alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3485.995 Principal. *Principal* means— ( a ) An officer, director, owner, partner, principal investigator, or other person within a participant with management or supervisory responsibilities related to a covered transaction; or
( b ) A consultant or other person, whether or not employed by the participant or paid with Federal funds, who— ( 1 ) Is in a position to handle Federal funds;
( 2 ) Is in a position to influence or control the use of those funds; or
( 3 ) Occupies a technical or professional position capable of substantially influencing the development or outcome of an activity required to perform the covered transaction.
( c ) For the purposes of Department of Education title IV, HEA transactions— ( 1 ) A third-party servicer, as defined in 34 CFR 668.2 or 682.200; or
( 2 ) Any person who provides services described in 34 CFR 668.2 or 682.200 to a title IV, HEA participant, whether or not that person is retained or paid directly by the title IV, HEA participant.
(Authority: E.O. 12549 (3 CFR 1986 Comp., p.189); E.O. 12689 (3 CFR 1989 Comp., p.235); sec. 2455, Pub. L. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note); 20 U.S.C. 1082, 1094, 1221e-3, and 3474)
#### § 11.30 Controls for open systems.

Persons who use open systems to create, modify, maintain, or transmit electronic records shall employ procedures and controls designed to ensure the authenticity, integrity, and, as appropriate, the confidentiality of electronic records from the point of their creation to the point of their receipt. Such procedures and controls shall include those identified in § 11.10, as appropriate, and additional measures such as document encryption and use of appropriate digital signature standards to ensure, as necessary under the circumstances, record authenticity, integrity, and confidentiality.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000


<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           8,593
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,508
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,827
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,097
<PP&E>                                           7,732
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,159
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,203
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,722
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,159
<SALES>                                          3,817
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,817
<CGS>                                            2,523
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     (566)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (166)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,537
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,537
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,537
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36


</TABLE>
#### F. Althea Harper, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent. (And Other Related Actions;

(Claim No. 46183.) Claim Nos. 46182, 46181, 48294.)

Reynolds, J.

Appeals from orders of the Court of Claims which dismissed the appellants’ claims. Appellants have filed claims seeking damages for the alleged contamination of their wells by a stockpile of State highway salt purportedly maintained on nearby State land. The claims as filed did not, however, indicate the time when they arose and consequently the State moved to dismiss for the failure to comply with section 11 of the Court of Claims Act. Finding that this infirmity deprived it of jurisdiction, the court granted the motion but allowed the claimants to serve an amended claim. Through a service blunder amended claims filed by the appellants were jurisdictionally invalid. Upon realizing this situation motions were made by the appellants for an extension of time in which to file or for leave to file *nunc pro tunc,*but these motions were subsequently withdrawn and the instant appeals seeking review of the dismissal of the claims were thereafter filed. The Court of Claims in dismissing the claims on the basis of a failure to comply with section 11 concluded that an allegation of the time at which the claim arose is an *“*elementary procedural precept ”, the absence of which renders the claim jurisdictionally defective in that the State’s waiver of immunity and consent to be sued is conditioned upon compliance with all jurisdictional requirements, including notice *(Buckles*v. *State of New York,*221 N. Y. 418). We concur in this conclusion. All elements of the claim need not be set out with formalistic rigidity, but it must convey notice to the State to enable it to properly investigate, defend, and/or settle the claim (see *Chalmers é Son*v. *State of New York,*271 App. Div. 699, affd. 297 N. Y. 690), and the time at which the claim arose is clearly an important element of such notice. The time of accrual is essential to determine not only the applicability of the Statute of Limitations but also the amount of damages involved *(Chalmers & Son*v. *State of New York, supra).*And while the claims here are for continuing damages, and no claim should be dismissed if the claimant is unable to ascertain the time at which it arose, it has never been claimed or shown that the appellants were unable to learn the time. Moreover, if the damages are, in fact, continuing, there is nothing to prevent appellants from filing new claims every 90 days (Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd. 3). We do not consider *Rizzo*v. *State of New York*(202 Mise. 439, mot. to dsm. app. granted, 4 A D 2d 841) relied upon by the appellants as controlling on this issue. Orders affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.
§ 95.35 Access to matter classified as National Security Information and Restricted Data. ( a ) Except as the Commission may authorize, no licensee, certificate holder or other person subject to the regulations in this part may receive or may permit any other licensee, certificate holder, or other person to have access to matter revealing Secret or Confidential National Security Information or Restricted Data unless the individual has: ( 1 ) ( i ) A “Q” access authorization which permits access to matter classified as Secret and Confidential Restricted Data or Secret and Confidential National Security Information which includes intelligence information, CRYPTO (*i.e.*, cryptographic information) or other classified communications security (COMSEC) information, or
( ii ) An “L” access authorization which permits access to matter classified as Confidential Restricted Data and Secret and Confidential National Security Information other than that noted in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section except that access to certain Confidential COMSEC information is permitted as authorized by a National Communications Security Committee waiver dated February 14, 1984.
( 2 ) An established “need-to-know” for the matter (See Definitions, § 95.5).
( 3 ) NRC-approved storage facilities if classified documents or material are to be transmitted to the licensee, certificate holder, or other person.
( b ) Matter classified as National Security Information or Restricted Data shall not be released by a licensee or other person subject to part 95 to any personnel other than properly access authorized Commission licensee employees, or other individuals authorized access by the Commission.
( c ) Access to matter which is National Security Information at NRC-licensed facilities or NRC-certified facilities by authorized representatives of IAEA is permitted in accordance with § 95.36.
[59 FR 48975, Sept. 23, 1994, as amended at 72 FR 49563, Aug. 28, 2007]
§ 1400.635 May DOI settle a debarment or suspension action? Under 2 CFR 180.635, the Suspending and Debarring Official may resolve a suspension or debarment action through an administrative agreement if it is in the best interest of the Government at any stage of proceedings, where the respondent agrees to appropriate terms. The specific effect of administrative agreements that incorporate terms regarding award eligibility will vary with the terms of the agreements. Where the Suspending and Debarring Official enters into an administrative agreement, PAM will notify the award officials by: ( a ) Entering any appropriate information regarding an exclusion or the termination of an exclusion into the SAM; and
( b ) Entering the agreement into the Federal Awardee Performance Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) or its successor system.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 9, 2011 

d0302 

Order 

 

March 9, 2011 

140629 & (83) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140629 

 COA: 287146 

 Macomb CC: 2006-005398-FC 

STEVEN MICHAEL WACLAWSKI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the December 29, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals 

is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions 

presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 1880.437 What method do I use to communicate to a participant the requirements described in the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.435?

To communicate to a participant the requirements described in 2 CFR 180.435 of the OMB guidance, you must include a term or condition in the transaction that requires the participant's compliance with subpart C of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by subpart C of this part, and requires the participant to include a similar term or condition in lower-tier covered transactions.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Tele-Communications International, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-16021 and 333-16023) on Form S-8 of Tele-Communications
International, Inc. of our reports dated March 14, 1997, relating to the 
balance sheets of Tele-Communications International, Inc. and subsidiaries as 
of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related statements of operations, 
stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year 
period ended December 31, 1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1996 
annual report on Form 10-K of Tele-Communications International, Inc.



                                          /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                          KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 18, 1997
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CHRISTMAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 26, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Charles Christman.

No opinion. Judgment of conviction of the County Court of Icings County affirmed. See, also, 161 App. Div. 951, 146 N. Y. Supp. 1104.
To: "Pettis, Mike" <mike.pettis@owenscorning.com>

From: Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US

Date: 01/20/2012 08:16AM

Subject: Re: OC 114 response error.

Thanks for catching this error and notifying me as soon as you found it. Please just send a 

letter to the CBI office that corrects the error-there is no need to resend the entire 

response.

In that letter, please indicate what the errors in your responses were and what the correct 

data are.

Thanks,

Susan Fairchild

Environmental Scientist

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

direct line: 919.541.5167

fax: 919.541-3207

email: fairchild.susan@epa.gov

Overnight mail address:

US EPA

Mail Code D243-04

109 TW Alexander Drive

RTP, NC 27709

-----"Pettis, Mike" <mike.pettis@owenscorning.com> wrote: -----

To: Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Pettis, Mike" <mike.pettis@owenscorning.com>

Date: 01/19/2012 01:26PM

Subject: OC 114 response error.

Susan, We have discovered a data input error on the confidential version of this last 114 request response “B” 

form. Kansas City’s J5 furnace and K5 glass through put have been transposed.

How would you prefer we correct the error?

 Michael Pettis 740-328-2468 740-877-7087 (cell)

 Make the World a Better Place
#### State University Construction Fund, Plaintiff, v United Technology Corporation et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Mel E. Bartholomew, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v United Technology Corporation et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants. (Action No. 2.)

Appeal, in Action No. 2, from an' order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered May 2, 1979 in Albany County, which denied third-party defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff entered into a^contract with defendant Bartholomew as architect for the construction of a chilled water system at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Bartholomew substituted materials, contrary to the contract specifications, which were procured from United Technology Corporation (UTC) and Posi-Seal International (Posi-Seal). Thereafter, leaks developed and plaintiff commenced this action. Causes of action against Bartholomew for breach of contract and "lack of reasonable care, negligence and malpractice as an architect and engineer” were pleaded. Causes of action against UTC and Posi-Seal for breach of warranty were also alleged. Bartholomew cross-claimed and commenced a third-party action against UTC and Posi-Seal for indemnification or contribution based on "representations, advertisements and warranties.” Plaintiff’s causes of action for breach of warranty against UTC and Posi-Seal were dismissed as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The motions to dismiss the cross-claims and third-party complaint were denied. This appeal ensued. Basically, third-party defendants maintain that there must be a reversal since no right to contribution or indemnity exists where the claim, as here, is based exclusively on breach of warranty. We disagree and are to affirm. A reading of the cross claim and third-party complaint clearly reveals language alleging causes of action based on both negligence and breach of warranty. Since it is not disputed that Bartholomew would be entitled to contribution or indemnity if he alleged a cause of action based on negligence, Special Term properly denied the motion to dismiss. We also note that we would arrive at the same result even if Bartholomew alleged causes of action based on breach of warranty alone *(Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v Celotex Corp.,*70 AD2d 395). Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                         5
<LEGEND>
     THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM
SPECTRUM INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES,  INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                  1,000
       
<S>                                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                            DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                        1,060
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    24
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              1,092
<PP&E>                                                          301
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  301
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                1,092
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           119
<BONDS>                                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       1
<COMMON>                                                          7
<OTHER-SE>                                                      845
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  1,092
<SALES>                                                           8
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              2,324
<CGS>                                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 1,668
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             (1,259)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         (1,259)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                (1,259)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 (.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (.65)
        




</TABLE>
H. Res. 835

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

May 25, 2006.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 

to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5429) to direct the 

Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program that will result in an environmentally sound program for the exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources of the 

Coastal Plain of Alaska, and for other purposes. The bill 

shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 

considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 

member of the Committee on Resources; and (2) one motion 

to recommit.

Attest: 

Clerk.
§ 1130.1 Purpose of this part. ( a ) This part specifies standard wording of general terms and conditions concerning equipment, supplies, and real, intangible, and federally owned property.
( b ) It thereby implements OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.310 through 200.316, as that guidance applies to general terms and conditions of grants and cooperative agreements.
EX‐34.2 

 

(logo) pwc 

 

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:

 

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of

Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank,

National Association ("Midland" or the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item

1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed

securities transactions (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2014 and for the year then ended, excluding

criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii),

1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing

activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's

compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's

assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company

Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,

evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other

procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected

asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities

related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and

performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures

were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the

period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from

errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or

amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. 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 Midland complied with the aforementioned applicable

servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all

material respects.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

February 25, 2015

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106

T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890 www.pwc.com/us