alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 34.2



[Crowe LOGO]
Crowe Chizek and Company LLC
Member Horwath International

             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Audit Committee
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
West Palm Beach, Florida

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying report,
that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (the Company) complied with the servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for the Residential Mortgage Loans Platform (the
"Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006, excluding criteria
ll22(1)(iii) and 1122(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable
to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. The
Platform consists of the asset-backed transactions and securities defined by
management in Appendix B of Management's Report. Management is responsible for
the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting
the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities
related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our
testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed
transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was
not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to
the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company's
servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that
our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination
does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion referred to above is fairly stated, in
all material respects, based on the aforementioned applicable servicing
criteria.

                                                /s/ Crowe Chizek and Company LLC
                                                --------------------------------
                                                    Crowe Chizek and Company LLC

Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 8, 2007
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40253

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

JORGE CASTANEDA,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-986-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Castaneda appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of

his supervised release (“SR”). Specifically, he contests the reimposition of a $100

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 15, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 13-40253 Document: 00512406777 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2013
No. 13-40253

special assessment (“SA”). He asserts that he was relieved of that obligation

because more than five years elapsed since the date of the underlying judgment,

and the court otherwise had no statutory authority to impose or reimpose

the SA. Castaneda also contends that the SA should be vacated because its reimposition was set forth in only the written revocation judgment, and any conflict must be resolved in favor of the oral pronouncement, which did not reference the SA. The government agrees that the court exceeded its authority and

that the written judgment should be reformed to strike the SA.

Although a SA is a mandatory component of a sentence, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3013(a)(2)(A), the obligation to pay it “ceases five years after the date of the

judgment,” § 3013(c). More than five years elapsed between the initial imposition of the SA and the revocation of SR. Because neither § 3013 nor 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583 (which concerns SR) sanctions the imposition of a SA for revocation of a

term of SR, the court lacked authority to impose or reimpose a SA. See United

States v. Carlos Pineda, 594 F.3d 892, 893 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Because

the court lacked that authority, we need not consider Castaneda’s argument that

the written judgment should be remanded for amendment because the oral pronouncement at the revocation hearing conflicted with the written revocation

judgment.

Accordingly, we VACATE in part and REMAND for amendment of the

judgment consistent with this opinion.

2

 Case: 13-40253 Document: 00512406777 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2013
#### Richard C. Rupp, Appellant, v. Frederick Boyd Stevenson, Respondent.

—Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Hirsehberg, Burr, Thomas and Carr., JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Applied DNA Sciences,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Karin
Klemm,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                                                     /s/ KARIN KLEMM
                                                     -----------------
                                                     Karin Klemm
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     May 23, 2005
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of The Chalone Wine Group,
Ltd. (the Company), hereby certify that to my knowledge the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company. This written statement is being furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed
original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. By:
    
    /s/ Thomas B. Selfridge

          Thomas B. Selfridge
 November 12, 2004 23
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2777 Filed: 06/27/19 Entered: 06/27/19 13:55:02 Page 1 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2777 Filed: 06/27/19 Entered: 06/27/19 13:55:02 Page 2 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2777 Filed: 06/27/19 Entered: 06/27/19 13:55:02 Page 3 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2777 Filed: 06/27/19 Entered: 06/27/19 13:55:02 Page 4 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2777 Filed: 06/27/19 Entered: 06/27/19 13:55:02 Page 5 of

5
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4801 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Energy to prepare a report 

on the impact of thermal insulation on both energy and 

water use for potable hot water. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4801 EH

1 SECTION 1. REPORT ON ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS PO2 TENTIAL FROM THERMAL INSULATION. 

3 (a) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

4 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in con5 sultation with appropriate Federal agencies and relevant 

6 stakeholders, shall submit to the Committee on Energy 

7 and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee 

8 on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives 

9 a report on the impact of thermal insulation on both en10 ergy and water use systems for potable hot and chilled 

11 water in Federal buildings, and the return on investment 

12 of installing such insulation. 

13 (b) CONTENTS.—The report shall include— 

14 (1) an analysis based on the cost of municipal 

15 or regional water for delivered water and the avoided 

16 cost of new water; and 

17 (2) a summary of energy and water savings, in18 cluding short term and long term (20 years) projec19 tions of such savings. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 23, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4801 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Energy to prepare a reenergy and water use for potable hot water. port on the impact of thermal insulation on both
No. 1135, Misc.

#### Alvarado *v.*California.

Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied.
#### Gustav Daniel, Respondent, v. The New York News Publishing Company, Appellant.

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

O’Brien, J.
#### In the Matter of Louis Callace, Petitioner, v New York State Employees Retirement System, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County,

April 29, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Binder & Binder*for petitioner. *Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Betsy Broder*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

John G. Connor, J.

