alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Case No. 3:06CR-208-MEF

)

JASON EDWARD COFIELD )

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

A pretrial conference was held on February 20, 2007, before the undersigned

Magistrate Judge. Present at this conference was the Honorable C. Pate DeBardeleben,

counsel for the defendant, and Assistant United States Attorney Verne H. Speirs, counsel

for the government. As a result of the conference, it is

ORDERED as follows:

1. Jury selection is set for March 12, 2007. The trial of this case is set for the

trial term commencing on March 12, 2007 before Chief United States District Judge

Mark E. Fuller and is expected to last two days for trial.

2. The following motion is currently pending: Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.

3. Proposed voir dire questions shall be filed on or before March 5, 2007.

Counsel should not include questions seeking information which is provided in the jury

questionnaire.

4. All Motions in Limine shall be filed on or before March 5, 2007. Motions in

Limine must be accompanied by a brief. Failure to file a brief will result in denial of the

motion.

Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 38 Filed 02/21/2007 Page 1 of 2
5. Proposed jury instructions shall be filed on or before March 5, 2007.

6. The court will not consider a plea pursuant to Rule 11(c) (1)(A) or (C) unless

notice is filed on or before noon on February 28, 2007. The government and defendant

are informed that if a defendant waits until the last minute to enter a plea, and if that plea,

for whatever reason, is not accepted by the court, the defendant and the government will

be expected to be prepared to go to trial on March 12, 2007. The court will not continue

the trial of this case as to any defendant because a defendant’s plea was not accepted. In

other words, the defendant and the government should not wait until the last minute for a

defendant to enter a guilty plea, and both the defendant and the government should all be

ready to go to trial on March 12, 2007, as to all defendants, even though a particular

guilty plea was not accepted by the court.

Done this 21 day of February, 2007. st

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 38 Filed 02/21/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Asain Abreu, Also Known as Asmin Abreau, Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 302]

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), rendered March 21, 2005, resentencing *337defendant, upon his conviction, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, to a term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, who was resentenced from a term of 15 years to life to a term of 12 years pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738), claims he is also entitled to have his conviction reduced to second-degree possession based on the amelioration doctrine of *People v Behlog*(74 NY2d 237 [1989]) and the new law’s change in the weight requirement for first-degree possession. We reject this argument, because the amelioration doctrine does not apply *(People v Nelson,*21 AD3d 861 [2005], *lv granted*6 NY3d 757 [2005]), and because, even if it did apply, defendant’s resentencing would not place him, for such purpose, in the posture of a person being newly sentenced *(People v Quinones,*22 AD3d 218 [2005]).

We perceive no basis for a further reduction of the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.
Exhibit 35.5

[EverBank Logo]

1123 Servicer Compliance
Statement

Transactions Listed With SEC

I, Michael C. Koster, Executive Vice President of EverBank, certify that:



| | (a) | A review of EverBank (the Servicer) activities during the period ending December 31, 2014, (Reporting Period) and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement as Identified on
Schedule A has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | 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 the Reporting Period.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 26, 2015



|       |  |                         
|------ |  | ------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Michael C. Koster   
|       | 
|Name:  |  | Michael C. Koster       
|       | 
|Title: |  | Executive Vice President



---

Schedule A

Transactions Listed with the SEC 2014

Deals in full compliance



|                 |  |                                                             
|---------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Security or Deal |  | Master Servicer or Trustee or Investor                      
|SEMT 2013-1      |  | Wells Fargo Bank  Master Servicer
Christina Trust - Trustee
#### Aultman *et al. v.*National Bank of Tifton *et al.*

July 18, 1913.

Equitable petition, etc. Before Judge Thomas. Tift superior court. December 16, 1911.

*Perry, Foy & Monk,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Fulwood & Skeen,*contra.

Eisii, C. J.

The judge to whom the case, by consent, was submitted for determination without a jury did not err in holding that, under the evidence and the law applicable to the issues involved, the widow and children of the decedent were not entitled to the fund in controversy as a year’s support.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

v. ) CR NO. 2:06-cr-202-WKW

)

EUGENE CLECKLER and )

KIM CLECKLER, )

)

O R D E R

It is ORDERED that the order (Doc. #71) filed on January 3, 2007 in regard to the

Motion in Limine filed (Doc. #59) by defendant Eugene Cleckler is hereby VACATED. 

DONE this 4th day of January, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 74 Filed 01/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
Subpart 2952.2 - Text of Provisions and

Clauses

Parent topic: PART 2952 - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

2952.201-70 Contracting Officer's Technical Representative

(COTR).

Insert the following clause into contracts requiring COTR representation under 2901.603.71:

Contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) May 2004

(a) Mr./Ms. (Name) of (Organization) (Room No.), (Building), (Address), (Area Code & Telephone

No.), is hereby designated to act as contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) under this

contract.

(b) The COTR is responsible, as applicable, for: receiving all deliverables; inspecting and accepting

the supplies or services provided hereunder in accordance with the terms and conditions of this

contract; providing direction to the contractor which clarifies the contract effort, fills in details or

otherwise serves to accomplish the contractual scope of work; evaluating performance; and

certifying all invoices/vouchers for acceptance of the supplies or services furnished for payment.

(c) The COTR does not have the authority to alter the contractor's obligations under the contract,

and/or modify any of the expressed terms, conditions, specifications, or cost of the agreement. If, as

a result of technical discussions, it is desirable to alter/change contractual obligations or the scope

of work, the contracting officer must issue such changes.
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION * IN THE

OF MARYLAND

* COURT OF APPEALS

* OF MARYLAND

v.

* Misc. Docket AG No. 104

ALI HERISCHI * September Term, 2019

O R D E R

Upon c onsideration of the Joint Petition for Reprimand by Consent filed by the

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and the Respondent, Ali Herischi , it is this

22nd day of June , 2020,

ORDERED , that the Respondent, Ali Herischi , be and he hereby is

, r eprimanded

for violating Rules 1. 4 , 1. 7 , and 8.4(d) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.

/s/ Robert N. McDonald

Senior Judge
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                   Certification of Periodic Financial Report
                   ------------------------------------------

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned, Andrew E. Kersey, the President and
Chief Executive Officer, and Jeffery A. Baird, the Chief Financial Officer of
CAS Medical Systems, Inc., (the "issuer"), do hereby certify that the report on
Form 10-Q accompanying this certification (the "report") fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the issuer.


/s/ Andrew E. Kersey
--------------------------
Andrew E. Kersey
President and Chief Executive Officer
CAS Medical Systems, Inc.
August 14, 2007


/s/ Jeffery A. Baird
--------------------------
Jeffery A. Baird
Chief Financial Officer
CAS Medical Systems, Inc.
August 14, 2007
#### McCoy *v.*Meador, trustee.

July 18, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge Bell. Fulton superior court. February 3, 1912.

*W. E. Suttles,*for plaintiff in error.

*Tindall & Silverman,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

1. While certain matters are set forth in the brief of evidence which properly have no place therein, they are not sufficient to require a ruling that the brief should not be considered in passing on the grounds of the motion for new trial.

2. The suit being upon an open account which defendant denied owing, and no witness having testified as to the sale to the defendant of the goods for the prices of which the action was brought, nor as to the delivery of such goods to the defendant — it not being shown that the salesman was dead or that his testimony could not be procured, and there. not being sufficient evidence to prove the correctness of the account, the verdict in behalf of the plaintiff was without evidence to support it and the court erred in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Searched for **http://www.nwtrb.gov/reports/NWTRB_Infiltration_Evaluation.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.nwtrb.gov/reports/NWTRB_Infiltration_Evaluation.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 46 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 1 of 1
September 10, 2015

Mr. Andre B. Gervais

11149 Sacco Drive

Boca Raton, FL 33482

Dear Mr. Gervais:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

§§ 45.23(a) and (b); 45.27(a); 45.29; 47.15; 91.7(a); 91.119(b) and (c); 91.121, 91.151(a); 

