cerium, 

and terbium phosphates. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain compounds of 

lanthanum, cerium, and terbium phosphates. 

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 COMPOUNDS OF LANTHANUM, CE4 RIUM, AND TERBIUM PHOSPHATES. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.10.03 Compounds, inorganic or organic, of 

rare-earth metals, of lanthanum, cerium, 

and terbium phosphates (provided for in 

subheadings 2846.10.00 and 2846.90.80) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 3179 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
#### § 983.56 Inspection, certification and identification.

Upon recommendation of the committee and approval of the Secretary, all pistachios that are required to be inspected and certified in accordance with this part shall be identified by appropriate seals, stamps, tags, or other identification to be affixed to the containers by the handler. All inspections shall be at the expense of the handler, *Provided,* That for handlers making shipments from facilities located in an area where inspection costs for inspector travel and shipment of samples for aflatoxin testing would otherwise exceed the average of those same inspection costs for comparable handling operations located in Districts 1 and 2, such handlers may be reimbursed by the committee for the difference between their respective inspection costs and such average, or as otherwise recommended by the committee and approved by the Secretary.

[74 FR 56540, Nov. 2, 2009]
**BudgetGet More!Receive ED newsletters.Get answers to questions.Take our online survey.**
#### Joseph K. Fairley, Appellant, v Carol B. Fairley, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 13, 1979 in Warren County, which, *inter alia,*denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff commenced the instant divorce action in November of 1978 on the ground of living separate and apart from his wife pursuant to a separation agreement executed and filed in May of 1976. Except for the allegation that he had "substantially performed all the terms and conditions of such agreement” (Domestic Relations Law, § 170, subd [6]), defendant’s answer admitted the material elements of plaintiffs cause of action and she did not respond to his subsequent motion for summary judgment. The application was granted and a decree of divorce was signed on March 16, 1979. However, before the judgment was entered, defendant obtained new counsel and sought to oppose plaintiffs motion. Special Term excused her initial default, entertained her objections in relation to the motion, and ultimately determined that the existence of factual issues precluded summary relief. This appeal by plaintiff ensued. Assuming that the explanation submitted by defendant was adequate to warrant relief from her original default—a matter we find it unnecessary to address—she wholly failed to present relevant evidentiary materials sufficient to defeat plaintiffs motion. Defendant does not specifically attack the validity of the separation agreement or deny that the parties lived apart from one another for the requisite period. Even if her veiled suggestions that portions of the agreement are inequitable were accepted, they would not deprive plaintiff of grounds for divorce (cf. *Christian v Christian,*42 NY2d 63, 70-72; *Sylofski v Sylofski,*49 AD2d 971). Since the viability of the agreement was not contested in defendant’s answer, the only pertinent question developed by her opposing papers was whether an issue of fact exists concerning plaintiffs compliance with it. His affidavits, supported by documentation, reveal that no such issue is presented. Moreover, defendant made no complaint of noncompliance for over two years; the agreement provided for joint tax returns only "when practicable”; the parties’ minor son resided with and was supported by plaintiff for most of the postseparation period, and evidence of medical insurance coverage was produced by plaintiff. In short, while not all of the terms of the agreement were conclusively shown to have been flawlessly performed, defendant has not demonstrated any lack of "substantial” compliance. It is transparently obvious that her sole interest lies in economic adjustments and we will not permit her generalized complaints in that field to be used as a barrier to plaintiffs application for a conversion divorce. Special Term erred in failing to recognize her belated opposition to the divorce for what it truly represented and, inasmuch as no genuine triable issue exists, its order should be reversed. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion granted, *976with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Casey, JJ., concur.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 06377**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 06377\06377_Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 06377\06377_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 06377\06377_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06377\06377_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06377\06377_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06377\06377_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06377\06377_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06377\6377_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 06377\Certification Statement Plant ID_06377.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 06377\Supporting Documentation\06377_Big Bend Water Balance PFD.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
| (1)   | the      Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bioenergy, Inc. for the year ended June 30,      2008 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended      June 30, 2008, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial      condition and results of operations of Bioenergy,  Inc. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/      Jose Castro                                                            |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                            |
| Name:  | Jose      Castro                                                                |
|   |                                                                            |
| Title: | Principal      Executive Officer, Principal      Financial Officer and Director |
|   |                                                                            |
| Date:  | September      15, 2008                                                         |
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report ofGolden Star Resource Corp.(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Egil Livgard, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   



| | Dated this 28thday of September, 2007.
| | --------------------------------------

EGIL LIVGARDEgil LivgardPresident, Chief Executive Officer and a member of 
the board of directors.









---
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MAI Systems Corporation (the Company) forthe period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James D. Dolan, Chief Financialand Operating Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: September 23, 2005 | By:    | /s/  James W. Dolan               |
|-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                          |   | James W. Dolan                         |
|                          |   | Chief  Financial and Operating Officer |

 

----
Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 4 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 4 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 4 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 3 of 3
ANNEX 10 - NOTICE OF SUSPECTED VIOLATIONS OF THE GRATUITIES CLAUSE       As required by 5203.203(a), provide a written notice of suspected violations to the Assistant          General Counsel (Acquisition Integrity) at aio@navy.mil.          Include the following information in the notice:          1.Name and contact information of the person reporting                                                   2.Name of Contractor(s)                                                   3.Contract Number (if known) or other information known about the contract, including subject matter and place of performance                                                   4.Name and location of Government employee(s) involved with the suspected gratuity offered or provided                                                   5.Brief summary of information or events known regarding the suspected gratuity offered or provided (including nature, amount, and/or fair market value of the suspected gratuity, if known)                                                   6.How the information was obtained, if relevant
EX-34 (l)
(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