Petitioner challenges respondent’s determination denying *392his application for ordinary disability retirement benefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law § 62. On February 15, 1984 petitioner’s employment at the State Kingsboro Psychiatric Center in Brooklyn terminated. Petitioner did not file an application for disability benefits until March 28, 1985, far beyond the 90-day period in which to file for such benefits after the termination of employment (Retirement and Social Security Law § 62 [aa] [2]).

At the hearing convened by respondent, petitioner presented a psychiatrist who testified that petitioner was suffering from a psychiatric illness during the 90-day period following his employment termination and that he was unable to appreciate the need for filing his disability application within the 90-day period. The psychiatrist also expressed doubt as to whether petitioner was able to seek assistance to timely file the application. Petitioner argued that he was under a disability and that the 90-day filing limitation of Retirement and Social Security Law § 62 (aa) (2) was tolled thereby pursuant to CPLR 208. Respondent held that CPLR 208 was inapplicable and that petitioner’s application for disability benefits must be denied as untimely.

In this proceeding, the sole issue is whether the Hearing Examiner erred as a matter of law in holding that CPLR 208 was inapplicable to toll the 90-day filing requirement of Retirement and Social Security Law § 62 (aa) (2). This precise question appears to be one of first impression in this State. CPLR 208 provides for the tolling of a Statute of Limitations in an action based upon a plaintiff’s disability. The language clearly refers to an action and makes no references to administrative proceedings such as the one at issue here. An administrative proceeding is not an action *(Matter of Cortlandt Nursing Home v Axelrod,*99 AD2d 105, 107, *revd on other grounds*66 NY2d 169, *cert denied*— US —, 106 S Ct 1971; *Matter of Fiedelman v New York State Dept. of Health,*58 NY2d 80). Accordingly, the tolling provisions of CPLR 208 do not apply to the administrative time limitations statutorily established by Retirement and Social Security Law § 62 (aa) (2) *(see, Hudak v State of New York Policemen’s & Firemen’s Retirement Sys.,*106 Misc 2d 540). Petitioner’s application for ordinary disability benefits filed more than a year after his termination from employment was, therefore, untimely.

The petition is dismissed on the law.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4990 

To provide for the appointment of additional immigration judges. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2014 

Ms. JACKSON LEE (for herself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. NADLER, Mr. HINOJOSA, 

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. VELA, and Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for the appointment of additional immigration 

judges. 

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 ‘‘Justice for Children 

5 Now Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL IMMIGRATION JUDGES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General may ap8 point 70 additional immigration judges in addition to im9 migration judges currently serving as of the date of enact10 ment of this Act. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4990 IH

1 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

2 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 

3 necessary to carry out this section. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6953

JAMES M. HANYO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLAYTON GREENE, JR.; THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA00-1725-CCB) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 6, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James M. Hanyo, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on June 23, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on June 26, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: James M. Hanyo appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hanyo v. Greene , No. CA-00-1725-CCB (D. Md. June 26, 2000). * We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29533-29534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12650]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9154-9]


National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology 
Notice of Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Charter Renewal.

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

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2, the National 
Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) is a 
necessary committee which is in the public interest. Accordingly, 
NACEPT will be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose 
of NACEPT is to provide advice and recommendations to the

[[Page 29534]]

Administrator of EPA on a broad range of environmental policy, 
technology and management issues. Inquiries may be directed to Sonia 
Altieri, U.S. EPA, (Mail Code 1601M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 564-0243, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#553439213c30273c7b263a3b3c34153025347b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dfbeb3abb6baadb6f1acb0b1b6be9fbaafbef1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: May 20, 2010.
 Rafael DeLeon,
Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-12650 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research Committee.                    

*Date:*                         June 22, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Zhuqing (Charlie) Li, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-402-9523,                         *zhuqing.li@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 20, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-12784 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

A. LEYVA, Correctional Counselor; OSTRANDER, Lieutenant,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 16030

D.C. No. 1:18

- cv

- 00399

- LJO

- GSA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O ’ Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 11, 2019 **

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Guillermo Cruz Trujillo appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay

the filing fee after concluding that Trujillo is not entitled to proceed in forma

pauperis ( “IFP” )

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 16030

novo. Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t , 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9 th Cir.

2016). We may affirm on any basis supported in the record. Thompson v. Paul

,

547 F.3d 1055, 1058

- 59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Trujillo was not entitled to proceed IFP because at the time Trujillo filed the

complaint, Trujillo had filed three actions or appeals that qualified as “strikes”

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

. See Trujillo v. Gonzalez

- Moran, et al., Case No. 17

-

15200 (9th Cir. 2017); Cruz v. Ruiz

, et al.

, No. 1:14

- cv

- 00975

- SAB (PC) (E.D.

Cal. January 6, 2016 ) ; Trujillo v. Sherman , et al. , No. 1:14

- cv

- 01401

- BAM (PC)

(E.D. Cal. April 24, 2015 )

. Moreover, Trujillo did not plausibly allege that he was

“under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the

complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes , 493 F.3d 1047, 1055

-

57 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

AFFIRMED.