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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DIGITAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,033
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,424
<INVENTORY>                                     13,652
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,418
<PP&E>                                           9,439
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,421
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,230
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,069
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,314
<COMMON>                                           102
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,751
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,230
<SALES>                                         12,948
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,948
<CGS>                                            8,459
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    70
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,212)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,212)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.12)


</TABLE>
1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3969

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District of

* South Dakota.

Jennifer Lee Knox, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 10, 2000

Filed: June 21, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jennifer Lee Knox, a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, was charged with the

second-degree murder, committed within Indian country, of Quanah Crow Dog in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153 and 18 U.S.C. § 1111. She was found guilty by a jury

and sentenced to 135 months' imprisonment.1

 
2–

On appeal, Knox challenges her conviction as well as her sentence. Specifically,

she asserts that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict; (2) the

district court erred in not granting a mistrial when the prosecutor elicited improper

testimony from witnesses in violation of her Fifth Amendment and due process rights;

and (3) the district court erred in refusing to grant a downward departure from the

applicable guidelines range on the basis of victim misconduct. See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.10.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we find no reversible error.

Because an extended discussion of the parties' arguments, which are fact-specific to this

case, would serve no useful precedential purpose, we affirm Knox's conviction and

sentence without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**EQUITY
      ONE, INC.**





Officer's
      Certificate





Annual
      Statement of Servicer





Popular
      ABS, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-E





Pursuant
      to the provisions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above captioned
      series (the “ **Agreement** ”),
      the
      undersigned hereby certifies that he is an officer of Equity One, Inc., a
      Delaware corporation (the “ **Servicer** ”),
      and
      does hereby further certify that:





1.   A
      review
      of the Servicer’s activities during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, and
      of its performance under the Agreement has been made under his supervision;
      and





2.   To
      the
      best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all
      its
      obligations under the Agreement throughout such fiscal year.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Officer's Certificate on
      behalf of the Servicer as of this 12th day of March, 2007.











EQUITY
      ONE, INC.






By: 
      /s/ Dennis J. Lauria


Name: Dennis J. Lauria


Title:  Senior
      Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,022
<SECURITIES>                                     2,465
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                       357
<INVENTORY>                                      1,146
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,584
<PP&E>                                           4,017
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,550
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,563
<OTHER-SE>                                    (16,358)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,778
<SALES>                                          4,810
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,810
<CGS>                                            2,025
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,288
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (184)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (319)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         9
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (328)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (328)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
#### J SQUARED, INC., dba University Loft Company, Appellant v. SAUDER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Cross-Appellant

2016-2570, 2016-2571, 2016-2620, 2016-2621

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

September 25, 2017

Scott Anthony McKeown, Ropes *&*Gray LLP, Washington, DC, Tia Fenton, Obion, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, Alexandria, VA, for Appellant.

Thomas Young, Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane P.C., Troy, MI, for Cross-Appellant.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Per Curiam.

Appellant J Squared, Inc. and cross-appellant Sauder Manufacturing Company jointly move to voluntarily dismiss appeals 2016-2570, 2016-2571, 2016-2620, and 2016-2621.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

> 1) The motion is granted. The appeals are dismissed.

> 2) Each party shall bear their own fees and costs.
EXHIBIT 10(ii)

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT





THE JACKSON RIVERS COMPANY


           We hereby consent to the use of our report dated April 1, 2002,
relating to the financials of The Jackson Rivers Company for 2001 in its annual
report filed on Form 10-KSB in accordance with Rule 15d-2 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.




                                                         MICHAELSON & CO., CPA









West Palm Beach, Florida
June 27, 2002



<PAGE>
Exhibit 35.1

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(SM)


                       REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance

I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transaction listed below and I certify:

a)    A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
      its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made
      under my supervision.

b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
      below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
      agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

c)    None


                                By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------
                                    Robert M. Abramian
                                    First Vice President
                                    Home Loan Servicing
                                    Investor Reporting
                                    Indymac Bank


                                By: /s/ Barbara Perez
                                    ----------------------
                                    Barbara Perez
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Indymac Bank



Prepared for:   Deutsche Bank

Date:           February 28, 2007

Ref:            6017 - INDS 2006-3C (UBS) SECONDS



                                                             www.indymacbank.com


             460 Sierra Madre Villa Ave., Pasadena, CA 91107   Tel: 626.535.5555
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray Allen DICKS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6876

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 21, 2017

Ray Allen Dicks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Patricia T. Giles, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ray Allen Dicks, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court *202denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dicks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

5 KA 10-02295 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BILLIE JO WEBSTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

JAMES L. DOWSEY, III, ELLICOTTVILLE (KELIANN M. ELNISKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LORI PETTIT RIEMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LITTLE VALLEY (KELLY M. BALCOM OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), rendered September 13, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of attempted forgery in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment of County Court convicting her upon her guilty plea of attempted forgery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 170.10). In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment of the same court revoking her sentence of probation for a misdemeanor charge to which she previously had pleaded guilty and resentencing her to one year in jail. Defendant’s plea in appeal No. 1 necessarily constituted an admission that she violated the terms and conditions of her probation in appeal No. 2.
Defendant’s primary contention in each appeal is that she did not receive the sentence promised by the court and thus that her pleas in both appeals were not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. Although that contention survives defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal entered in connection with the plea in appeal No. 1 and thus in connection with the plea in appeal No. 2, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review by moving to withdraw her pleas or to vacate the judgments of conviction ( see People v Montanez , 89 AD3d 1409). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant’s contention that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her attorney failed to move to vacate the judgments is based on matters outside the record-2- 5 KA 10-02295
and therefore is not reviewable on direct appeal ( see People v Rodriguez , 59 AD3d 173, 173-174, lv denied 12 NY3d 858). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence imposed with respect to both appeals is legal, and her challenge to the severity of the sentence in each appeal is foreclosed by her valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256).

