alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Claire M. Wing et al., Respondents, v Irwin Zucker, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating Irwin Zucker as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 9, 1980 for the public office of Member of the State Senate from the 20th Senatorial District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 18, 1980, which, *inter alia,*granted the application. Matter remanded to Special Term to make specific findings of fact with respect to its invalidation of appellant’s designating petitions, and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. Such findings of fact are to be made with all convenient speed. We cannot discern from the record on appeal the reasons for Special Term’s *531invalidation of appellant’s designating petitions. Consequently, we are unable to determine the correctness of that decision. Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Mangano and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

ANGELA PRICE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No.

vs. )

 ) 3:06-cv-742-MEF

ROANOKE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, )

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE

Plaintiff moves the Court to continue the pre-trial conference set in this case on the following

grounds:

1. The conference is set for November 2.

2. The parties are to have the proposed Pre-trial Order to the Court by October 30.

3. Plaintiff’s counsel’s wife is having a baby this afternoon.

4. Plaintiff’s counsel has sent a draft of the Order to defense counsel, but it is unlikely

plaintiff’s counsel will be able to further participate in developing the proposed Order in time to have

it to the Court on October 30. 

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Adam M. Porter 

Adam M. Porter

Attorney for Plaintiff

2301 Morris Avenue, Suite 102

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

(205) 322-8999

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 33 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 25, 2007 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

of the Court using the CM/ECF system, who will electronically provide a copy of the foregoing to

Donald B. Sweeney, Jr., Esq Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP One Federal Place 1819 Fifth

Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2104 and that there are no non-CM/ECF participants in this

case to whom hard copies should be mailed.

/s Adam M. Porter 

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 33 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 2 of 2
902.201 Contract clause.

Insert the clause at 952.202-1, Definitions, in solicitation and contracts that exceed the simplified

acquisition threshold.

Parent topic: Subpart 902.2 - Definitions Clause
2823.704 Electronic products environmental

assessment tool.

The HCA or designee is the agency head for the purposes of executing the written determination not

to purchase EPEAT®-registered products.

Parent topic: Subpart 2823.7 - Contracting for Environmentally Preferable Products and Services
SCWC-19-0000865 

(Consolidated with SCWC-22-0000408) 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I 

SCWC-19-0000865 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, fka THE BANK 

OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE (CWALT 2006-32CB), 

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

DENNIS DUANE DeSHAW and SUSAN KAY BROER-DeSHAW, 

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants. 

and 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, 

solely as nominee for FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION; and 

VILLAGE PARK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

SCWC-22-0000408 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, fka THE BANK 

OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE (CWALT 2006-32CB), 

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

DENNIS DUANE DeSHAW and SUSAN KAY BROER-DeSHAW, 

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants. 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-19-0000865

26-JUN-2024

07:59 AM

Dkt. 12 ODAC
2 

and 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, 

solely as nominee for FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION; and 

VILLAGE PARK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

and 

SUSAN KAY BROER-DeSHAW, 

Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, fka THE BANK 

OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE (CWALT 2006-32CB), 

Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee. 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

(CAAP-19-0000865; CAAP-22-0000408; CASE NO. 1CC161001821) 

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.)

 Petitioners Dennis Duane DeShaw and Susan Kay BroerDeShaw’s Amended Application for Writ of Certiorari in SCWC-19-

0000865, filed on May 3, 2024, and Amended Application for Writ of 

Certiorari in SCWC-22-0000408, filed on May 3, 2024, are hereby 

rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, June 26, 2024. 

 /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

 /s/ Todd W. Eddins 

 /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza 

 /s/ Vladimir P. Devens
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

V. ) CR. No.: 2:06cr196-MHT

)

NESTOR AMAIQUEMA-MACIAS )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW the undersigned counsel, Kevin L. Butler, and enters his appearance on

behalf of Defendant, NESTOR AMAIQUEMA-MACIAS, in the above-styled case.

