alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Sam Bova et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business as Bokap Builders, Respondents.

Order entered 'September 17, 1968 denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant-respondent. The court notes, however, that the record discloses no reason why the suit herein — to recover the sum of $1,886.91—was not commenced in the ,Civil Court. The case is therefore remanded to Special Term for the purpose of transferring the action to the Civil Court unless plaintiff advances a proper reason for retaining jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. *(Midtown Commercial Corp.*v. *Kelner,*29 A D 2d 349, 351; *Trussell*v. *Strongo,*29 A D 2d 851; N. Y. Const., art. VI, § 19, subd. a). Concur—Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, MeGivern, Markewieh and Nunez, JJ.
Exhibit No. 32.4   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 this report of Questar Pipeline Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Kevin W. Hadlock, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.  QUESTAR PIPELINE COMPANY   May 6, 2011 /s/Kevin W. Hadlock Kevin W. Hadlock Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:06-cv-00744-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 1 of 6
Case 3:06-cv-00744-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 2 of 6
Case 3:06-cv-00744-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 3 of 6
Case 3:06-cv-00744-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 4 of 6
Case 3:06-cv-00744-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 5 of 6
Case 3:06-cv-00744-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 6 of 6
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          23,071
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,071
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,236,133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,163,638
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,461,770)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,236,133
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,996
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                48,538
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,362
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (88,904)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (88,904)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (88,904)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (5)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (5)
        

</TABLE>
List of IAAR Forms       1953.370-21 The Broadcasting Board of Governors Form IA-21, Abstract of Quotations.          1953.370-44 The Broadcasting Board of Governors Form IA-44, Requisition-Purchase - Order-Invoice for Professional Services.    **Parent topic:** SUBCHAPTER H - CLAUSES AND FORMS
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.321 Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards. ( a ) The Commission or the Chief Administrative Judge may establish one or more Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards, each comprised of three members, one of whom will be qualified in the conduct of administrative proceedings and two of whom have such technical or other qualifications as the Commission or the Chief Administrative Judge determines to be appropriate to the issues to be decided. The members of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board shall be designated from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel established by the Commission. In proceedings for granting, suspending, revoking, or amending licenses or authorizations as the Commission may designate, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board shall perform the adjudicatory functions that the Commission determines are appropriate.
( b ) The Commission or the Chief Administrative Judge may designate an alternate qualified in the conduct of administrative proceedings, or an alternate having technical or other qualifications, or both, for an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board established under paragraph (a) of this section. If a member of a board becomes unavailable, the Commission or the Chief Administrative Judge may constitute the alternate qualified in the conduct of administrative proceedings, or the alternate having technical or other qualifications, as appropriate, as a member of the board by notifying the alternate who will, as of the date of the notification, serve as a member of the board. If an alternate is unavailable or no alternates have been designated, and a member of a board becomes unavailable, the Commission or Chief Administrative Judge may appoint a member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel who is qualified in the conduct of administrative proceedings or a member having technical or other qualifications, as appropriate, as a member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board by notifying the appointee who will, as of the date of the notification, serve as a member of the board.
( c ) An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has the duties and may exercise the powers of a presiding officer as granted by § 2.319 and otherwise in this part. Any time when a board is in existence but is not actually in session, any powers which could be exercised by a presiding officer or by the Chief Administrative Judge may be exercised with respect to the proceeding by the chairman of the board having jurisdiction over it. Two members of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board constitute a quorum if one of those members is the member qualified in the conduct of administrative proceedings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,023,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  717,696
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (38,622)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      84,599,748
<DEPRECIATION>                            (53,196,104)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,992,914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,788,058
<BONDS>                                     24,209,910
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,994,946
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,992,914
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,562,790
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,066,996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,257
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,343,846
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,089,691
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,089,691
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,089,691
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    19.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    19.89
        

</TABLE>
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  J OSE R OBERTO F ERNANDEZ -R UIZ , Petitioner, No. 03-74533

v. Agency No.



#  A90-116-400 A LBERTO R. G ONZALES , Attorney General, ORDER

Respondent. 

# 

Filed December 13, 2005 Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge.

ORDER Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard bythe en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The threejudge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.

16431PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2005 Thomson/West.
Subpart 2132.1 - General

Parent topic: PART 2132 - CONTRACT FINANCING

2132.170 Recurring premium payments to Contractors.

(a) OPM will make payments on a letter of credit (LOC) basis. OPM and the Contractor will concur

on an estimate of benefits and administrative costs plus the fixed service or risk charge for the

forthcoming contract year, as specified in the contract. The annual premium to the Contractor,

based on this estimate, will be credited to the Contractor's LOC account in 12 equal monthly

installments due on the first business day of each month and available for drawdown. OPM will

credit the Contractor's LOC account for the December payment no later than the last business day of

each calendar year. Following the close of the contract year, a reconciliation of premiums, benefits,

and other costs will be performed as a limited cost redetermination. In addition, interest distribution

payments will be made available for Contractor drawdown from the LOC account. The Contractor

will use the LOC account in accordance with guidelines issued by OPM.

(b) Withdrawals from the LOC account for benefit costs of $5,000 or more will be made on a claimspaid basis. Withdrawals from the LOC account for benefit costs of less than $5,000 and other FEGLI

Program disbursements will be made on a checks-presented basis. Under a checks-presented basis,

drawdown on the LOC is delayed until the checks issued for FEGLI Program disbursements are

presented to the Contractor's bank for payment.

(c) Nothing in this chapter will affect the ability of the Contractor to hold the special contingency

reserve established and maintained in accordance with the terms of 5 U.S.C. 8712.

2132.171 Contract clause.

The clause at 2152.232-70 shall be inserted in all FEGLI Program contracts.
#### In the Matter of Wildcat Service Corporation, Appellant. Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 6, 1979. Appellant is a nonprofit corporation involved in the rehabilitation through work experience of ex-offenders, ex-addicts, delinquent youths and mothers receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Employment for these individuals, denominated crewmembers, is sought by appellant as a part of the rehabilitation process. Appellant seeks a refund of unemployment insurance contributions, contending that the services rendered by its crewmembers should be excluded from the term "employment” pursuant to section 563 (subd 2, par [d]) of the Labor Law. The board found that such services should not be so excluded and denied appellant a refund. This appeal ensued. Subdivision (d) of section 563 of the Labor Law excludes from the term "employment” services rendered for a nonprofit organization by a person who "(1) receives rehabilitative services in a facility conducted for the purpose of carrying out a program of rehabilitation for individuals whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or injury or (2) is given remunerative work in a facility conducted for the purpose of providing such work for persons who cannot be readily absorbed in the competitive labor market because of their impaired physical or mental capacity” (Labor Law, § 563, subd 2, par [d], els [1], [2]). At the hearing, appellant’s general counsel conceded that the statutory language in question was drafted before appellant came into existence and that its type of operation was not then envisioned. It is also not disputed that the Legislature had before it an amendment to section 511 of the Labor Law excluding from the term "employment” services performed by an individual receiving work relief or work training as part of an unemployment work relief or work training program assisted or financed in whole or in part by any Federal agency or any agency of the State or a political subdivision thereof. It was concluded by the board that if the Legislature had intended to exclude the services performed by the crewmembers herein, they could have done so by adopting such amendment. Since the evidentiary facts herein are undisputed and the issue involves policy considerations relating to the intended scope of the statute, "the question is one to the determina*711tion of which the Appeal Board may bring to bear its own special competence in carrying out the supervisory authority conferred on it by the Legislature.” *(Matter of Fisher [Levine],*36 NY2d 146, 150.) Considering the record in its entirety, we cannot say that the construction placed upon the statute by the board is either irrational or unreasonable and, therefore, it should be affirmed (see *Matter of Howard v Wyman,*28 NY2d 434; *Matter of Dwyer [Ross],*72 AD2d 853; *Matter of Peak [North Colonie Cent. School Dist.*— Ross], 72 AD2d 854). Decision affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Staley, Jr., Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA DENISE NAILS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06CV737-WKW

) (WO)

DOTHAN RESCUE MISSION, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This case is before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, filed August 16, 2006. 

The court wishes the plaintiff to fully understand the limited nature of being allowed

to proceed in forma pauperis which only permits the plaintiff to commence this suit without

prepayment of fees and court costs. The plaintiff should understand he may incur expenses

as a result of the prosecution of this case. In the event of a trial, the plaintiff may compel the

attendance of witnesses through subpoena only by tendering to each witness payment of a

one-day witness fee of $40, plus mileage. Also, court costs, which vary, but which can be

very substantial, are normally assessed against the losing party. This means that a plaintiff

who loses a case, even though proceeding in forma pauperis, may be charged with, and

obligated to pay, all court costs.

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 6 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

Now, having advised the plaintiff of the possible expense of litigation, the court

ORDERS that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2) is hereby

GRANTED.

Additionally, the court notes that plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed five days

after the deadline established by the court. While the court will accept the amended

complaint on this occasion, plaintiff is advised that she must comply precisely with the terms

of any order entered by the court in this matter and that, if she fails to comply with any future

order of the court, this action may be dismissed.

DONE, this 20th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 6 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 22 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 22 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 22-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 22-3 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 22-3 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 22-3 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 3
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 2.1017 Computation of time.

In computing any period of time, the day of the act, event, or default after which the designated period of time begins to run is not included. The last day of the period so computed is included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday at the place where the action or event is to occur, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday, nor holiday. Whenever a party, potential party, or interested governmental participant, has the right or is required to do some act within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other document upon it, one day shall be added to the prescribed period. If the electronic docket is unavailable for more than four access hours of any day that would be counted in the computation of time, that day will not be counted in the computation of time.

[63 FR 71740, Dec. 30, 1998]
EX‐33.18

 
| (logo) NTS NATIONAL

TAX SEARCH, LLC | 303 E Wacker Drive, Suite 900

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 233-6440 |
|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION'S REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

For the calendar year ending December 31, 2014, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service

Vendor for **Wells Fargo Bank**(the "Servicer" ). 

 

National Tax Search, LLC ("NTS") is responsible for assessing com p liance as of December 31, 2014 and for the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229 .1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations ( the "CFR"). NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Only servicing criteria 1122 (d)(1)(ii), 1122 (d)l(iv), 1122 (d)2( ii ), 1122 (d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122 (d)2(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria") are applicable to the activities NTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered by this report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTS's TaxQ system (the "Platform Transactions").

 

NTS, as a vendor, has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the NTS has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2014 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

 

Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2014 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

 

National Tax Search, LLC, as Vendor to Servicer

 

/s/ Lori Eshoo 

Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO 

January 12, 2015
2846.704 Authority for use of warranties.

The use of a warranty in an acquisition shall be approved at a level above the contracting officer.

Parent topic: Subpart 2846.7 - Warranties
EGAN SYSTEMS, INC.
                          COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE

Computation of net loss per share:

The following data show the amounts used in computing net loss per share and the
effect on net loss and the weighted average number of shares of dilutive
potential common stock.

                                                         Six Months Ended
                                                             June 30,
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                       2002            2001
                                                   ------------    ------------

Net loss available to common stockholders          $    (63,317)   $   (157,194)
                                                   ============    ============

Weighted average number of common shares in
 primary EPS                                         19,646,652      19,646,652

Effect of retired shares                               (150,000)             --

Effect of diluted securities                                 --              --
                                                   ------------    ------------

Weighted average number of common shares and
 dilutive potential common stock used in
 fully diluted EPS                                   19,496,652      19,646,652
                                                   ============    ============

Net loss per common share:

 Basic and fully diluted                           $     (0.003)   $     (0.008)
                                                   ============    ============

For 2002 and 2001, the effect of dilutive securities were not included in
computing fully diluted EPS because their effects are anti-dilutive.


                                       9
Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 3 of 3