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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,339
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,796
<ALLOWANCES>                                       725
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,043
<PP&E>                                           5,181
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,609
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,131
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,927
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,131
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,381
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,715
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (112)<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,425)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,426)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
<FN>
<F1>INTEREST INCOME
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  Re:  MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2007-1

  I, John Lingenfelter, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
     required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
     Form 10-K of MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2007-1 (the
    "Exchange Act periodic reports");

  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
     servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
     conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in
     this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
     in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled
     their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material
     respects; and

  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
     for ABS and their related attestation reports on assessment of
     compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required
     to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of
     Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been
     included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in
     this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
     reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
    American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as Servicer and IndyMac Bank,
    F.S.B. as Servicer.

    Dated:   March 31, 2008


    /s/ John Lingenfelter
    Signature

    Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master
    servicer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

TYREE BROWN,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 191 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 955

To clarify the scope of coverage and amount of payment under the medicare

program of items and services associated with the use in the furnishing

of inpatient hospital services of certain medical devices approved for

investigational use.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 22 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. GREGG, Mr. FRIST, Mr. KENNEDY, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. CHAFEE, Mrs. HUTCHISON,

and Mr. D’AMATO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To clarify the scope of coverage and amount of payment

under the medicare program of items and services associated with the use in the furnishing of inpatient hospital

services of certain medical devices approved for investigational use.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Advanced Medical De5 vices Access Assurance Act of 1995’’.
2

•S 955 IS

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF MEDICARE COVERAGE OF

2 ITEMS AND SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH

3 CERTAIN MEDICAL DEVICES APPROVED FOR

4 INVESTIGATIONAL USE.

5 (a) COVERAGE.—Nothing in title XVIII of the Social

6 Security Act may be construed to prohibit coverage under

7 part A or part B of the medicare program of items and

8 services associated with the use of a medical device in the

9 furnishing of inpatient hospital services (as defined for

10 purposes of part A of the medicare program) solely on the

11 grounds that the device is not an approved device, if—

12 (1) the device is an investigational device; and

13 (2) the device is used instead of either an ap14 proved device or a covered procedure.

15 (b) CLARIFICATION OF PAYMENT AMOUNT.—Not16 withstanding any other provision of title XVIII of the So17 cial Security Act, the amount of payment made under the

18 medicare program for any item or service associated with

19 the use of an investigational device in the furnishing of

20 inpatient hospital services (as defined for purposes of part

21 A of the medicare program) may not exceed the amount

22 of the payment which would have been made under the

23 program for the item or service if the item or service were

24 associated with the use of an approved device or a covered

25 procedure.
3

•S 955 IS

1 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

2 In this Act—

3 (1) the term ‘‘approved device’’ means a medi4 cal device which has been approved for marketing

5 under pre-market approval under the Federal Food,

6 Drug, and Cosmetic Act or cleared for marketing

7 under a 510(k) notice under such Act; and

8 (2) the term ‘‘investigational device’’ means a

9 medical device (other than a device described in

10 paragraph (1)) which is approved for investigational

11 use under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug,

12 and Cosmetic Act.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6186 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 Union Calendar No. 660
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6186

                          [Report No. 114-842]

  To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend certain protections 
    against prohibited personnel practices, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 2016

  Mr. Duffy (for himself, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Cole, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. 
  Meadows, Mrs. Lawrence, Mr. Gohmert, and Ms. Norton) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

                           November 30, 2016

           Additional sponsors: Mr. Grothman and Mr. Coffman

                           November 30, 2016

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend certain protections 
    against prohibited personnel practices, and for other purposes.

 

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Follow the Rules Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITED PERSONNEL ACTION BASED ON ORDERING INDIVIDUAL TO 
              VIOLATE RULE OR REGULATION.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 2302(b)(9) of title 5, 
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, rule, or regulation'' 
after ``law''.
    (b) Technical Correction.--Such subparagraph is further amended by 
striking ``for''.
    (c) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to any personnel action (as that term is defined in section 
2302(a)(2)(A) of such title) occurring after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 660

114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6186

                          [Report No. 114-842]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend certain protections 
    against prohibited personnel practices, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 30, 2016

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0015(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0015(01)

**2003/860/EC: Decision of the European Central Bank of 28 November 2003 on the approval of the volume of coin issuance in 2004 (ECB/2003/15) **

*
Official Journal L 324 , 11/12/2003 P. 0057 - 0058 *

Decision of the European Central Bank

of 28 November 2003

on the approval of the volume of coin issuance in 2004

(ECB/2003/15)

(2003/860/EC)

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular to Article 106(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The European Central Bank (ECB) has the exclusive right from 1 January 1999 to approve the volume of coins issued by the Member States that have adopted the euro (the participating Member States).

(2) The participating Member States have submitted to the ECB for approval their estimates of the volume of euro coins to be issued in 2004, supplemented by explanatory notes on the forecasting methodology,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Approval of the volume of euro coins to be issued in 2004

The ECB hereby approves the volume of coins to be issued by the participating Member States in 2004 as described in the following table:

>TABLE>

Article 2

Final provision

This Decision is addressed to the participating Member States.

This Decision will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 28 November 2003.

The President of the ECB

Jean-Claude Trichet
DEPT OF 

SERVED FEBRUARY 2, 20tHU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


OFFICE OF HEARINGS 


WASHINGTON, DC 


IN THE MATTER OF 

THRESHOLD AIR OIARTER, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP09WP0006 

(Civil Penalty Case) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0095 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On May 6, 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred to as 

"Complainant") filed a Complaint. On May 1,2009, Respondent Threshold Air Charter, 

Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") had requested a hearing. On January 28, 2010, 

,;'Complainant withdrew its Complaint. 

14 C.F.R.§ 13.215 states: "At arty time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request fo~ a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Complaint having been read and 


considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 


1. Complainant's Withdrawal of Complaint be and is hereby granted; and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 
SO ORDERED. 

1~:'c~"6.~ (?,avl'~~ Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09WP0006 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COpy 

Federal Aviation Administration 


800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 


Washington, DC 20591 


Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 


Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI0001 

ONE COPY 

Steven L. Graff, Inc. 

P.O. Box 892409. 

Temecula, CA 92589-2409 

TEL: 951-303-6400 

FAX: 951-303-0723 

Lisa 1 Toscano, Esq. 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, A WP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7100 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, .M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant, 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

I 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, 

DG20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
### EPA Form 5900

- 84 OMB No. 2060

- 0336, Approval Expires 0 6 /30/201 5



### Federal Operating Permit Program (40 CFR Part 71)

EMISSION CALCULA TIONS (EMISS)

Calculate potential to emit (PTE) for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for

each emissions unit, control device, or alternative operating scenario identified in section I of form GIS

. If form FEE does not need to be submitted with the application, do not calculate actual emissions.

A. Emissions Unit ID

__ EGEN 2

_____

B. Identification and Quantification of Emissions

First, list each air pollutant that is either regulated at the unit or present in major amounts , then list any other

regulated pollutant (for fee calculation) not already listed. HAP may be simply listed as "HAP." Next,

calculate PTE for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each pollutant. Do not

calculate PTE for air pollutants listed solely for fee purposes. Include all fugitives for fee purposes

. 

### You may

round to the nearest tenth of a ton for yearly values or tenth of a pound for hourly values.

Air Pollutants Emission Rates

CAS No. Actual

Annual

Emissions

(tons/yr) Potential to Emit

Hourly

(lb/hr) Annual

(tons/yr)

CO 0.38 0.095

VOM 0.14 0.035

NOx 1.76 0.441

PM2.5 0.12 0.031

PM10 0.12 0.031

Part 0.12 0.031

SOx 0.116 0.029

HAP 0.0305 0.0071
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael CORNELIOUS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-20020 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 9, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Cornelious, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Michael Cornelious has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cornelious has filed a response, as well as a motion to substitute counsel. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Cornelious’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Aceordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and Corne-lious’s motion to substitute is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. The APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**SERVICER
        COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)**
  **GMAC
        Mortgage, LLC**
  **SACO
        06-10**
   The
        undersigned, a duly authorized officer of GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as servicer
        (the
“Servicer”) pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify
        that:
  1.  A
        review of
        the Servicer’s activities during the period covered by the Issuing Entity’s
        report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer’s performance under the applicable
        servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.
  2.  To
        the best
        of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of
        its
        obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects
        throughout such period.
  IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
        6th day
        of March 2007.
    By:
              /s/
                Anthony N. RenziName:   
                Anthony N. RenziTital:     
                Executive Vice President






GMAC
              Mortgage, LLC
            www.gmacmortgage.com500
              Enterprise RoadHorsham,
              PA 19044
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices 

# Order

December 21, 2016

153689 & (62)

IBTIHAJ SHAMMOUT, a Minor, by her Next

Friend, HANI SHAMMOUT and ARWA

SHAMMOUT,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees/ Cross

- Appellants,

v SC: 153689

COA: 323532

Kalamazoo CC: 12

- 000251

- NI

KALAMAZOO JAYCEE,

Defendant/Cross

- Defendant/Cross

- Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

DASTOLI & ASSOCIATES, INC. a/k/a UNITED

RENTAL,

Defendant/Cross

- Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

SHAWARMA KING, INC.,

Defendant,

and

SHAWARMA KING FOUR, INC.,

Defendant/Cross

- Defendant

- Appellant/ Cross

- Appellee,

and

EVENTS, INC.,

Defendant/Cross

- Plaintiff/Cross

- Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

December 21, 2016

s1214 2

Clerk On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 29, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross

appellant s are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

B ERNSTEIN , J., did not participate due to his prior relationship with the Sam

Bernstein Law Firm.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Greenhaven Continuous Commodity Index Fund;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.
    
    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:
     5.
    
    I have disclosed, based on my 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);
   Date: March 15, 2010
    
    /s/ Ashmead Pringle

Ashmead PringleChief Executive Officer
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

254 

CA 10-02125 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

JEFF CONIBER, DOING BUSINESS AS JEFF CONIBER 

TRUCKING, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CENTER POINT TRANSFER STATION, INC., 

MATTHEW W. LOUGHRY AND KENNETH LOUGHRY, 

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

E. ROBERT FUSSELL, P.C., LEROY (E. ROBERT FUSSELL OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. 

PIRRELLO, MISSAL, PERSONTE & FEDER, ROCHESTER (STEVEN E. FEDER OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark

H. Dadd, A.J.), entered February 2, 2010 in a breach of contract

action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the cross motion

of defendants for summary judgment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously modified on the law by providing that the cross motion is

denied without prejudice and as modified the order is affirmed without

costs. 

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly concluded that it was

premature to grant defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment

dismissing the complaint at this stage of the litigation, in view of

the limited discovery that has been conducted (see CPLR 3212 [f];

Sportiello v City of New York, 6 AD3d 421). We further conclude,

however, that the court should have denied the cross motion without

prejudice (see Hall v Rite Aid Corp., 37 AD3d 1160). We therefore

modify the order accordingly.

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
#### WELCH vs. WARDEN et al.

Appeal from Collin county.

*Transcript*— Special *Judge.*— When a cause has been tried before a special judge, the transcript on appeal must make an affirmative showing of the manner of appointment or election of the special judge. 'Tn'this respect''thN'transcript in this case is deficient, *61though it discloses the fact that the cause was tried before, and the judgment signed by,.a special judge. The motion to affirm on certificate without reference to the merits must therefore be denied, and the certificate dismissed.

Certificate dismissed.

*Per curiam.*