Dated this 5 day of September 2006. th

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Kevin L. Butler

KEVIN L. BUTLER

First Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail: kevin_butler@fd.org

AZ Bar Code: 014138

Case 2:06-cr-00196-MHT-CSC Document 10 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

V. ) CR. No.: 2:06cr196-MHT

)

NESTOR AMAIQUEMA-MACIAS )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 5, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

following: 

K. David Cooke, Jr., Esquire

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Kevin L. Butler

KEVIN L. BUTLER

First Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail: kevin_butler@fd.org

AZ Bar Code: 014138

Case 2:06-cr-00196-MHT-CSC Document 10 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

          - 26 CFR Parts 1 and 301
          - [REG-100194-10]
          - RIN 1545-BJ52

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document contains a correction to a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-100194-10) that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Friday, December 3, 2010 (75 FR 75439). The proposed regulations provide further guidance relating to the requirement for “specified tax return prepares,”.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keith L. Brau at (202) 622-4940 (not a toll-free number).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background

The notice of proposed rulemaking that is the subject of this document is under section 6011 of the Internal Revenue Code.

## Need for Correction

As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-100194-10) contains an error that is misleading and is in need of clarification.

## Correction to Publication

Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking which was the subject of FR Doc. 2010-30500 is corrected as follows:

On page 75442, in the preamble, column 2, under the heading “Comments and Public Hearing”, line 17 from the bottom of the page, the language “for Tuesday, January 7, 2011 at 10 a.m.” is corrected to read “for Friday, January 7, 2011 at 10 a.m.”

Guy Traynor,

                        Federal Register Liaison,                         *Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration)*.                    

[FR Doc. 2010-31028 Filed 12-9-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

 v. )

)

COURTNEY D. FLOWERS ) CR. NO. 2:06CR00205-WHA

O R D E R

The defendant by consent has appeared before a United States Magistrate Judge and has

entered a plea of guilty. The Magistrate Judge has accepted the plea of guilty and has adjudicated

the defendant guilty. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. That sentencing of the defendant be, and the same is, hereby set on January 22, 2007

at 9:00 a.m. in the Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street,

Montgomery, Alabama.

2. That in accordance with Rule 32(f)(1), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, on or

before January 2, 2007, counsel for the defendant and the Government shall communicate in

writing to the probation officer, and to each other, any objections they have as to any material

information, sentencing classifications, sentencing guideline ranges, and policy statements contained

in or omitted from the presentence report.

3. That, unless excused in writing by the Chief U.S. Probation Officer of this district,

counsel for the parties shall be available for a conference with the probation officer on January 4,

2007 at 9:00 a.m., to discuss and resolve, if possible, factual and legal issues contained in the

presentence report. If the probation officer determines or if any of the parties request that a personal

meeting be held to resolve the issues, such meeting shall be at the U.S. Probation Office, One

Court Square, Suite 249, Montgomery, AL, on the above date and time. Such request for a

personal conference shall be made to the probation officer within five (5) calendar days after receipt

of the presentence report. Otherwise, the conference shall be held telephonically. Any motion for

downward departure shall be filed on or before the conference date with the probation officer,

unless based on unknown and unforeseen circumstances arising after that date, in which case

the motion must be filed promptly upon discovery of such circumstances.

Nothing contained in this Order shall be construed as impairing the rights of any party as

established in the Constitution or laws of the United States.

DONE this 26th day of September , 2006.

 /s/ W. Harold Albritton 

 Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 26 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 1 of 1
§ 217.31 Priority ratings. ( a ) Levels of priority. ( 1 ) There are two levels of priority established by the Energy Priorities and Allocations System regulations, identified by the rating symbols “DO” and “DX”.
( 2 ) All DO-rated orders have equal priority with each other and take precedence over unrated orders. All DX-rated orders have equal priority with each other and take precedence over DO-rated orders and unrated orders. (For resolution of conflicts among rated orders of equal priority, see § 217.34(c).)
( 3 ) In addition, a Directive regarding priority treatment for a given item issued by the Department of Energy for that item takes precedence over any DX-rated order, DO-rated order, or unrated order, as stipulated in the Directive. (For a full discussion of Directives, see § 217.62.)
( b ) Program identification symbols. Program identification symbols indicate which approved program is being supported by a rated order. The list of currently approved programs and their identification symbols are listed in Schedule 1, set forth as an appendix to 15 CFR part 700. For example, DO-F3 identifies a domestic energy construction program. Additional programs may be approved under the procedures of E.O. 12919 at any time. Program identification symbols do not connote any priority.
( c ) Priority ratings. A priority rating consists of the rating symbol—DO or DX—and the program identification symbol, such as F1, F2, or F3. Thus, a contract for a domestic energy construction program will contain a DO-F3 or DX-F3 priority rating.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00097-CR

Robert William Moore, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR2006-105, HONORABLE CHARLES R. RAMSAY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Robert William Moore timely filed a notice of appeal after the district court revoked

his deferred adjudication community supervision, convicted him of indecency with a child, and

imposed a 12-year sentence. The district court has certified that this is a plea-bargain case and

Moore has no right of appeal. Based on the district court’s certification, the State has filed a motion

to dismiss the appeal.

In a plea bargain for deferred adjudication, the bargain is complete when the

defendant enters his plea of guilty in exchange for deferred adjudication community supervision.

Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Appellate rule 25.2(a)(2)

restricts the defendant’s right of appeal from the deferred adjudication order, but does not restrict

the defendant’s right of appeal following a subsequent adjudication of guilt. Id.; Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(a)(2). This is the case even if the defendant pleaded “true” to the allegations in the motion to
2

adjudicate in exchange for an agreed punishment recommendation, because rule 25.2(a)(2) applies

only when the “defendant’s plea is guilty or nolo contendere.” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); see also

Gutierrez v. State, 108 S.W.3d 304, 309-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (holding that plea bargain

recommendation is not binding on trial court at revocation hearing). After adjudication of guilt, the

defendant’s appeal is restricted only by article 42.12, section 5(b). Hargesheimer, 182 S.W.3d at

912; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (West Supp. 2006). We cannot determine from

the documents forwarded to this Court with the notice of appeal whether the plea bargain referenced

in the trial court’s certification was at the original trial or at the adjudication hearing, but, in either

event, it does not restrict Moore’s right of appeal following adjudication.

The appeal is abated. The district court is instructed to prepare and file an amended

certification reflecting that this is not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal.

Hargesheimer, 182 S.W.3d at 913. A copy of the amended certification shall be forwarded to the

clerk of this Court no later than July 21, 2008.

____________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Abated

Filed: July 8, 2008

Do Not Publish
Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 01/24/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 01/24/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 01/24/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 01/24/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 01/24/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 01/24/2007 Page 6 of 6
§ 993.7 French prunes. *French prunes* means: ( a ) Prunes produced from plums of the following varieties of plums: French (Prune d'Agen, Petite Prune d'Agen), Coates (Cox, Double X, Saratoga); and
( b ) any other prunes which possess taste, flesh texture, and other characteristics similar to those of the prunes named in this section.
70°00

44°20 [—

[ .

44°00
70° 00°

NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY INDEX

HO 964
W684 He
H-6838. as

wre

H8I76
1143.
1830]

14-7832.

7
gat
168)

DEPTH
GRADIENTS

Meters Feet
° °
20 65.6
wo 13g
60 1968
% 2625
100 328.1

Maximum Depth

BATHYMETRIC CONTOUR INTERVAL. 10 METERS
WITH SUPPLEMENTARY 2 METER CONTOURS

DATUM IS MEAN LOW WATER

SYMBOL GY,

“Rocks
&mp Lesage

(BANGOR

SW., MAINE. )
ae

69°00" i i

~| 44° 30° i

29099): /

BANGOR SW. ME.
#### § 1707.210 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling.

If the court or other competent authority fails to stay the demand, the employee upon whom the demand is made, unless otherwise advised by the General Counsel, will appear at the stated time and place, produce a copy of this part, state that the employee has been advised by counsel not to provide the requested testimony or produce documents, and respectfully decline to comply with the demand, citing *United States ex rel. Touhy* v. *Ragen,* 340 U.S. 462 (1951). A written response may be offered to a request, or to a demand, if permitted by the court or other competent authority.
#### In the Matter of Edward V. Regan, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Petitioner, v Crime Victims Compensation Board et al., Respondents.

