alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 09-11213.

#### Xavier Antwone Blackwood, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 802, 131 S. Ct. 161,

178 L. Ed. 2d 3,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6154.

October 4, 2010.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563, 130 S. Ct. 2577, 177 L. Ed. 2d 68 (2010).

Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 345.
**Exhibit 31**

 

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, 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 theperiod covered by this report on Form 10–K of WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR2 Trust (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 ofa  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 Form10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.         Based on my knowledge and 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 agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation 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 anexhibit 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. 

 

Date:  March 15, 2007

 

  /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann_________Name:  Thomas G. LehmannTitle:    President
2016-1770.

#### State ex rel. White v. Adult Parole Bd.

In Mandamus. On S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04 determination. Cause dismissed.

Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, J., dissent and would grant an alternative writ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15618]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Tennessee Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Tennessee Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 2:00 
p.m. and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. on July 8, 1998. The Committee will 
reconvene at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 1998. The 
Committee will meet on July 8 for new member orientation, planning, and 
discussion of civil rights problems and progress. On July 9 the 
Committee will receive information on enforcement of Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Tennessee.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Bobby D. Doctor, Director of the 
Southern Regional Office, 404-562-7000 (TDD 404-562-7004). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, June 4, 1998.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 98-15618 Filed 6-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
#### AG Super Fund International Partners, L.P., et al., Appellants, v Winthrop Realty Trust, Respondent.

[53 NYS3d 48]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered September 19, 2016, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring that a fee-shifting bylaw adopted by defendant is unenforceable. Supreme Court correctly determined that plaintiffs’ challenge to the bylaw is not a justiciable controversy, because the applicability of the bylaw depends on a future event that is beyond the parties’ control and may never occur *(see New York Pub. Interest Research Group v Carey,*42 NY2d 527 [1977]). The fee-shifting bylaw is triggered only if plaintiffs sue defendant and fail to obtain “a judgment on the merits that substantially achieves, in substance and amount, the full remedy sought.” While the commencement of a suit is within plaintiffs’ control, the outcome of such a suit is not; whether plaintiffs are entitled to the declaratory judgment they seek is dependent upon that outcome *(see Prashker v United States Guar. Co.,*1 NY2d 584, 590 [1956]). Moreover, a declaration would have immediate effect only if it were in plaintiffs’ favor; if the declaration were in defendant’s favor, plaintiffs would face the same economic disincentive to commencing an action against defendant as they face in the absence of a declaration. Thus, unlike cases upon which plaintiffs rely, a declaratory judgment would not quiet the parties’ dispute *(see generally Thome v Alexander & Louisa Colder Found.,*70 AD3d 88, 99 [1st Dept 2009], *lv denied*15 NY3d 703 [2010]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hugo Cardona-Velasquez, Also Known as Hugo De Jes Cardona-Velasquez, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 672]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Reitz, J.), rendered May 24, 2016, convicting him of rape in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he did not validly waive his right to be prosecuted by an indictment is not precluded by his plea of guilty or his valid waiver of his right to appeal (see *People v Boston,*75 NY2d 585, 589 and n [1990]; *People v Sze,*113 AD3d 795 [2014]; *People v Davenport,*106 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2013]; *People v Libby,*246 AD2d 669, 670 [1998]). However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, his waiver of his right to prosecution by indictment was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see *People v Donigan,*20 AD3d 487 [2005]). The defendant signed a valid written waiver of indictment after it was explained to him with the assistance of a Spanish language interpreter in the presence of his attorney (see NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 195.20; *People v Surico,*138 AD3d 899 [2016]; *People v Davis,*84 AD3d 1645, 1646 [2011]). During the plea allocution, the defendant acknowledged that he was waiving his right to a hearing before the grand jury and his right to testify before the grand jury (see *People v Davis,*84 AD3d at 1646; *People v Gould,*242 AD2d 583, 584 [1997]). The waiver of indictment was also signed by defense counsel and an assistant district attorney, and the County Court approved the waiver after finding that it complied with CPL 195.10 and 195.20 (see CPL 195.30; *People v Hill,*269 AD2d 404, 405 [2000]; *People v McIntyre,*178 AD2d 559 [1991]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.
No. 09-10976.

#### Christian F. Meister, Petitioner v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, et al.

562 U.S. 857, 131 S. Ct. 126,

178 L. Ed. 2d 77,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5912.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Same case below, 33 So. 3d 35.
No. 09-10834.

#### John Witherow, Petitioner v. Dorla Salling, et al.

562 U.S. 853, 131 S. Ct. 113,

178 L. Ed. 2d 69,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6039.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


          We  hereby   consent  to  the   incorporation   by  reference  in  the
registration statement  (Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 on Form F-3 to Form F-1,
Registration  Number  333-6136) and related  prospectus and in the  registration
statement (Form S-8, Registration Number 333-8592) and related prospectus of our
report dated June 30, 1999 with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of Genesis Development and Construction Ltd. included in its Annual Report (Form
20-F) for the year ended  December 31, 1998. We also consent to the reference to
our firm under the caption "Experts" in the prospectuses.



