alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-34 (g)
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
1601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:

We have examined management's assessment for those customers that management has
informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included in the
accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those issuers
of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios
that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform)
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Regulus Group LLC has determined
that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the
activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with
those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assessment about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the 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
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that
comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the servicing criteria. Furthermore, 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 determine whether
errors may have occurred either 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 for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. 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 assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, PA
February 22, 2007



KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S. member firm of KPMG
International, a Swiss cooperative.
#### § 260.51 What definitions apply to this subpart?

*Family Violence Option (or FVO)* means the provision at section 402(a)(7) of the Act under which a State certifies in its State plan if it has elected the option to implement comprehensive strategies for identifying and serving victims of domestic violence.

*Federally recognized good cause domestic violence waiver* means a good cause domestic violence waiver that meets the requirements at §§ 260.52(c) and 260.55.

*Good cause domestic violence waiver* means a waiver of one or more program requirements granted by a State to a victim of domestic violence under the FVO, as described at § 260.52(c).

*Victim of domestic violence* means an individual who is battered or subject to extreme cruelty under the definition at section 408(a)(7)(C)(iii) of the Act.
SERVED: December 30, 2016 

u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. DEPARTMENT OF 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS TRANSPORTATION 

In The Matter Of: 

PUERTO RICO 

POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Respondent 

WASHINGTON, DC ···1 1111 

. .· ... -5 A 10: 23 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DOCKET OPERATIONS 

Docket No. F AA-20 13-1086 

Case No. 2011SOi90181 

,, 

ORDER SETTING A DEADLINE FOR FILING RESPONSES TO MOTIONS 

AND A MOTION CONFERENCE 

On October 13,2016, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed. 

On December 22, 2016, the Respondent, Puerto Rico Police Department, filed its Motion 

Requesting Extension of Time. 

On December 27,2016, the FAA filed its Motion to Compel. 

On December 28,2016, the Office of Hearings attorney staff informally contacted byemail the FAA and the Respondent to request their calendar availability for a telephone Motion 

Conference. Both parties responded by e-mail within 24 hours and provided their calendar 

availability. 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.205, and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, regulation, 

statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. On or before Friday, January 6, 2017, the parties shall file their responses (if any) to 

the pending Motions. The parties are reminded that the filing deadline is the date the 

document is due in the Office of Hearings. (July 24,2014 Order.) The parties are strongly 

encouraged to file by fax a copy of any docunient for the Judge's consideration. 
2. On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time, the parties shall 

convene by telephone for a Motion Conference to discuss legal and procedural questions 

raised by the parties' Motions. The parties shall access the conference by dialing 

1-888-278-0296, and when prompted, entering access code 5851842. 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 2 of2 
Docket No. FAA-2013-1086 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ONE COPY 

Office ofthe Chief Counsel, Enforcement Division 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Ms. Nazihra M. Abdulrahman Soler 

Ms. Betmar R. Lopez Pagan 

Respondent's Counsel 

Puerto Rico Police Department 

Office of Legal Affairs 

P.O. Box 71200 

San Juan, P.R. 00936 

TEL: 787-793-1234 ext. 3067,2203 

FAX: 787-781-7993 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El1:·310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, 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 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jennifer Magro
Jennifer Magro
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
Chief Financial Officer and Director

Date: May 15, 2008

---
§ 618.420 Access to schools operated by LEAs. A recipient that is a local educational agency shall not, on the basis of sex, exclude any person from admission to: ( a ) Any institution of vocational education operated by such recipient; or
( b ) Any other school or educational unit operated by such recipient, unless such recipient otherwise makes available to such person, pursuant to the same policies and criteria of admission, courses, services, and facilities comparable to each course, service, and facility offered in or through such schools.
Rockingham,

No. 5776.

#### Thomas Francis Greaney, Jr. *v.*Gisela Katharina Greaney.

Argued January 7, 1969.

Decided March 4, 1969.

*Shute, Engel & Frasier*and *Gerald B. Stratton {Mr. David C. Engel*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Perkins, Holland & Donovan*and *William H. M. Beckett {Mr. Beckett*orally), for the defendant.

Per curiam.

This is a divorce action in which the Trial Court on March 7, 1968, upon motion of defendant, ordered that the plaintiff pay $600 on or before April 1, 1968 for transportation costs and expenses of the defendant, then residing in Germany, to permit her to attend court and present her defense, otherwise the case would be continued. The exceptions of the plaintiff were transferred by *Bozvnes,*J.

From the transferred case, it appears that at the hearing on the motion of the defendant, plaintiff’s counsel requested a record in order that he might make an offer of proof as to the defendant’s financial condition and to state the law relied on by plaintiff, and that the court refused this request subject to exception. Otherwise the record is silent as to what transpired at the hearing in the court below.

We have no way of knowing what evidence was presented in support of the motion because no record was made. According to' the libel the parties were married in Germany in February 1955, moved to Newton, New Hampshire in March of 1957 where they resided for a short period of time, moved about the *306world but were residing in Germany at the time the defendant is alleged to have abandoned plaintiff in 1964. On February *2,*1968 another Trial Justice made an almost identical order in the same amount on motion of the defendant for a continuance. No exception was taken to this order. Under these particular circumstances it was within the Trial Court’s discretion to reject the offer of proof, and condition plaintiff’s right to a hearing on the merits upon his paying the travel expense of his wife to come to this jurisdiction to defend the action. *Cairnes*v. *Cairnes,*29 Colo. 260; *Smiley*v. *Smiley,*136 Wash. 241.

*Exceptions overruled; remanded.*
#### § 605.31 Application of this subpart.

Subpart D applies to preschool, elementary, secondary, and adult education programs or activities that receive or benefit from Federal financial assistance and to recipients that operate, or that receive Federal financial assistance for the operation of, such programs or activities.

[47 FR 8573, Mar. 1, 1982, as amended at 68 FR 51381, Aug. 26, 2003]
# EUR-Lex - 12004V253 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V253

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE III — INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION - CHAPTER III — POLICIES IN OTHER AREAS - Section 9 — Research and Technological Development, and Space - Article III-253 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0111 - 0111 *

Article III-253

The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt European regulations or decisions to set up joint undertakings or any other structure necessary for the efficient execution of the Union's research, technological development and demonstration programmes. It shall act after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee.

--------------------------------------------------
Bundesministerium 

für Verkehr und 

digitale Infrastruktur 

BundesmiOislenum für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruklur • Postfach 20 01 00, 53170 Bonn 

Mr. Paul Gretch 

Director Office of International A viation 

U.S . Department ofTransportation 


1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 


Washington D.C. 20590 


U.S.A. 

Email: Pau!. Gretch@dot.gov 

Subject: Statement of Reciprocity 

Charter flights by ACM Air Chal1er Luftfahrtgesellschaft mbH 

Our ref.: LFI2/61869.8/1 and 61867.3/1 

Date: Bonn, 08 April 2015 

Page 1 of 1 

The German air canier "ACM Air Charter Luftfahrtgesellschaft 

mbH", Baden-AirpoI1, Montreal Ave. D 415, 77836 Rheinmünster, 

has informed the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure, that it intends to conduct international non-scheduled (charter) 

flights to/from the United States of America with the following aircrafts: 

• Boeing 738 BBl, registration mark D-AACM, 

• BD700, registration mark D-ARYR, 

• BD700, registration mark D-AGlP, 

• F7X, registration mark D-APLC, 

• F2000EX, registration mark D-BIKA, 

• F2000EX, registration mark D-BFFB and 

• C750, registration mark D-BTEN. 

In ca se of similar requests by U.S. air carriers to/from the Federal Republic of Germany, the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure herewith confirms that it will consider and approve, on the 

basis of reciprocity, the same number of seventh freedom passenger 

non-scheduled (charter) operations by such U.S. carriers, which are 

not covered by the EU-US Air Transport Agreement of 25/30 April 

2007, as amended by Protoco] of 24 1une 2010. Ihis statement is valid 

from 24 April 2015 until 23 Oetober 2015. 

Sincerely yours 

~t~rtMinistry ofTransport and Digital Infrastructure 

Assistant Head of Division International Air Transport 

HAUSANSCHRIFT 

Robert-Schuman-Platz 1 

53175 Bonn 

POSTANSCHRIFT 

Postfach 20 01 00 

53170 Bonn 

TEL +49 (0)228 99-300-4533 

FAX +49 (0)228 99-300-1499 

Ref-LF12@bmvi.bund.de 

www.bmvi.de 

ZcrtlOkat seit 2009 

audit betufundfamllie
Exhibit 99.1

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


I, Scott MacCaughern, the Principal Executive Officer of Amnis Systems Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal
         quarter ended March 31, 2003 (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


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



Date: May 29, 2003

/S/ SCOTT MAC CAUGHERN
Scott Mac Caughern
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
(Principal Executive Officer)

                                       16
§ 150.303 Basis for initiating an investigation of a potential violation. ( a ) *Information.* Any information that indicates that any issuer may be failing to meet the PHS Act requirements or that any non-Federal governmental plan that is a group health plan as defined in section 2791(a)(1) of the PHS Act and 45 CFR § 144.103 may be failing to meet an applicable PHS Act requirement, may warrant an investigation. CMS may consider, but is not limited to, the following sources or types of information: ( 1 ) Complaints.
( 2 ) Reports from State insurance departments, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, and other Federal and State agencies.
( 3 ) Any other information that indicates potential noncompliance with PHS Act requirements.
( b ) *Who may file a complaint.* Any entity or individual, or any entity or personal representative acting on that individual's behalf, may file a complaint with CMS if he or she believes that a right to which the aggrieved person is entitled under PHS Act requirements is being, or has been, denied or abridged as a result of any action or failure to act on the part of an issuer or other responsible entity as defined in § 150.305.
( c ) *Where a complaint should be directed.* A complaint may be directed to any CMS regional office.
[64 FR 45795, Aug. 20, 1999, as amended at 78 FR 13440, Feb. 27, 2013; 86 FR 24286, May 5, 2021]
**Exhibit
      99.4**








CERTIFICATE
      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 Annual Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10-KSB of Mackenzie
      Taylor Minerals Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended October 31, 2007, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Kendall
      O’Leary, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
      belief:





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





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








November 27,
      2007








KENDALL O’LEARY


Kendall
      O’Leary


Chief
      Accounting Officer, Chief


Financial
      Officer and Director








-1-
§ 2509.12 What should I do if a guidance document is covered by this subpart? ( a ) All CNCS guidance documents require review and clearance in accordance with this subpart.
( b ) Guidance proposed by CNCS must be reviewed by the Office of General Counsel (OGC) and cleared by the General Counsel or his/her designee.
( c ) Additional reviews by other CNCS officials are also conducted as described in CNCS Policy 100—Preparing Policies and Procedures and Policy 103—Clearing Controlled Correspondence and Other Documents with the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief of Staff, or subsequent updates or revisions to those policies.
#### Woodward v. Bugsbee.

*Appeal to the Court of Appeals—when not allowable.*

In an appeal involving less than $500, decided by the general term, there was involved only a question of fact and one concerning the admissibility of the testimony of a physician as to the value of the services of a nurse to a sick person in a peculiar case. *Held*not a proper case to go to the Oourt of Appeals.

Motion by defendant for leave to go the Court of Appeals after an affirmance by the general term of a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

The action was brought by Julia Woodward against Henry Bugsbee, administrator, etc., of Isaac Bugsbee, deceased, to recover for services. The decision, from which an appeal was sought by this motion, is reported in 4 N. Y. Sup., at page 393, where the facts are fully given.

*Daniel Finn,*for appellant.

*James N. Pronk,*for respondent.

Barnard, P. J.

There is no principle involved in this case of sufficient importance to go to the Court of Appeals. The plaintiff’s brother came to plaintiff’s house and asked to be taken care of for a few days; he was sick; he had not been a member of plaintiff’s family. Plaintiff took him and cared for him during a sickness which resulted in death.

The complaint of which he died was an ulcerous discharge, most offensive and loathsome. The sick brother was very grateful, and made a will giving plaintiff $500. This will, for a formal defect in the execution, was rejected, and plaintiff recovered $440, by action. The general term have affirmed the judgment.

*205The only questions are: Was plaintiff prevented from recovery by the rule that no action lies between members of same family. This is made a question of fact by the case which the Court of Appeals would not reverse. The other question arises as follows: The plaintiff put on the stand as a witness a physician, who knew the price of services rendered by nurses to sick persons. He testified, however, that he had never seen a case so bad as this, and knew of no market value of the services rendered by plaintiff.

He was asked what, in his opinion, was the value of-plaintiff’s services? This was objected to and admitted, and exception taken. The general term thought it was no error for the reason that the witness knew the value of services similar in kind, but less in extent, and that, to prevent a failure of justice in such a case, the evidence was properly received.

The application for leave to go to the Court of Appeals is denied.

*Motion denied.*
Carroll,

No. 5933.

#### Nancy A. Hastings Veilleux *v.*Richard Hastings.

Argued June 4, 1969.

Decided October 31, 1969.

*J. Francis Roche*(by brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

*Ovila J. Gregoire, Upton, Sanders & Upton,*and *Ernest T. Smith, III (Mr. Smith*orally), for the defendant.

Per curiam.

This is a petition filed on January 10, 1968 by the defendant husband seeking an order vacating, or modifying, or granting a rehearing, of a decree of the Superior Court entered on May 26, 1967, awarding custody of the minor children of the parties to the plaintiff wife. The decree of May 26, 1967 followed a hearing at which the husband was defaulted and found to be “in continued contempt.” The decree vacated an original order which had granted custody to the husband five months previously.

The petition to vacate or modify the decree of May 26, 1967 was denied by the Superior Court *(Dunfey,*J.). Subject to the wife’s exception, the Court ordered: “Petition to modify insofar as it relates to a change of circumstances since decree of May 26, 1967 to be set down for hearing provided that the petitioner files further specifications on or before August 2, 1968.” The questions of law raised by the plaintiff wife’s exception to the latter order were reserved and transferred. The only question before us is whether the order of the Trial Court was an abuse of discretion.

The petition to set aside or vacate the decree of May 26, *5691967 contained numerous allegations relative to events which transpired prior to the date of the decree. It also contained an allegation that the wife took the minor children from their school in Connecticut on June 5, 1967 without the knowledge of the husband, and in disregard of the fact that the school year had not then been completed. It alleged in substance that the best interests of the children would be served by continuing their care and custody in the husband and his present wife. See *Clark*v. *Clark,*96 N. H. 443; *Lemay*v. *Lemay,*109 N. H. 217.

The wife’s answer alleged that the husband had refused to surrender the children to her on June 3, 1967 despite notice of the order of May 26, 1967; and she sought dismissal of the petition upon ground of res judicata. In support of her exception she argues that the petition alleged no material change in circumstances after May 1967 which would warrant the Trial Court in entertaining the petition.

In permitting the moving party to file specifications relating to changes in circumstances since May 26, 1967, the Trial Court clearly acted within its discretion. See *Whitney*v. *Hood & Sons,*88 N. H. 483. Since the jurisdiction of the Court is a continuing one a petition for modification because of changed circumstances could be filed by either party at any time. *Vezina*v. *Vezina,*95 N. H. 297; *Athorne*v. *Athorne,*100 N. H. 413, 419. There was no abuse of discretion in allowing the issue to be raised in the pending proceeding instead of requiring the action to be brought forward anew. *Coffin*v. *Coffin,*81 N. H. 284; *Buck*v. *Buck,*97 N. H. 178.

The order in this court is

*Exception overruled.*