Proceeding instituted in this court pursuant to section 629 of the Executive Law, to review a determination of the Crime Victims Compensation Board, which awarded the sum of $592.78 for medical expenses. On May 25, 1979, claimant was injured when she fell down a flight of stairs while entering a subway station. On June 5, 1979, claimant filed a claim with the Crime Victims Compensation Board, alleging that she was pushed down a flight of stairs causing her injuries. Commissioner Petromelis was assigned to review the claim and disallowed the claim on the grounds that the investigation revealed no evidence of a crime. "The aided report indicates that the claimant’s injuries resulted from an accidental fall and not as the result of a crime.” Upon appeal, the decision of the commissioner, after review by the Crime Victims Compensation Board, dated May 13, 1980, was reversed, and claimant was awarded the sum of $592.78. The board stated that claimant maintains that her fall and the resultant injuries were the *569result of the commission of a crime; that she was pushed by a person or persons unknown. The police aided report confirms the incident as to time, place and injuries. It does not, however, make mention of the claimant’s position that the fall was the result of an assault. Without the testimony of claimant, the burden of proof would not have been met, but we have her testimony, and it should not be ignored. The gist of claimant’s testimony was that although she had no specific recollection of feeling someone push her, she does recall, "being propelled through the air with great force and not striking a single step.” The burden of proof in a proceeding under article 22 of the Executive Law rests upon the claimant. An award cannot be granted absent proof by the claimant that a crime has been committed *(Matter of Gryziec v Zweibel,*74 AD2d 9). A review of the record herein leads to the conclusion that claimant failed to meet the burden of establishing by substantial evidence that the essential elements necessary to support a grant of an award existed. Determination annulled, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Casey, JJ., concur.
#### § 986.36 Sheller.

*Sheller* refers to any person who converts inshell pecans to shelled pecans and sells the output in any and all markets in the stream of commerce, both within and outside of the production area; *Provided,* That the term “sheller” shall only include those who shell more than 1 million pounds of inshell pecans in a fiscal year. The Council may recommend changes to this definition subject to the approval of the Secretary.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

B. B., a minor, by and through his mother )

and next friend, OWENA KNOWLES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 3:06-CV-00715-MHT-DRB

)

PAWN CITY, INC., INTERSTATE ARMS )

CORPORATION, NORINCO a/k/a CHINA )

NORTH INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, et al )

 )

Defendants. )

O R D E R ON MOTION

In this products liability action removed on August 10, 2006, from the Circuit Court

of Chambers County, the Clerk has docketed with the record transferred from state court

these discovery motions filed under Rule 37, Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure: 

(1) a Motion to Compel by Defendant Interstate Arms Corporation, transmitted

for service on October 11, 2005 (Doc. 2-3), and 

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion, transmitted in November 2005, to Compel Discovery

Responses Propounded to Pawn City, Inc. (Doc. 2-5)

 For good cause after review of the motions pending in state court for more than nine

months, and considering the pendency of the deadline for any remand motion, it is

ORDERED that:

1. All Motions to Compel docketed in this court from the state court file are DENIED

without prejudice for re-filing as may be necessary pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 5 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

2. Counsel for the parties involved in these Motions to Compel – Plaintiff, Defendant

Interstate Arms Corporation and Defendant Pawn City – shall confer not later than

September 15, 2006, in a good-faith effort to resolve any remaining disputes arising from the

Rule 37 motions filed in state court. If they are unable to resolve any good-faith differences,

any Motion to Compel deemed necessary shall be filed, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, by September 26, 2006, and shall certify therein the parties’ good-faith efforts in

compliance with this Order. 

Done this 21 day of August, 2006. st

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 5 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 35.3



LOGO

Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Item 1123

Pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB, a review of the TransCentras activities during the year ended December 31, 2013 (the
Reporting Period) and of its performance under the servicing agreement between TransCentra and American Express (the Servicing Agreement) has been made under the undersigned officers supervision. To the
best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, TransCentra has fulfilled its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|                                               
|/s/ James Baird                                
|James Baird                                    
|Director of Compliance and Information Security

2/4/ 2014

www.transcentra.com

tel: 678-728-2500 


LOGO
 fax: 678-728-2501 


LOGO

4855 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, Suite 245, Norcross, Georgia 30092