                                        KOST LEVARY and FORER
                      Certified Public Accountants (Israel)
                      A member of Ernst & Young International



Haifa, Israel
June 30, 1999
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 0489 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM229AD

J41 -26 - 008, R1 --- 4/12/11 J41 -26 - 008 --- 10/5/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
Exhibit 13.1



Section 906 Certification



The certification set forth below is being
submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Report”) for
the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)
and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Claudio Melandri, the Chief Executive Officer,
Miguel Mata, the Chief Financial Officer, and Gabriel Montoya, the Financial Controller, of Banco Santander-Chile, each certifies
that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Banco Santander-Chile.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 30, 2014



| | /s/ Claudio Melandri |                        
| | -------------------- | -----------------------
| | Name:                | Claudio Melandri       
| | Title:               | Chief Executive Officer
| |                      |                        
| | /s/ Miguel Mata      |                        
| | Name:                | Miguel Mata            
| | Title:               | Chief Financial Officer
| |                      |                        
| | /s/ Gabriel Montoya  |                        
| | Name:                | Gabriel Montoya        
| | Title:               | Financial Controller
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15043]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-423-LA-2, ASLBP No. 98-743-03-LA]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company; Establishment of Atomic Safety 
and Licensing Board

    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, 
published in the Federal Register, 37 F.R. 28710 (1972), and Sections 
2.105, 2.700, 2.702, 2.714, 2.714a, 2.717, 2.721 of the Commission's 
Regulations, all as amended, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is 
being established to preside over the following proceeding.

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3

    This Board is being established pursuant to a petition to intervene 
submitted by the Citizens Regulatory Commission. The petition opposes a 
license amendment which would add a new sump pump subsystem to address 
groundwater inleakage through the containment basemat. The NRC staff 
has determined that the issuance of a license amendment to the 
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company for the Millstone Nuclear Power 
Station, Unit No. 3 would involve no significant hazards 
considerations. The notice was published in the Federal Register at 63 
FR 19964, 19974 (April 22, 1998).
    The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:

Thomas S. Moore, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555
Dr. Richard F. Cole, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555
Dr. Charles N. Kelber, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

    All correspondence, documents and other materials shall be filed 
with the Judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.701.

    Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of June 1998.
B. Paul Cotter, Jr.,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 98-15043 Filed 6-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|Gulf LNG, Mississippi LNG Imports (Price) from Trinidad and Tobago (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|Gulf LNG, Mississippi LNG Imports (Price) from Trinidad and Tobago (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | --    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | --     | 13.00  | --     | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 10-167.

#### Steven Blake Prindle, Petitioner v. Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County, et al.

562 U.S. 896, 131 S. Ct. 337,

178 L. Ed. 2d 147,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6362.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, denied.
No. 10-5132.

#### Gregory L. Wilson, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 905, 131 S. Ct. 246,

178 L. Ed. 2d 164,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6300.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 522.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2234 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 650
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2234

To amend the Mississippi River Corridor Study Commission Act of 1989 to 
     extend the term of the commission established under that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 23 (legislative day, June 7), 1994

  Mr. Breaux (for himself, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. 
 Durenberger, Mr. Sasser, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Simon, Mr. Feingold, 
 and Mr. Mathews) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 
     and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

           September 27 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

              Reported by Mr. Johnston, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Mississippi River Corridor Study Commission Act of 1989 to 
     extend the term of the commission established under that Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TERM OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY 
              COMMISSION.

    Section 9(b) of the Mississippi River Corridor Study Commission Act 
of 1989 (Public Law 101-398; 104 Stat. 859) is amended by striking out 
``3 years after the date of the first meeting of the Commission,'' and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``June 30, 1996,''.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 650

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2234

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To amend the Mississippi River Corridor Study Commission Act of 1989 to 
     extend the term of the commission established under that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

           September 27 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

                       Reported without amendment
```
163 A.3d 910

#### IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY ALAN GLAZER, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 031701998)

July 12, 2017

ORDER

JEFFREY ALAN GLAZER, of MARLBORO, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1998, having pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to two counts of an information charging conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade or competition in violation of the Sherman Act. 15 *U.S.C.*§ 1, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*1:20-13(b)(1), JEFFREY ALAN GLAZER is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, pending the final resolution of ethics proceedings against him, effective January 24, 2017, and until the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that JEFFREY ALAN GLAZER be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that JEFFREY ALAN GLAZER comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this state.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

877 

CAF 14-01769 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF RENYHIA M. AND RAHMIER M. 

--------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

COMMISSIONER OF THE ONTARIO COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF SOCIAL SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

SHAWNA M., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

SUSAN GRAY JONES, CANANDAIGUA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

JOHN W. PARK, COUNTY ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (HOLLY A. ADAMS OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

JOSEPH S. DRESSNER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, CANANDAIGUA. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Ontario County (Craig

J. Doran, J.), entered September 2, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to

Social Services Law § 384-b. The order terminated the parental rights

of respondent. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly granted the petition seeking

to terminate the parental rights of respondent mother with respect to

the subject children on the ground of permanent neglect. The mother

admitted that she permanently neglected the children, and the record

of the dispositional hearing supports the court’s determination that

the best interests of the children would be served by terminating the

mother’s parental rights and freeing the children for adoption (see

Matter of La’Derrick J.W. [Ashley W.], 85 AD3d 1600, 1602, lv denied

17 NY3d 709; Matter of Eleydie R. [Maria R.], 77 AD3d 1423, 1424). 

We reject the mother’s contention that the court abused its

discretion in declining to enter a suspended judgment. “The court’s

focus at the dispostional hearing is the best interests of the

child[ren,] . . . [and] [t]he court’s assessment that the [mother] was

not likely to change her behavior is entitled to great deference”

(Matter of Kyle S., 11 AD3d 935, 936 [internal quotation marks

omitted]). Furthermore, “the record of the dispositional hearing

establishes that . . . any progress that [the mother] made was not

sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child[ren’s]

unsettled familial status” (Matter of Kyla E. [Stephanie F.], 126 AD3d

1385, 1386, lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [June 10, 2015] [internal quotation

marks omitted]). Lastly, we reject the mother’s contention that she
-2- 877 

CAF 14-01769 

was denied effective assistance of counsel “inasmuch as [she] did not

demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations

for counsel’s alleged shortcomings” (Matter of Brown v Gandy, 125 AD3d

1389, 1390 [internal quotation marks omitted]). 

Entered: July 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court