alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 34.2



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors

TransCentra, Inc.

We have examined managements assertion for those customers that management has informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included in the
accompanying Managements Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (Managements Assertion), that TransCentra, Inc. (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and Item
1122 (d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions (SEC) Regulation AB for services by the Company that are encompassed by contractual obligations to perform Regulation AB reporting (the Platform) as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2017 TransCentra has determined that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Companys
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by
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, including tests on a sample basis of the
servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed
transaction in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the
Company during the period covered by this report. 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 applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2017, is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Porter Keadle Moore, LLC

February 1, 2018

235 Peachtree Street, NE |
Suite 1800 | Atlanta, GA 30303 | Phone 404.588.4200 | 404.588.4222

A member of Allinial Global
#### Sydelle F. Schoenberg, Respondent-Appellant, v Gerald H. Schoenberg, Appellant-Respondent.

In a matrimonial action, the parties cross-appeal from stated portions of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 15,1979, which, *inter alia,*(1) upon ordering the sale of the former marital residence, directed that certain payments be made from defendant’s share of the net proceeds of the sale, and (2) granted plaintiff alimony and a counsel fee. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting so much of the seventh decretal paragraph thereof as follows the words “and the net proceeds of sale shall be equally divided between the parties, less legal [fees] and brokerage commissions”, and substituting therefor-a provision to the effect that, as between the two parties, it shall be the defendant who shall be solely responsible for making the remainder of the periodic payments on the parties’ Chemical Bank loan (outstanding balance of $4,890) and Hempstead Bank loan (outstanding balance of $1,775) as they may become due. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Under the circumstances of the instant case, it was improper for Special Term to require that the defendant alone satisfy the mortgage on the marital premises out of his share of the proceeds upon the sale of the house, and to further require that he similarly discharge the outstanding balance of the parties’ joint obligations to the Chemical and Hempstead Banks in a single lump-sum payment. We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.12

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ImClone Systems Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Daniel S. Lynch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


/S/ Daniel S. Lynch
-----------------------------
Daniel S. Lynch
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
846.702-70 Guarantee period services and specifications.       (a) Guarantee period of services are associated with preserving and protecting a specified piece of contractor-installed equipment that is guaranteed under a construction contract. Specifications for certain high-dollar or traditionally troublesome equipment are designed to allow for the original installer of the equipment to service the equipment throughout the guaranty period.          (b) Guarantee period services are not the same as the 1-year general construction guaranty clause found at FAR clause 52.246-21, Warranty of Construction.          (c) The contracting officer may determine, when in the best interest of VA that guarantee period services, not to exceed a period of 5 years, are appropriate to protect the integrity of the installed equipment and ensure that the equipment performs as guaranteed.          (d) When the determination is made under paragraph (c) of this section, the contracting officer shall include the guarantee period of services as a separately priced contract line item number (CLIN) in solicitations and contracts.          (e) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.246-75, Warranty of Construction - Guarantee Period Services, in solicitations and contracts for construction that include the FAR clause 52.246-21, Warranty of Construction, and that also include guarantee period services.          (f) In accordance with the approved VA specifications, the following types of equipment contain the guarantee period services specifications. The following represents a sampling of these specifications.          (1) *Division 14 - Conveying Equipment.*          (i)  			Electric Dumbwaiters Geared Traction and Winding Drum (VA 14 12 11).          (ii) Electric Traction Elevators (VA 14 21 00).          (iii) Traction Cartlift (VA 14 21 11).          (iv) Hydraulic Elevators (VA 14 24 00).          (v) Hydraulic Cartlift (VA 14 24 11).          (2) *Division 27 - Communications.*          (i)  			Public Address and Mass Notification Systems (VA 27 51 16).          (ii) Intercommunication and Program Systems (VA 27 51 23).          (g) The construction contractor shall require the original installer of the equipment, which is normally a subcontractor, to provide the guarantee period services.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 846.7 - Warranties
#### In the Matter of the Claim of James S. Kreager, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 14, 1969, disqualifying claimant from unemployment insurance benefits. The factual finding of the board that appellant engaged in provocative behavior which brought about his dismissal is supported by substantial evidence in the record. There was testimony from which the board could find that the employer had received a number of reports that appellant had used loud and abusive language in talking to one of its clients, that appellant had accused the client, a financial newspaper, of suppressing news concerning an antitrust suit against several leading corporations and had berated and abused executives of the newspaper. The record reveals that when confronted with these charges, appellant accused the chief officer of his employer of conspiracy and threatened to sue him as well as the company. This evidence amply supports the determination of the board. Appellant’s contention that he was denied due process because the board failed to subpoena a witness in his behalf, is unavailing since we find nothing in the record to indicate that he requested the issuance of a subpoena to the witness. Neither should we order a rehearing since the decision not to hold a further hearing was properly within •the board’s discretion (Labor Law, § 621, subd. 3). *(Matter of Stringham [Schaefer Brewing*Co.-Catherwood], 29 A D 2d 582.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.
PGI 239.7405 Delegated authority for telecommunications resources.       Related Documents:          Documents related to DoD’s delegated authority to enter into telecommunications service contracts are available here.    **Parent topic:** PGI 239.74 -TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
§ 110.4 Communications. Except where otherwise specified in this part, all communications and reports concerning the regulations in this part should be addressed to the Deputy Director of the NRC's Office of International Programs, either by telephone to 301-287-9057; by mail to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; by hand delivery to the NRC's offices at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; or, where practicable, by electronic submission, for example, via Electronic Information Exchange, or CD-ROM. Electronic submissions must be made in a manner that enables the NRC to receive, read, authenticate, distribute, and archive the submission, and process and retrieve it a single page at a time. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions can be obtained by visiting the NRC's Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html ;* by e-mail to *MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov ;* or by writing the Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The guidance discusses, among other topics, the formats the NRC can accept, the use of electronic signatures, and the treatment of nonpublic information. [68 FR 58824, Oct. 10, 2003, as amended at 74 FR 62686, Dec. 1, 2009; 80 FR 74982, Dec. 1, 2015; 83 FR 58466, Nov. 20, 2018]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

SOUTHEASTERN BOLL WEEVIL )

ERADICATION FOUNDATION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv756-MHT

) 

BOLL WEEVIL ERADICATION )

FOUNDATION OF GEORGIA, )

INC., and TOMMY IRVIN, in )

his capacity as Trustee )

of Boll Weevil Eradication )

Foundation of Georgia, )

Inc., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (doc. no.

23) is denied as moot.

DONE, this the 21st day of December, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 28 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Roy Doty, Appellant, v. Arthur E. Krueger, as Warden of the Nassau County Jail, Respondent.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Hassau County, entered December 18, 1968, which dismissed the writ. Judgment affirmed, without costs, on the opinion of the learned Justice at Special Term. We agree that proceedings concerning sodomy and sexual abuse, each in the first degree, committed between members of the same household, are not transferable to the Family Court pursuant to section 812 of the Family Court Act. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hopkins, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur. [58 Misc 2d 428.]
Exhibit 32
 
 Certification Pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As Adopted Pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In connection with the quarterly report of Banyan Rail Services Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011(the “Report”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gary O. Marino, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Larry Forman, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/ Gary O. MarinoGary O. MarinoChairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Larry FormanLarry FormanVice President andChief Financial OfficerMay 13, 2011
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 468 Reported in House (RH)]







                                                  House Calendar No. 96
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 468

                          [Report No. 109-238]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2005

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of September 29, 2005, 
providing for consideration or disposition of a conference report to 
accompany the bill (H.R. 2360) making appropriations for the Department 
of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and 
for the other purposes.
                                                  House Calendar No. 96

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 468

                          [Report No. 109-238]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 28, 2005

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
01410644.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CONTIGROUP COMPANIES, INC. )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO:

) 2:06-cv-00769-MHT-DRB

)

JAMES FOSTER )

)

Defendant. )

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

COMES NOW Plaintiff Contigroup Companies, Inc., by and through its counsel, and 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(i), hereby stipulates that the above-styled action and all 

claims contained therein should be dismissed with prejudice.

/s John David Collins

William B. Wahlheim, Jr.

John David Collins

Grace Robinson Murphy

Attorneys for Defendant

Contigroup Companies, Inc.

OF COUNSEL:

MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.

2400 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza

1901 Sixth Avenue North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2602

(205) 254-1000

Case 2:06-cv-00769-MHT-DRB Document 4 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 1 of 2
01410644.1 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 8, 2006 a copy of the above and foregoing was placed 

in the United States mail, postage prepaid, affixed hereto, and served upon the following:

Christina D. Crow

JINKS, DANIEL & CROW, PC

Post Office Box 350

Union Springs, Alabama 36089

James Foster

3882 Co. Rd. 47

Midway, Alabama 36053

/s John David Collins

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00769-MHT-DRB Document 4 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 51
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

§ 51.33 Draft finding of no significant impact; distribution. ( a ) As provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the appropriate NRC staff director may make a determination to prepare and issue a draft finding of no significant impact for public review and comment before making a final determination whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a final finding of no significant impact on the proposed action.
( b ) Circumstances in which a draft finding of no significant impact may be prepared will ordinarily include the following: ( 1 ) A finding of no significant impact appears warranted for the proposed action but the proposed action is ( i ) closely similar to one which normally requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement, or
( ii ) without precedent; and
( 2 ) The appropriate NRC staff director determines that preparation of a draft finding of no significant impact will further the purposes of NEPA.
( c ) A draft finding of no significant impact will ( 1 ) be marked “Draft”,
( 2 ) contain the information specified in § 51.32,
( 3 ) be accompanied by or include a request for comments on the proposed action and on the draft finding within thirty (30) days, or such longer period as may be specified in the notice of the draft finding, and
( 4 ) be published in the Federal Register as required by §§ 51.35 and 51.119.
( d ) A draft finding will be distributed as provided in § 51.74(a). Additional copies will be made available in accordance with § 51.123.
( e ) When a draft finding of no significant impact is issued for a proposed action, a final determination to prepare an environmental impact statement or a final finding of no significant impact for that action shall not be made until the last day of the public comment period has expired.
$/$6.$16($)22' 

&%,5(3/ $& (0( 17 3$*(

(3$  +4  2:    

'&1B  &%,

7+( )2 // 2: ,1* + $6  %(( 15(029(' %( &$86( ,7

&217 $,16 &21) ,' (17 ,$/ % 86,1 ( 66  ,1 )2 50$ 7,21

&% , 3(5&)53 $57   68 %3 $57  %
PGI 233.1 -PROTESTS    **Parent topic:** PGI Part 233 - PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALSPGI 233.170 Briefing requirement for protested acquisitions valued at $1 billion or more.       In the event of a protest of a competitively awarded Major Defense Acquisition Program or of an acquisition of services valued at $1 billion or more, the agency concerned shall provide a briefing to the Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, within 10 days of the filing of the protest. The briefing must outline—          (a) The basis of the protest;          (b) The agency’s position; and          (c) Any other information the agency deems relevant to the protest.PGI 233.171 Reporting requirement for protests of solicitations or awards.       The Protest Tracker on the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) (accessible at https://wawf.eb.mil/) is the bid protest data repository required by section 822(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232). When protests involving the same contract or proposed award, valued at any amount, have been filed at both the Government Accountability Office and the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC), the contracting officer shall report the protest information required in the Protest Tracker no later than 10 days after the outcome of the protest at the COFC. Instructions on reporting protest information in the Protest Tracker are available on the PIEE webpage.
PGI Part 252 - CLAUSES

PGI 252.1 -INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES

PGI 252.103 Identification of provisions and clauses.

Parent topic: PGI Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

PGI 252.1 -INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING PROVISIONS AND

CLAUSES

PGI 252.103 Identification of provisions and clauses.

(c) Local provisions and clauses developed by departments and agencies for a single-use intended to

meet the needs of an individual acquisition shall be identified by the title, date, and name of the

department or agency that developed the local clause. For example, if “X” Agency negotiated a

single-use clause for use of special government facilities during discussions, such clause would be

identified in the contract as follows:

“Special Use of Government Facilities (DATE) X Agency”

(d)(1)(A) Local provisions and clauses that will be used on a repetitive basis shall be identified by—

(1) The chapter assigned to the department or agency under Title 48 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR);

(2) FAR subpart “52.2”;

(3) The applicable FAR part;

(4) A four-digit sequential number in the 9000 series for the suffix (see DFARS 252.101(b)(2)(ii)(B));

(5) Title; and

(6) Date.

(B) For example, if “Y” Agency is assigned a CFR chapter number 99, and has developed a provision

regarding an evaluation factor for past performance to be used on a repetitive basis in negotiated

acquisitions, such provision would be identified as follows:

“9952.215-9XXX Past Performance Evaluation Factor (DATE)”
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

BERTHA ALLEN, #134004, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06-CV-772-WKW

)

TALLAPOOSA COUNTY JAIL )

STAFF, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of the motion to accept verification filed by the plaintiff on

March 7, 2007 (Court Doc. No. 18), which the court construes as a motion to submit

evidentiary materials, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that this motion be and is hereby GRANTED.

Done this 4th day of May, 2007.

 /s/ Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00772-WKW-TFM Document 21 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 1