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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          12,718
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         225,339
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,062
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     63,422
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          29,709
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            29,655
<LOANS>                                        188,235
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,086
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 313,131
<DEPOSITS>                                     269,066
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,235
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,330
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           178
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,481
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 313,131
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,371
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,142
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   244
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                17,757
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,941
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,081
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,676
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      653
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  27
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,329
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,285
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,285
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,867
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  7,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,040
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,251
<RECOVERIES>                                       644
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,086
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.2


[LOGO] GMAC Mortgage

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

                               GMAC Mortgage, LLC

                                  Impac-IM06S3

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby
certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 6th
day of March 2007.


By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
    -------------------------------
    Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
    Title: Executive Vice President








GMAC Mortgage, LLC               www.gmacmortgage.com
500 Enterprise Road
Horsham, PA 19044
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3506 

To prohibit the unauthorized removal or use of personal information contained 

in a database owned, operated, or maintained by the Federal government. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 13, 2006 

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the unauthorized removal or use of personal 

information contained in a database owned, operated, 

or maintained by the Federal government. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Data Theft Prevention 

5 Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FEDERAL DATABASES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 101 of title 18, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 


bajohnson on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
2 

•S 3506 IS

1 ‘‘§ 2077. Means of identification and individually 

2 identifiable health information in Federal 

3 databases 

4 ‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

5 ‘‘(1) FEDERAL DATABASE.—The term ‘Federal 

6 database’ means any electronic database owned, op7 erated, or maintained by or for the Federal Govern8 ment. 

9 ‘‘(2) INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE HEALTH IN10 FORMATION.—The term ‘individually identifiable 

11 health information’ has the meaning given the term 

12 in the regulations issued under section 264(c) of the 

13 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 

14 of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d–2 note). 

15 ‘‘(3) MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION.—The term 

16 ‘means of identification’ has the meaning given the 

17 term in section 1028 of this title. 

18 ‘‘(b) UNAUTHORIZED USE.—It shall be unlawful for 

19 any person knowingly and without authorization— 

20 ‘‘(1) to view, use, download, or remove any 

21 means of identification or individually identifiable 

22 health information that is in a Federal database; or 

23 ‘‘(2) to transfer such means of identification or 

24 individually identifiable health information to, or 

25 store such means of identification or individually 

26 identifiable health information in, any computer, 


bajohnson on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
3 

•S 3506 IS

1 network, database, or other format used to store in2 formation that is not a Federal database. 

3 ‘‘(c) USE FOR CRIMINAL PURPOSES.—It shall be un4 lawful for any person to use a means of identification or 

5 individually identifiable health information obtained di6 rectly or indirectly from a Federal database in furtherance 

7 of a violation of any Federal or State criminal law. 

8 ‘‘(d) PENALTY.—Any person who violates subsection 

9 (b) or (c) shall be fined not more than $100,000, impris10 oned not more than 1 year, or both.’’. 

11 (b) CHAPTER ANALYSIS.—The table of sections for 

12 chapter 101 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 

13 by adding after the item relating to section 2076 the fol14 lowing: 

‘‘2077. Means of identification and individually identifiable health information 

in Federal databases.’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:02-cr-00038-MP-AK

MAHMOUD ELDICK,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 182, Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

by Mahmoud Eldick. Pursuant to the Rules Governing § 2255 proceedings, the Court has

reviewed the motion to vacate and the Government will be required to file an answer or other

appropriate response. If appropriate, the Government shall include the initial brief or other briefs

from the direct appeal and may rely on the statement of facts presented there. Defendant may

respond to the Government's arguments within the time set by this order, but he is not required to

do so.

Upon receipt of the Government's arguments and Defendant's response, if any, the Court

will review the file to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If an evidentiary

hearing is not required, the Court will dispose of the petition as justice requires pursuant to §

2255 Rule 8(a).

Case 1:02-cr-00038-MP-AK Document 186 Filed 10/19/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:02-cr-00038-MP-AK

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. That the Clerk shall furnish a copy of Defendant's§ 2255 motion and this order to the

United States Attorney for this district, who shall file an answer or other appropriate pleading by

December 21, 2007;

2. That if review of the PSR is necessary, the Probation Office shall allow counsel for

the Government to review the PSR upon request;