91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(2); and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and what you should 

do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2651, but we are unable 

to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000763978
<NAME> CAPITAL BUILDERS DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          35,061
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               105,139
<PP&E>                                       6,008,173
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,470,519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,835,885
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,310
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,835,885
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               422,450
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               222,467
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             231,016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (31,033)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 33.4b

|                |                        |                                
|--------------- | ---------------------- | -------------------------------
|[Assurant Logo] |                        | 260 Interstate North Circle, SE
|                | Atlanta, GA 30329-2210
|                | T 770.763.1000        
|                | F 770.859.4403        
|                | www.assurant.com      
|                | February 15, 2017     

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH

§1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii)

of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD

JANUARY 1, 2016 TO DECEMBER 31, 2016

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, the Asserting Party)
is responsible for assessing compliance for the period of January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and
§1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, (the Applicable Servicing Criteria) which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs
with respect to all mortgage backed securities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the Platform Transactions). The Asserting
Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has
complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period.

American Security Insurance Company

Standard Guaranty Insurance Company

TrackSure
Insurance Agency, Inc.



|                                                                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John Frobose                                                                                                                                    
|By: John Frobose                                                                                                                                    
|President of American Security Insurance Company and Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, and Sr. Vice President of TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.

Date: February 15, 2017
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 343 

Commending the State of Kuwait for granting women certain important 

political rights. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2005 

Mr. CROWLEY (for himself, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mrs. DAVIS of California, 

Mr. ENGEL, Mr. HIGGINS, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. KELLY, Ms. LEE, Mrs. MALONEY, Mrs. 

MCCARTHY, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. PITTS, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. 

ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. WILSON of 

South Carolina, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. ACKERMAN, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, 

Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. 

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Ms. WATSON, Mr. ISSA, 

and Ms. WATERS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on International Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Commending the State of Kuwait for granting women certain 

important political rights. 

Whereas on May 16, 2005, the Parliament of the State of 

Kuwait amended Article 1 of the Election Law 35 of 

1962, providing female citizens of Kuwait the right to 

vote and run in the 2007 elections; 

Whereas the rights of women are of paramount importance 

in international human rights, to be respected and promoted regardless of historical, cultural, or religious heritage; 
2 

•HRES 343 IH 

Whereas the active advancement of women’s rights throughout the world is and remains an important policy priority 

of the United States; and 

Whereas the Department of State recognizes that the Kuwaiti parliamentary vote of May 16, 2005, was an important step forward for the women of Kuwait and the nation as a whole, and the United States views this step as 

a positive development on the road to political reform, 

serving as a positive example for other governments and 

societies in the region that are on the path to political 

freedom, inclusion of women, and full democratization: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That House of Representatives— 

2 (1) commends the Government and Parliament 

3 of the State of Kuwait for providing female citizens 

4 of Kuwait the right to vote and hold public office; 

5 (2) urges the full participation of Kuwaiti 

6 women in the political life of their country; and 

7 (3) encourages the Government of Kuwait to 

8 continue taking positive steps to achieve full mod9 ernization of its political system and lasting demo10 cratic reform. 

Æ
IV 

House Calendar No. 54 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 334 

[Report No. 109–144] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2985) making appropriations 

for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2006, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 21, 2005 

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 

to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2985) making 

appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of 

3 rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee 

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 2985) making appropriations for 

6 the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending Sep-
2 

HRES 334 RH 

1 tember 30, 2006, and for other purposes. The first reading 

2 of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 

3 against consideration of the bill are waived. General de4 bate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 

5 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

6 ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropria7 tions. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

8 amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 

9 considered as read. All points of order against provisions 

10 in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI 

11 are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no 

12 amendment to the bill shall be in order except those print13 ed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 

14 this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only 

15 in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 

16 by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 

17 as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 

18 report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 

19 an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 

20 not be subject to a demand for division of the question 

21 in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points 

22 of order against such amendments are waived. At the con23 clusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 

24 Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 

25 such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
3 

HRES 334 RH 

1 question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 

2 amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 

3 motion except one motion to recommit with or without in4 structions. 
House Calendar No. 54 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 334 

[Report No. 109–144] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2985) 

and for other purposes. for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, making appropriations for the Legislative Branch 

JUNE 21, 2005 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed