alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND STATEMENTS OF CASH
FLOWS QUALIFIED INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          12,166
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,185
<PP&E>                                           3,571
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,252)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,592
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,774
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                     (41,191)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,592
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,625
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,592
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (17,501)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (17,501)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (17,501)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Residential Capital, LLC

Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Residential Capital, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned officers 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 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/    THOMAS F. MARANO                                          
|Thomas F. Marano Chairman and Chief Executive Officer May 8, 2009



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|                                                  
|/S/    JAMES N.
YOUNG                             
|James N. Young Chief Financial Officer May 8, 2009
**EXHIBIT
31.2**
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
302 OF THE**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002**
 
 I, Wayne
F. Irmiter, certify that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ofSalton
      Sea Funding Corporation;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 officers 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 we 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; andc)
    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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and5.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officers 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 registrant’s board of
      directors (or persons performing the equivalent
  function):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;
andb)
    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 reportingDate:
    February
      25,
      2005
 
 /s/
Wayne F. Irmiter
 Wayne F.
Irmiter
 Vice
President and Controller
 (chief
accounting officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Torres, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Albert P. Williams, J.), rendered on February 2, 1990, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing defendant to five years probation, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.
EXHIBIT 13

|OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
JOSEPH B. LEONARD
Chairman of the Board
Chief Executive Officer
ROBERT L. FORNARO
President and Chief Operating Officer
STANLEY J. GADEK
Senior Vice President, Finance,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
STEPHEN J. KOLSKI
Senior Vice President - Operations
RICHARD B. MAGURNO
Senior Vice President, General
Counsel and Secretary
ALFRED J. SMITH
Senior Vice President - Customer Service
J. VERONICA BIGGINS
Director
DON L. CHAPMAN
Director 
JERE A. DRUMMOND
Director
LEWIS H. JORDAN
Director
ROBERT L. PRIDDY
Director
WILLIAM J. USERY
Director | CORPORATE INFORMATION
Corporate Office
9955 AirTran Boulevard
Orlando, Florida  33827
407-251-5600
Registrar
American Stock Transfer & Trust Company
6201 15th Avenue
Brooklyn, NY  11219
Independent Certified Public Accountants
Ernst & Young LLP
600 Peachtree St. N.E.,
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA  30308
Annual Shareholders' Meeting
The annual meeting of shareholders will be on
May 14, 2003 at 11:00 a.m. local time at the
Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# L_2006318EN.01001601.xml

| 17.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 318/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 318/16

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1700/2006

of 16 November 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 10 to 16 November 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 November 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 November 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 172, 24.6.2006, p. 6.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1851 

To modify and extend the suspension of duty on azoxytrobin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 22, 2009 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To modify and extend the suspension of duty on azoxytrobin. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AZOXYTROBIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.06 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 azoxytrobin) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘Free’’ and inserting ‘‘5.5%’’; 

8 and 

9 (2) by striking the date in the effective period 

10 column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1851 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
#### HCE Associates, Respondent, v 3000 Watermill Lane Realty Corp., Appellant.

In an action to permanently enjoin the defendant from extinguishing an easement, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), entered October 30, 1989, as compelled it to comply with the terms of a stipulation entered into in open court on June 21, 1984.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff moved by order to show cause to hold the defendant in contempt of court for failure to comply with a prior order of the court. The defendant contends that the court improvidently exercised its discretion by ordering it to comply with a stipulation between the parties dated June 21, 1984, upon the return of the order to show cause. We disagree.

The order to show cause included a general prayer for "such other, further and different relief as may be equitable”. Generally, a notice of motion or order to show cause must state the relief demanded and the grounds therefor *(see,*CPLR 2214 [a]). The court may grant relief, pursuant to a general prayer contained in the notice of motion or order to show cause, other than that specifically asked for, to such extent as is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides *(see, Thompson v Erie Ry. Co.,*45 NY 468; *Kellogg v Commodore Hotel,*187 Misc 319). It may do so if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, and if the proof offered supports it and the court is satisfied that no one has been prejudiced by the formal omission to demand it *775specifically (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2214:5 at 84). Whether to grant such relief is discretionary with the court *(see, Van Slyke v Hyatt,*46 NY 259; *Randall v Randall,*139 App Div 674, 676).

The defendant’s argument that it was denied the right to fully litigate the issues relevant to the relief granted is spurious. The relief granted was to compel it to comply with a stipulation made in open court. This was the basis of a prior order made after litigating exactly those issues. Therefore, the defendant has not been prejudiced. Moreover, the defendant’s history of compliance with court orders is such that in the interest of justice, the court’s exercise of discretion in compelling it to comply with the stipulation, after hearing oral argument on the motion *(see,*Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2214:23, at 100) was provident. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1828 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain metal key chains with acrylic 

mini-globes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21, 2009 

Mr. BAUCUS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain metal key chains 

with acrylic mini-globes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. METAL KEY CHAINS WITH ACRYLIC MINI4 GLOBES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Metal key chains with acrylic 

mini-globes, not festive (provided for in subheading 

7326.20.00) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1828 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LSP-COTTAGE GROVE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AS OF AND FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,745
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,787
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,335
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,147
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 265,012
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,808
<BONDS>                                        155,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,204
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   265,012
<SALES>                                          4,007
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,902
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,063
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,491
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Chester Cooper, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered April 18, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well settled that the decision as to whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court *(see, People v Gomez,*142 AD2d 649). In the instant case, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily made a complete plea allocution in the presence of competent counsel, after the court had fully apprised the defendant of the consequences of his plea *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). Moreover, at no time did the defendant assert that he had been coerced into pleading guilty. The sole basis for his application to withdraw his plea was that he was unhappy with his bargained-for sentence. Under these circumstances, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion *(see, People v Hagzan, 155*AD2d 616, 617; *People v Morris,*118 AD2d 595; *see also, People v De Simone,*112 AD2d 443; *People v Bass, 92*AD2d 1062).

*633Additionally, the defendant received precisely the sentence for which he freely and knowingly bargained, and which was promised to him at the time of the plea of guilty. Thus, in light of his background and the circumstances of this case, the defendant received the benefits of a favorable plea bargain and he cannot now complain that the sentence was harsh or excessive *(see, People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816).

However, we note that the People’s contention that the defendant waived his right to appeal *(cf., People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1) is without merit since the waiver, on its face, contained an exception permitting an appeal on the basis, *inter alia,*of severity of sentence, a claim which the defendant makes at bar.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.