Entered: January 31, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1061 KA 15-01230
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHANNON B. MURCIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

NORMAN P. EFFMAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, WARSAW (GREGORY A. KILBURN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DONALD G. O’GEEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (VINCENT A. HEMMING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Michael M. Mohun, J.), rendered December 4, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while ability impaired by drugs.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of driving while ability impaired by drugs as a class E felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [4]; 1193 [1] [c] [i] [A]), defendant contends that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the no-arrest condition of the plea agreement was ambiguous, and that County Court should have conducted a hearing pursuant to People v Outley (80 NY2d 702) before imposing an enhanced sentence based on his violation of that condition. Inasmuch as defendant conceded that his postplea arrests violated the plea agreement, withdrew his motion seeking withdrawal of his plea, and did not move to vacate the judgment of conviction, his contentions are not preserved for our review ( see People v Lorenz , 120 AD3d 1528, 1529, lv denied 24 NY3d 1045; see also People v Hassett , 119 AD3d 1443, 1444, lv denied 24 NY3d 961; People v Bouwens , 90 AD3d 1557, 1558, lv denied 18 NY3d 955). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).

Entered: November 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 628 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide Medicare beneficiary access to eye tracking accessories for speech generating devices 

and to remove the rental cap for durable medical equipment under 

the Medicare Program with respect to speech generating devices. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2015 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS (for herself, Mr. SCALISE, and Mr. PAULSEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 

Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

Medicare beneficiary access to eye tracking accessories 

for speech generating devices and to remove the rental 

cap for durable medical equipment under the Medicare 

Program with respect to speech generating devices. 

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 ‘‘Steve Gleason Act of 

5 2015’’. 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 628 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROVIDING MEDICARE BENEFICIARY ACCESS TO 

2 EYE TRACKING ACCESSORIES FOR SPEECH 

3 GENERATING DEVICES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(n) of the Social Se5 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(n)) is amended by inserting 

6 ‘‘and eye tracking and gaze interaction accessories for 

7 speech generating devices furnished to individuals with a 

8 demonstrated medical need for such accessories’’ after 

9 ‘‘appropriate organizations)’’. 

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

11 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to devices furnished 

12 on or after January 1, 2016. 

13 SEC. 3. REMOVING THE RENTAL CAP FOR DURABLE MED14 ICAL EQUIPMENT UNDER MEDICARE WITH 

15 RESPECT TO SPEECH GENERATING DEVICES. 

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1834(a)(2)(A) of the So17 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(2)(A)) is amend18 ed— 

19 (1) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

20 (2) in clause (iii), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

21 and 

22 (3) by inserting after clause (iii) the following 

23 new clause: 

24 ‘‘(iv) which serves as a speech gener25 ating device or which is an accessory that 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 628 IH

1 is needed for the individual to effectively 

2 utilize such a device,’’. 

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

4 this section shall apply with respect to devices furnished 

5 on or after July 1, 2015. 

Æ 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                       ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-40T1
             MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-40T1


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to
Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
EX-35 (a)
(logo) OCWEN


ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

March 8, 2007


RE: ACE 2006-ASAP6


For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period"), Ocwen
Loan Servicing, LLC ("OLS") furnishes this annual servicer compliance statement
pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB, indicating its compliance with the
servicing standards of the Securities & Exchange Commission as set forth in
Regulation AB, 17 CFR section 229.1100, et seq., ("Regulation AB"). In this
regard, I make the following representations, which are true to the best of my
knowledge and belief in all material respects.


1.      A review of the servicing activities of OLS during the Reporting Period,
        and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
        as of November 1, 2006 (the "Agreement"), has been performed under my
        supervision.

2.      To the best of my knowledge, based on this review, OLS has fulfilled all
        of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
        throughout the Reporting Period.


By: /s/ Ronald M.Faris
Name: Ronald M. Faris
Title: President


Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC
1661 Worthington Road Suite 100
Centrepark West
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 651 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

820 Elmwood Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island, as the ‘‘Sister Ann 

Keefe Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2015 

Mr. CICILLINE (for himself and Mr. LANGEVIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 820 Elmwood Avenue in Providence, Rhode 

Island, as the ‘‘Sister Ann Keefe Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SISTER ANN KEEFE POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 820 Elmwood Avenue in Provi6 dence, Rhode Island, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘Sister Ann Keefe Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 651 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sister Ann Keefe Post 

3 Office’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS