alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Second Department,

June, 1969

(June 2, 1969)

#### Frank H. Bayles, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Denos P. Marvin, Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated November 26, 1968, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur. Martus cello, J., concurs insofar as the order denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, but otherwise dissents' and votes to strike out the second and third decretal paragraphs of the order, which *inter alia*granted summary judgment to defendant, with the following memorandum: In this action to impress a trust upon certain real property and for other and alternative relief, the order under review denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to defendant dismissing the complaint. Defendant did not submit any papers in opposition to the motion; however, in his answer he asserted an affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction. While I agree with the majority insofar as they are affirming the denial of summary judgment to plaintiffs, I believe that there are genuine issues of fact asserted in the papers in support of the motion which require a trial; and, accordingly, I vote to reverse as to the dismissal of the complaint and the granting of summary judgment to defendant.
Subpart 2942.1 - Contract Audit Services

Parent topic: PART 2942 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES

2942.101 Policy.

The OASAM Division of Cost Determination is responsible for establishing billing rates and indirect

cost rates as prescribed in FAR 42.7 for the Department of Labor.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2899 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on reaction products of phosphorus trichloride with 1,1′-biphenyl and 2,4-bis(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)phenol). 

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 extend temporarily the suspension of duty on reaction 

products of phosphorus trichloride with 1,1′-biphenyl and 

2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenol). 

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

3 SECTION 1. REACTION PRODUCTS OF PHOSPHORUS TRI4 CHLORIDE WITH 1,1′-BIPHENYL AND 2,4- 

5 BIS(1,1-DIMETHYLETHYL)PHENOL). 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.04.07 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 reaction products of phosphorus trichloride with 1,1′- 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 2899 IS 

1 biphenyl and 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenol) is amended 

2 by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

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

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

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

6 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT E. COLE Attorney For Plaintiff

ROBERT E. COLE, P.C.

ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 73263

437 CHESTNUT STREET, SUITE 218

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106

(215) 922-2050

___________________________________

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., P.C. :

d/b/a THE PAIN CENTER

501-07 SOUTH 12TH STREET

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19147

Plaintiff :

V. : NO. 05-6074

SKILSTAF, INC. :

P.O. BOX 729

ALEXANDER CITY, AL 35011

Defendant :

___________________________________

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY OF TWELVE MEMBERS

Plaintiff, Owen J. Rogal, D.D.S., P.C., d/b/a The Pain

Center, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby demands a

trial by jury of twelve members plus two alternates in the

above-captioned matter.

 

 ________________________________

Date Robert E. Cole, Esquire

Attorney for Plaintiff

Atty. I.D. No. 73263

437 Chestnut Street, Suite 218

Philadelphia, PA 19106

(215) 922-2050

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 5 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 1 of 2 Case 2:05-cv-06074-JCJ Document 5 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT E. COLE Attorney For Plaintiff

ROBERT E. COLE, P.C.

ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 73263

437 CHESTNUT STREET, SUITE 218

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106

(215) 922-2050

___________________________________

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., P.C. :

d/b/a THE PAIN CENTER

501-07 SOUTH 12TH STREET

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19147

Plaintiff :

V. : NO. 05-6074

SKILSTAF, INC. :

P.O. BOX 729

ALEXANDER CITY, AL 35011

Defendant :

___________________________________

VERIFICATION OF SERVICE

Robert E. Cole, Esquire, verifies that on the date below,

he served upon Jeanne L. Bakker, Esquire, attorney for defendant

above, plaintiff’s Demand for Trial by Jury of Twelve Members by

depositing same with the United States Postal Service, First

Class Mail and directing it to the following address:

Montgomery McCracken et al.

123 South Broad Street

Philadelphia, PA 19109

 

 ________________________________

Date Robert E. Cole, Esquire

Attorney for Plaintiff

Atty. I.D. No. 73263

437 Chestnut Street, Suite 218

Philadelphia, PA 19106

(215) 922-2050

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 5 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 2 of 2 Case 2:05-cv-06074-JCJ Document 5 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 13 Filed 10/12/2006 Page 1 of 1
EX-34 (i)
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG

* Ernst & Young LLP
  220 South Sixth Street, Ste. 1400
  Minneapolis, MN 55402-4509

* Phone: (612) 343-1000
  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 SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S.
Bank National Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform (the Platform) as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2006, except for criteria 1122 (d)(1)(i),
1122 (d)(1)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(i) through 1122 (d)(2)(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i)
through 1122 (d)(3)(iv), and 1122 (d)(4)(iv) through 1122 (d)(4)(xv), which the
Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them
with respect to the servicing 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 individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the
Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the
Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected
transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the
servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and 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 selected transactions or any
other transactions. 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 Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 26, 2007

A Member Practice of Ernst & Young Global
#### § 983.12 Domestic shipments.

*Domestic shipments* means shipments to the fifty states of the United States or to territories of the United States and the District of Columbia.
OFFICE OF THE A?TORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Z&s State Board of Deutal Examinerr Littlef'ieldBuilQLqg duet&n, TOsal
0unt1ePlenc Attention - Brr

Ye beg to aokaovl request for an opinion upon

tters$ aa held by atute orestee an otf tho term oi the lnoumthe bu&lnlng or fera ot the rest appointginning of the fenure of suoh apesslreappolntments. Opinion x0. 2672 (opinions

,p. 644) rith respaot to Dionore, and opixlton x0. 2913 Qeneral, 1930-1032, p. 661)with ro89eot to the State Reolaauation k%fgiineer.~
mether or not the statute in the present inquiry (A.O.S., AH&ale 4643) does pFOmOrlbe the be&- tin6 of the tonure ir a debatable puestionr That statute insofar as pertinent 

### reads,

. .Texas State Board of Dental Exsminers - p. 2



### *Theterm of offioe of eaoh memberof said Board shallbe nix yearm, exoopt that as to the

### firet Board appointed hereunder two of itsmembera shall se118 for a term of tvoyears, two of Its membOrs 

### for a term of iour **pears,** and tro of Its mf3mbers for **a** tern of six years, the respective

.. terms of the **flret** member8 so appointed to **W&eslgaated.** by the **Gwernor** in appointing

Mthia thirty (30)dsys **after** this Aot ieoomes e??eOtltb the six members of said Board &all **be** appointed by theBwernor of the State1 two 

### to move ror twoyears, tto for four years, and two ror slxyears, or until their suooessors shall bb ~&ppOinfed aad quslified. Thereafter, at the expiration o? the term of eaohmaber first ippointed; hio suooeesor shall be appointedby the **Gwernor o?**  the **State and**  he shall serve Sor a **term** o? sixyeare 

### or until hle auooeesor shallbe appointed and qualify."

We are inollned to the opinion that themandatory duty iqosed by thf3 statute upon **the** GoVernor to appoint members to the Dental Board within th+rty day8 after the aot l beeometa

ffeotire

, is a deiinite Intention o? the Legislature that the term in any evOnt shall begin at the expiration **of thirty**  days **from** the edfeotlredate o? the Aot, which was Kay 11, 1925. (Lavs44th Leg., 2eg. Sese., p, e1+iH6), Te need not to de&de this questioa, haever, eioce the reoords of the Seoretary of State show that Dr. gounger suooeodedDr. Landera, who had been appointed on Nay 25, 1936, to the tvo-year tern, 

### expiringin 1937, 610 that as to thisplaoe on the.Board the term began May 25, 1935.
Dr. gllimgton rap appointed

### a member on Ilsy25, 

### 19311, apparently to a two-year term, and again on DeOemb6r 69, 1936,he vas appointed to a ?ull sir-year term, (*e?- iectiye June lo, 1937*) and is now 8eming that term.

The terms of expire (forpurpose of Kay 24, 1943. both thesemdDlbers8therefore, till appointment of a suooeesor)midnIght,
Very truly your8
#### Gar-Dan Corp. et al., Respondents, v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Three orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, one dated August 9, 1968 and two dated October 11, 1968, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. (Cf. *Seifert*v. *McLaughlin,*15 A D 2d 555.) Appellants’ time to serve the further bill of particulars is extended until 15 days after entry of the order hereon. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
# Subpart 414.2 - Solicitation of Bids

**Parent topic:**PART 414 - SEALED BIDDING

## 414.201 Preparation of invitations for bids.

## 414.201-6 Solicitation provision.

The contracting officer shall insert the provision 452.214-70, Award by Lot, when multiple items are segregated into clearly identifiable lots and the contracting officer wants to reserve the right to award by item within a lot, if award in that manner would be advantageous to the Government.
#### § 993.16 Producer.

*Producer* means any person who is engaged, in a proprietary capacity, in growing plums for drying or dehydrating into prunes.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE MCNAIR, )

)

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-00695-WKW

)

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. )

_____________________________________

JAMES CALLAHAN, )

)

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-00919-WKW

)

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the trial of this matter and all other dates and deadlines are

CONTINUED. The trial is tentatively set for the week of November 26, 2007. A telephone status

conference, to be arranged by the defendants, is SET for October 31, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. (CDT), at

which other pretrial dates and deadlines will be discussed.

DONE this 28th day of September, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 130 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 29, 2013

s0422 

# Order

April 29, 2013

146609

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146609

COA: 303409

Calhoun CC: 2010

- 001264

- FH

ROBERT MICHAEL RUH,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 11, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3073 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Indoxacarb. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Indoxacarb. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INDOXACARB. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.12.42 (4aS) -7-Chloro-2, 5- 

dihydro-2- [[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-(trifluoromethoxy) 

phenyl] amino] carbonyl]- 

indeno [1,2-e][1,3,4] 

oxadiazine-4a (3H)-carboxylic acid methyl ester 

(CAS No. 173584–44–6) 

(provided for in subheading 

2934.99.16) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3073 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1




Certification




I, Todd J. Zelek, certify, pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(b) or Rule 15(d)-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cavitation Technologies, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Cavitation Technologies, Inc.




/s/ Todd J. ZelekName:
Todd J. ZelekTitle:
Chief Executive OfficerDate:
September 28, 2011





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being "filed" as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
5622.103-4 Approvals.

(a) The contracting officer is designated the agency approving official.

HQ, United States Special Operations Command

Special Operations Forces Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (SOF AT&L-K)

SOFARS 5622

February 2014

Parent topic: 5622.103 Overtime.
SUBPART 37.1 –– SERVICE CONTRACTS––GENERAL     **Parent topic:** PART 37 –– SERVICE CONTRACTING237.104 Personal services contracts.    (b)(i) The approval authority is the HCA. Legal counsel, CoCO, and HCO coordination is required.237.170 Approval of contracts and task orders for services.237.170-2 Approval requirements    *(a) Acquisition of services through a contract or task order that is not performance based.*       (1) For acquisitions at or below $50 million, obtain the review and approval of the CoCO.       (2) For acquisitions over $50 million up to $100 million, obtain the review and approval of the HCO.       (3) For acquisitions exceeding $100 million, obtain the review and approval of the Senior Procurement Executive (SPE).       (S-90) For each acquisition that is non-performance based, the contracting officer shall prepare a D&F for approval in accordance with paragraph 237.170-2(a). The D&F must be approved prior to release of the solicitation.       (S-91) The review and approval thresholds are based upon the total estimated cost of the acquisition.       (S-92) Technical and requirements personnel are responsible for providing accurate and complete data to the contracting officer to support their recommendation for other than a performance based acquisition.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Frederick W. Jaeger, Jr., Deceased. John P. Farquhar et al., as Coexecutors of Marion J. Farquhar, Deceased, Respondents; Molly O’D. Jaeger et al., as Executors of Frederick W. Jaeger, Jr., Deceased, Appellants.

Appeal from order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, dated October 23, 1968, dismissed as moot, without costs. Brennan, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
#### Jacquelyn F. Frohm, as Administratrix of the Estate of Robert E. Freida, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant, v. State of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

(Claim No. 46893.)

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs, and claim dismissed. Memorandum: From the testimony of an investigating officer it appears he found decedent’s car had been traveling northbound on a two-lane State highway, went off the east shoulder of the road, eventually striking the right abutment of a bridge and dropping into a creek which flowed under the bridge. The car had struck three guard posts 10 feet apart along the approach to the bridge abutment and from marks on the shoulder had left the highway about three car lengths before striking the first guard post. In view of the distance of decedent’s ear from the bridge when he left the highway it is clear that another foot in width on each side of the bridge would not have prevented the accident. The curve as testified to by the expert witnesses was a 3 degree or a 3.8 degree curve and both claimant and the State agreed that such a curve could safely be negotiated at 60 or 65 miles per hour. Claimant asserts that the combination of the curve and the bridge required the reduction of the speed limit from the posted limit of 50 miles per hour to 35 miles per hour or less. The testimony of claimant’s expert does not demonstrate why the situation of the bridge being one foot rather than two feet wider on each side than the pavement required the reduction in speed and certainly there was no showing of causal relationship between the width of the bridge, concededly wider than the road, and the occurrence of the accident. The proof showed that there was no previous accident on the southerly approach to the bridge. As pointed out in *Ruback*v. *McCleary, Wallin & Crouse*(220 N. Y. 188, 195): *“*The rule is well settled that where there are several possible causes of injury, for one or more of which defendant is not responsible, plaintiff cannot recover without proving that the injury was sustained wholly or in part by a cause for which defendant was responsible. If the matter is left in doubt and it is just as probable that the injury was the result of one cause as the other, there can be no recovery.” The record clearly demonstrates that claimant failed to establish that the accident resulting in decedent’s death was caused wholly or in part by any negligence on the part of the defendant State of New York. (Appeals from judgment of Court of Claims in wrongful death action.) Present — Del Veeehio, J. P., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Henry, JJ.
EXHIBIT 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
              RALI SERIES 2006-QO8 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer  (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Series  Supplement,  dated as of
October 30, 2006,  and the Standard  Terms of Pooling and  Servicing  Agreement,
dated as of October 30, 2006 (as amended  from time to time,  the  "Agreement"),
among Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., as company, Residential Funding Company,
LLC, as master servicer,  and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas,  as trustee,
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 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  Agreement  in all  material
     respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director