alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Ce,tified Public Accountants

Suite 400

200 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131-2310

Tel: (305) 372-3100

Fax: (305) 372t3160	

www.us.deloitte.com

Deloitte

&Touche

 

 

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

 

To the Board of Directors of

	Lennar Partners, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion about Lennar Partners, Inc.'s (the "Company") compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's *Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP)*as applicable to the special servicing of commercial and multifamily mortgage loans as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 included in the accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum-servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. 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 minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

February 15, 2002

Deloitte

Touche

Tohmatsu
Exhibit 32.1


                            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 on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust III (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P.
for the period ended July 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marlene Debel,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, 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 Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST III


                              By:  /s/ MARLENE DEBEL
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Marlene Debel *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated:  August 9, 2006
______________________

* Marlene Debel functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Exhibit 23.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
333-65974,   333-41454,  33-50922,  33-61532,  33-66482,  33-80726,  333-105910,
333-105886 and 333-33485 of Saucony, Inc. on Form S-8, of our report dated March
16, 2005,  relating to the  consolidated  financial  statements and supplemental
schedules  listed in Item 15a (2) of  Saucony,  Inc.  appearing  in this  Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Saucony, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche

Boston, Massachusetts
March 16, 2005
Exhibit 8.1



Subsidiaries



The table below sets forth certain of our subsidiaries, the names under which they do business, and their jurisdictions of establishment as of the date of
this annual report.



|                                                            |  |             
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|Name of Company                                             |  | Jurisdiction
|Sercotel, S.A. de C.V.                                      |  | Mexico      
|Telcel (Radiomóvil Dipsa, S.A. de C.V.)                     |  | Mexico      
|SubDipsa Treasury LLC                                       |  | Delaware    
|CTI Holdings, S.A.                                          |  | Argentina   
|CTI PCS, S.A.                                               |  | Argentina   
|CTI Compañía de Teléfonos del Interior, S.A.                |  | Argentina   
|AM Latin America LLC                                        |  | Delaware    
|Telecom Americas Ltd.                                       |  | Bermuda     
|ATL-Algar Telecom Leste S.A.                                |  | Brazil      
|Tess S.A.                                                   |  | Brazil      
|Americel S.A.                                               |  | Brazil      
|Telet S.A.                                                  |  | Brazil      
|BSE S.A.                                                    |  | Brazil      
|BCP S.A.                                                    |  | Brazil      
|Stemar Telecomunicaões Ltda.                                |  | Brazil      
|Alecan Telecomunicações Ltda.                               |  | Brazil      
|Telecomunicaciones de Guatemala, S.A.                       |  | Guatemala   
|Servicios de Comunicaciones Personales Inalámbricas, S.A.   |  | Guatemala   
|Servicios de Comunicaciones de Nicaragua, S.A               |  | Nicaragua   
|Compañía de Telecomunicaciones de El Salvador (CTE)         |  | El Salvador 
|Empresa Nicaragüense de Telecomunicaciones, S.A. (ENITEL)   |  | Nicaragua   
|Comunicación Celular S.A. (Comcel)                          |  | Colombia    
|Occidente y Caribe Celular S.A. (Occel)                     |  | Colombia    
|Celcaribe S.A.                                              |  | Colombia    
|Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones, S.A. (CONECEL) |  | Ecuador     
|TracFone Wireless, Inc.                                     |  | Florida     
|U.S. Commercial Corp, S.A. de C.V.                          |  | Mexico      
|CompUSA, Inc.                                               |  | Delaware
First Amendment to Employment Contract



 Exhibit 10.3 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 14th day of September, 2007, by and between MOVIE GALLERY US, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), and JEFFREY S. STUBBS (the “Employee”).

 WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, the
Company and Employee entered into that certain Executive Employment Agreement, dated August 1, 2007 (the “Agreement”), providing for the employment of Employee as President of Retail Operations; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 
 1. Section 2F of the Agreement is hereby removed and deleted in its entirety, and a new Section 2F is hereby added in its place and stead as
follows: 
 “F. Constructive Termination means a separation from service with the Company during the Term due to
Employee’s resignation within a period of two years after the occurrence of one of the following without Employee’s consent: (i) a material diminution in Employee’s base salary or target annual bonus, (ii) a material
diminution in Employee’s authority, duties or responsibilities from those in which Employee was engaged as President of Retail Operations of the Company on the Effective Date, (iii) a material change in the primary geographic location at
which Employee provides services to the Company, or (iv) any material breach by the Company of this Agreement; provided, however that any such event shall constitute Constructive Termination only if (i) Employee provides initial notice of
the Constructive Termination event to the Company within 90 days after the date of the event giving rise to Constructive Termination and (ii) the Company fails to cure the event giving rise to the Constructive Termination within
30 days after its receipt of Employee’s initial notice of such event.” 
 2. Section 2Q of the Agreement is hereby
removed and deleted in its entirety, and a new Section 2Q is hereby added in its place and stead as follows: 
 “Q. Triggering Event means Employee’s separation from service with the Company during the Term due to (i) a Termination Without Cause or (ii) a Constructive Termination.” 
 3. This amendment shall be effective as of the date set forth above. 
 4. In all other respects, the Agreement is hereby ratified and affirmed. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to Employment Contract
on the day and year first above written. 
  

					
		 		 	Movie Gallery US, LLC
			
	/s/ Martha Compton	 		 	/s/ S. Page Todd
	Witness	 		 	S. Page Todd
		 		 	 Executive Vice President, General Counsel,
 Secretary & Chief Compliance Officer

			
	/s/ Martha Compton	 		 	/s/ Jeffrey S. Stubbs
	Witness	 		 	Jeffrey S. Stubbs

  

 - 2 -
No. 51352.

#### Protests 894268-G, etc., of California Milk Producers Assn. et al. (Los Angeles).

Mollison, Judge:

These cases were consolidated for trial and disposition. The protest in each case is directed against the action of the collector of customs in assessing duty on certain imported merchandise at the rate of 10 percent ad valorem under the provision found in paragraph 1540, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1001, par. 1540), for “seaweeds * * * manufactured.” Each protest claims that the merchandise is entitled to free entry under the provision in paragraph 1705 of the same act (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1201, par. 1705) for “kelp.”

In the case of *Centennial Flouring Mills Co. et al.*v. *United States,*29 C. C. P. A. 264, C. A. D. 200, it was held that it was the intent of Congress in the enactment of provisions for seaweeds in both the crude and manufactured state, and for “kelp”—

> * * * to distinguish for tariff purposes between seaweeds, whether crude or manufactured, on the one hand, and kelp on the other.

Plaintiffs’ contention in these cases is that the merchandise in issue is, in fact, that variety of seaweed known as kelp, and is therefore specifically provided for under the free provision cited.

Plaintiffs rely on the invoice description in each case as establishing that fact. These descriptions were admitted in evidence without objection and are as follows: In two cases “seaweed (kelp) meal,” in two cases “kelp meal,” and in the last two cases “kelp powder.”

Plaintiffs called to the stand John C. Townsend, deputy collector in charge of liquidating at the port of Los Angeles. It appeared that the liquidations in the cases at bar were made under Mr. Townsend’s supervision — in fact, one was made by him — and that in each case the classification under paragraph 1540 was so made “regardless of whether it may or may not have been that type of seaweed known as ‘kelp’.”

We find that the situation in the case at bar closely parallels that which obtained in the case of *Albers Bros. Milling Co. et al.*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 104, C.D. 1027), decided concurrently herewith. In that case we noted that under the distinction pointed out in the *Centennial Flouring Mills Co.*case, *supra,*between *196the seaweed provisions and the kelp provision, a finding of fact on the part of the collector essential to a proper classification of seaweeds, whether crude or manufactured, was that the merchandise was not kelp, and we held that failure to make such a finding destroyed the presumption of correctness ordinarily attending the collector’s action.

So in the case at bar. The collector’s classification was made without a finding as to whether or not the merchandise was kelp and the invoice descriptions being therefore unimpeached and undiscredited, under the authority of *United States*v. *Bloomingdale Bros. & Co.,*10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 149, T. D. 38400, they are sufficient to establish that the merchandise at bar was kelp at the time of importation.

Judgment will therefore issue sustaining tlje claim made in each of the protests for free entry of the merchandise under paragraph 1705, *supra.*
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn Empirical Model of the Effects of Curvature and Convergence on Dilution Jet MixingAn existing empirical model of the temperature field downstream of single and multiple rows of jets injected into a confined crossflow has been extended to model the effects of curvature and convergence on the mixing. This extension is based on the results of a numerical study of these effects using a 3-D turbulent flow computer code. Temperature distributions calculated with the empirical model are presented to show the effects of flow area convergence, radius of curvature, and inner and outer wall injection for single and opposed rows of jets.Document ID19880015256Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHoldeman, James D.*(Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. Phoenix, AZ., United States)*Srinivasan, Ram*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*White, Craig D.*(Garrett Engine Co. Phoenix, Ariz., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1988Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberE-4143AIAA PAPER 88-3180NAS 1.15:100896NASA-TM-100896Accession Number88N24640Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-62-21Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19880015256.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
- demo screen 1
- demo screen 2
- demo screen 3
- demo screen 4
- demo screen 5
- demo screen 6
- demo screen 8
- demo screen 7
- demo screen 9
- demo screen 10
- demo screen 11
- demo screen 12
- demo screen 13
- demo screen 14
- demo screen 15
- demo screen 16
- demo screen 17
- demo screen 18
- demo screen 19
- demo screen 20
- demo screen 21
- demo screen 22
- demo screen 22a
- demo screen 24
- demo screen 25
**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 Flagship Global Health, Inc. (the
          "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three and six month periods ended June
          30,
          2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
          (the "Form 10-QSB"), I, Philip E. Barak, Chief Financial Officer of the
          Company,
          certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
          of the
          Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;
 
 (1)  The
          Form 10-QSB 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Company.
 
 
 
 Dated: August 13, 2007/s/ Philip
                    E. BarakPhilip E. Barak, Chief Financial
                    Officer
November 19, 1953

No. 57633.

Suit 4784.

#### Terrazzo & Marble Supply Co., Inc. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1521. (Appeal dismissed September 28, 1953.)
From Boucher Michael

Sent Monday December 15 2008 105 PM GMT

To Ross.Philipepamail.epa.gov

Cc Edwards.Dennis@epamail.epa.gov Boucher Michael mbouchermckennalong com

Subject Your courier address

Dear Phil

At you convenience would you kindly send me your address for courier deliveiy cannot send the submission by electronic mail

because it will contain confidential business information also will send copies of the submission to your client Dennis Edwards and

to Seth Goldberg who represents Nalco Company have courier addresses for Messrs Edwards and Goldberg Thank you

Sincerely

Michael Boucher

Counsel to Buckman Laboratories Inc

McKENNA LONG ALDRIDGE LLP Attorneys at Law

Michael Boucher

Tel 202 496-7729

Fax 202 496-7756

Cell 202 306-1645

mboucher@mckennalong.com

1900 Street NW Suite 100

Washington D.C 20006-1102

United States of America

Tel 202 496-7500

http//www.mckennalong.com

ALBANY ATLANTA BRUSSELS DENVER LOS ANGELES NEW YORK

PHILADELPHIA SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO WASHINGTON D.C
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification

I, Joseph J. Bouffard, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of BCSB Bancorp, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying
officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: July 16, 2007



/s/ Joseph J. BouffardJoseph J. BouffardPresident(Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-586

In Re: HAROLD DEAN RIVERS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (No. CR-77-8)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold Dean Rivers, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Harold Dean Rivers has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus

seeking to compel the district court to provide him with a copy of

a court reporter's handwritten notes of his eighteen-year-old

trial. This issue has already been denied as the subject of a motion in a prior appeal before this court. United States v. Rivers,

No. 96-6609 (4th Cir. Nov. 18, 1995) (unpublished). Accordingly,

because this issue has already been decided, we deny the petition

for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED
# C_2017283EN.01003801.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Savant Systems v EUIPO — Savant Group (SAVANT)

(Case T-110/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark SAVANT - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 283/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Savant Systems LLC (Osterville, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: O. Nilgen and A. Kockläuner, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Savant Group Ltd (Burton in Kendal, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Hollingworth, Barrister, K. Gilbert and G. Lodge, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 (Case R 33/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Savant Systems and Savant Group.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Savant Systems LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Savant Systems LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

1

---