3. That Defendant shall have until January 22, 2008, to file a response, if desired. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of October, 2007.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cr-00038-MP-AK Document 186 Filed 10/19/07 Page 2 of 2
602.101-70 DOSAR definitions.       For the purposes of the DOSAR, unless otherwise indicated, the following terms have the meanings set forth in this subpart.          *Chief of Mission* means the principal officer in charge of a diplomatic mission of the United States or of a United States office abroad which is designated by the Secretary of State as diplomatic in nature, including any individual assigned under section 502(c) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (Public Law 96–465) to be temporarily in charge of such a mission or office.          *Consolidated Receiving Point* or *CRP*; means the contractor under contract to a Despatch Agency to receive and prepare items for shipment to a post. The CRP receives, records, consolidates, and packs items for shipment overseas under the direction of the Despatch Agency.          *Department* or *DOS* means the Department of State, including all of its activities wherever located.          *Despatch Agency* means the office responsible for the transportation of supplies between the U.S. and posts within its specific geographic area as assigned by the Office of Logistics Operations. There are six Despatch Agencies, one each in Iselin, New Jersey; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; Seattle, Washington; Brownsville, Texas; and the European Logistical Support Office in Antwerp, Belgium.          *Government* means the Government of the United States of America unless specifically stated otherwise.          *Major system* has the same definition as described in FAR 2.101; however, the Department of State's dollar threshold as defined in paragraph (2) is $30 million. The Under Secretary for Management is the head of the agency for the purposes of paragraph (3).          *Overseas post* means a “post” located outside the United States of America.          *Post* means a diplomatic or consular mission of the United States of America, administered or managed by the DOS.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 602.1—Definitions
#### Chemical Bank New York Trust Company, Respondent, v. Chesbrough P. Amory, Now Known as Mrs. Iva S. V. Patcevitch, Appellant.

Order entered July 21, 1966, herein appealed from, unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion to dismiss the complaint granted, with $10 costs. The complaint alleges that defendant, on or about October 10, 1958, executed a written instrument guaranteeing payment of a demand promissory note executed and delivered October 10, 1958 in the sum of $52,353.49. The face amount of the note, plus interest, was paid by the maker. Thereafter on November 13, 1958, the maker of the note filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy. Subsequently the trustee in bankruptcy recovered of plaintiff the sum of $27,928.98 paid on the note which was found by the court to have constituted a preferential payment. This sum, together with an additional sum of $7,500 paid by plaintiff to the trustee upon the trustee’s agreement to waive an appeal, is now sought to be recovered from this defendant. Payment was made February 1, 1961, and this action was commenced May 19, 1966 upon the guarantee which plaintiff asserts was returned to defendant upon payment of the obligation. Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, on the alternate grounds of Statute of Frauds, Statute of Limitations or release. Defendant also denied execution of any guarantee or the receipt of consideration in relation to such loan. The motion to dismiss was denied and defendant appeals. The order appealed from is reversed. On a demand note the obligation of a guarantor attaches on execution and delivery and plaintiff could have sued upon any default in payment of the obligation. If the preferential payment was, as plaintiff contends, illegal and no payment at all (cf. *Perry*v. *Van Norden Trust Co.,*118 App. Div. 288, revd, 192 N. Y. 189), no obstacle existed to institution of suit against defendant within the statutory period. Even a provisional payment by the maker of the note would not extend the Statute of Limitations, unless such payment was made as the agent of the guarantor *(Peoples Trust Co.*v. *O’Neil,*273 N. Y, 312). Plaintiff’s contention that there was a period of repose or suspension from March 6, 1958, the date of the last payment on the obligation, to February 1, 1961, the date of payment by plaintiff to the trustee, is rejected. It was within plaintiff’s power to repay the money at any time within the statutory period, and thereafter to institute suit against defendant on her obligation if any existed. The present action is time-barred *(Peoples Trust Co.*v. *O’Neil, supra)*and the motion should have been granted. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.
<PAGE>




                                  EXHIBIT 99.2
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Intervoice, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rob-Roy J. Graham,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

Date:         July 15, 2003
                                         /s/ Rob-Roy J. Graham
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Rob-Roy J. Graham
                                         Executive Vice President and
                                         Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1079 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1079

Recognizing and celebrating the commitment of the Student Conservation 
   Association to the United States national parks and public lands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 13, 2006

Mr. Kind submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Recognizing and celebrating the commitment of the Student Conservation 
   Association to the United States national parks and public lands.

Whereas Elizabeth Cushman Titus Putnam founded the Student Conservation 
        Association in 1957 to provide opportunities for young people to learn 
        about environmental conservation and put their knowledge to work by 
        volunteering in national parks;
Whereas the Student Conservation Association has helped to protect vital 
        habitats, threatened wildlife, and other at-risk resources in the United 
        States parks, forests, and urban green spaces;
Whereas since its inception, the Student Conservation Association has grown to 
        become the largest conservation service program in the United States, 
        placing volunteers in all 50 States and internationally in Canada, 
        Mexico, Brazil, Germany, and Latvia;
Whereas the Student Conservation Association has nearly 50,000 alumni, many of 
        whom have dedicated their professional careers to environmental 
        stewardship and preservation;
Whereas in 2005, volunteers of the Student Conservation Association performed 
        more than 1,600,000 hours of service;
Whereas the Student Conservation Association has been recognized for its 
        achievements in conservation and youth development by the White House, 
        the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, the 
        Wilderness Society, the National Wildlife Federation, the National Fire 
        Plan Council, and the Garden Club of America; and
Whereas the people of the United States owe a debt of gratitude to the Student 
        Conservation Association, whose outstanding work to preserve and protect 
        the United States natural treasures helps ensure that they will be 
        available to enrich future generations of the people of the United 
        States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) applauds the Student Conservation Association for its 
        decades of dedicated service to conserving the United States 
        national parks and public lands; and
            (2) expresses its best wishes to the Student Conservation 
        Association for its continued success and growth.
                                 <all>
```
Case 2:06-cv-00704-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00704-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00704-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 3 of 3
#### New Rochelle Precision Grinding Corp., Appellant, v. Anthony C. Daniele et al., Respondents.

Two judgments of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 30, 1969 and May 13, 1969, respectively, affirmed. No opinion. Appeals from three orders of the same court, all entered June *82918, 1968, dismissed as moot (cf. CPLR 5501; *Kosiar*v. *Koziar,*281 App. Div. 771; *Matter of Seltzer*v. *Wendell,*11 A D 2d 805). Respondents are awarded a single hill of costs, to cover all the appeals. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### CASEY, Appellant, v. GANNON et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 11, 1914.)

Action by John J. Casey against Frank S. Gannon and another, as executors, etc.

No opinion. Motion denied, without costs.
302.101 Definitions.

(a) Agency head or head of the agency, unless otherwise stated, means the Secretary of Health and

Human Services or specified designee.

(b) Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) is a Federal employee designated in writing by a

contracting officer to act as the contracting officer's representative in monitoring and administering

specified aspects of contractor performance after award of a contract or order. In accordance with

local procedures, operating divisions (OPDIVs) or staff divisions (STAFFDIVs) may designate CORs

for firm fixed-price contracts or orders. COR's responsibilities may include verifying that:

(1) The contractor's performance meets the standards set forth in the contract or order;

(2) The contractor meets the contract or order's technical requirements by the specified delivery

date(s) or within the period of performance; and

(3) The contractor performs within cost ceiling stated in the contract or order. CORs must meet the

training and certification requirements specified in PGI 301.604.

(c) Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) is an official having overall responsibility for managing a

contracting activity, i.e. the organization within an OPDIV or STAFFDIV or other HHS organization

which has been delegated broad authority regarding the conduct of acquisition functions.

Parent topic: Subpart 302.1 - Definitions
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: September 17, 2015 520205 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK ex rel. THOMAS 

A. KEARNEY, 

Appellant, 

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID BARTLETT, as Columbia 

County Sheriff, 

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: August 10, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Thomas A. Kearney, Catskill, appellant pro se.

__________

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Nichols,

J.), entered September 16, 2014 in Columbia County, which denied

petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a

proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing, and

(2) from a judgment of said court, entered November 25, 2014,

which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 

Petitioner attempted to commence this habeas corpus

proceeding seeking his immediate release from jail following his

arrest on alleged parole violations. Supreme Court denied the

application based upon the failure of the petition to be verified

in accordance with CPLR 7002 (c). Petitioner's subsequent motion

for reconsideration was denied. These appeals ensued. 

Even if the deficiencies in petitioner's application for a

writ of habeas corpus could be overlooked, the record establishes

that, although petitioner is incarerated, he is no longer in
-2- 520205 

respondent's custody and, therefore, the appeal from this

judgment has been rendered moot and must be dismissed (see e.g.

People ex rel. Phillips v LaClair, 84 AD3d 1606, 1606 [2011]). 

To the extent that petitioner challenges the denial of his motion

for reconsideration, we note that such motion was one for leave

to reargue, as he alleged no new facts or demonstrated any change

in the law (see People ex rel. Hinton v Graham, 66 AD3d 1402,

1402-1403 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 934 [2010]; Matter of Hill v

Goord, 275 AD2d 492, 493 [2000]). As no appeal lies from an

order denying a motion for leave to reargue, that appeal must be

dismissed (see id.).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court