alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-34.5
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
1601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:


We have examined management's assessment for those customers that management has
informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included in the
accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those issuers
of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios
that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform)
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Regulus Group LLC has determined
that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the
activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with
those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assessment about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform,
testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining
whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those
selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. 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 servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP

February 12, 2008


KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
#### GEORGE VANCE SMITH, JR., v. GENEVA LEWIS SMITH (DURDEN).

(Filed 15 December, 1954.)

Divorce and Alimony § 19—

In determining tbe right to custody of the children as between divorced parents, decision is rightly made to turn upon the best interests of the children, and the findings of the court in regard thereto are conclusive when supported by evidence, the weight to be given the conflicting testimony being for the court.

Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of 5 July, 1954, rendered by *Moore, J.,*Eesident Judge of the Eighth Judicial District, in Chambers in Burgaw, N. 0., from New TIaNovee.

Motion in cause to determine custody of the four minor children of plaintiff and defendant.

At December 1951 Civil Term, on the ground of two years’ separation, plaintiff obtained a judgment of absolute divorce. The cause was retained for further proceedings relating to the children.

It appears that plaintiff and defendant were married 17 July, 1936, and separated in February, 1949, and in June, 1950, defendant took the children and left the State. While the defendant and the children were outside the State, this action was instituted and the divorce judgment obtained. The service of process on defendant was by publication under G.S. 1-98. Both plaintiff and defendant remarried.

The defendant and the children returned to North Carolina in the Summer or Fall of 1953. On 5 June, 1954, plaintiff moved that he be awarded custody of the children. The hearing was on 12 June, 1954. Judgment was signed 5 July, 1954. Incorporated therein are findings of fact, including the following:

“5. That petitioner is not a fit and suitable person to have the custody of said children, his home is inadequate for their care and upbringing, and his home environment is ill suited for the rearing of children.”

“6. That the respondent is a fit and suitable person to have the custody, care, nurture and rearing of said children, her home is well kept and has three bedrooms, and the home environment is good.”

“7. It is for the best interest of said children that their permanent custody be awarded to the respondent.”

Thereupon, the court awarded the permanent custody of the children to defendant, allowing plaintiff restricted privileges of visitation.

Plaintiff excepted and appealed, assigning errors.

*W. P. BurTchimer for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Bobert E. Calder for defendant, appellee.*

*308Per Curiam.

It will serve no useful purpose to narrate tbe accusations and recriminations between plaintiff and defendant concerning tbeir past misconduct. Decision as to custody, in tbe light of all circumstances, was rightly made to turn upon what is now for tbe best interests of tbe children. *Griffith v. Griffith,*240 N.C. 271, 81 S.E. 2d 918. The weight to be given tbe conflicting evidence was for determination by tbe court below. *Griffin v. Griffin,*237 N.C. 404, 75 S.E. 2d 133. Competent evidence supports tbe findings of fact, the findings of fact support tbe judgment, and no prejudicial error is shown. Hence, tbe judgment will be

Affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1





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 Annual Report of Net Talk.com, Inc. a Florida corporation
(the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Anastasios
Kyriakides, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my
knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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





/s/Anastasios
      KyriakidesAnastasios
      KyriakidesChief
      Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)Date:  December
      14, 2009
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**876 KA 09-00188**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JACK Z. SWEET, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KATHLEEN E. CASEY, BARKER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JACK Z. SWEET, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered October 31, 2008. The appeal was held by this Court by order entered December 30, 2010, decision was reserved and the matter was remitted to Supreme Court, Niagara County, for further proceedings (79 AD3d 1772). The proceedings were held and completed (Sara S. Sperrazza, A.J.).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: We previously held this case, reserved decision and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing on defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to determine whether the People established “ ‘sufficient excludable time’ ” based upon our conclusion that defendant made a prima facie showing that the People failed to comply with CPL 30.30 (1) (a) ( People v Sweet , 79 AD3d 1772, 1772). The evidence adduced at the hearing on remittal establishes that the criminal action was commenced on April 9, 2002 by the filing of the indictment in Niagara County Court, and that the People declared their readiness for trial on June 17, 2002, well within the six-month limit provided in CPL 30.30 (1) (a). We therefore reject defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based upon defense counsel’s failure to seek dismissal of the indictment on the ground that defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial ( see generally People v Manning , 52 AD3d 1295, 1295-1296, lv denied 14 NY3d 803).
We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions in his main and pro se supplemental briefs and conclude that none requires**-2- 876 KA 09-00188** 
modification or reversal of the order denying defendant’s motion.

Entered: September 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
exv10w4







EXHIBIT 10.4




ARBITRON INC.

FORM OF WAIVER AND AMENDMENT OF

EXECUTIVE RETENTION AGREEMENT




     This is an agreement (the “Agreement”) between Arbitron Inc. (“Arbitron”) and [Sean R.
Creamer] [Timothy T. Smith][Pierre C. Bouvard][V. Scott Henry][Steven M. Smith] (“you”), effective
as of April 6, 2009. Except as otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used in this Agreement
have the same definition as in the Executive Retention Agreement between Arbitron and you, dated as
of August 28, 2008 (the “Retention Agreement”).



     WHEREAS, Arbitron has undergone a Leadership Change [and the Retention Agreement allows you to
resign under a Position Diminishment as a result of your restructured position];



     WHEREAS,
You desire to continue your employment with Arbitron in the
[role of ____________ ]
[revised position of
____________ and you have agreed to do so and waive any further protections
under Leadership Change] and



     WHEREAS, You and Arbitron desire to amend the Retention Agreement.



     THEREFORE, Arbitron and you agree as follows, in consideration of the services to be received
from you and the ongoing compensation to which you will be entitled and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which the parties hereby acknowledge:



     (1) References in the first paragraph, the third WHEREAS paragraph, and the title of Section
2.5 of the Retention Agreement are revised by striking “, a Leadership Change,” in the first
paragraph and three instances of “or Leadership Change” in the WHEREAS paragraph and the title of
Section 2.5.



     (2) The definition of “Leadership Change” in Section 7.17 of the Retention Agreement is
deleted.



     (3) Clause (i) of “Position Diminishment” in Section 7.17 of the Retention Agreement is
amended to read “a change in the Executive’s reporting responsibilities, titles, duties, or offices
as in effect on March 18, 2009, or, if such reporting responsibilities, titles, duties, or offices
are enhanced after such date, the level as enhanced, or any removal of Executive from, or any
failure to re-elect Executive to, any of such positions, that has the effect of materially
diminishing Executive’s responsibility, duties, or authority,”



     (4) The definition of “Window Period” in Section 7.17 of the Retention Agreement is amended to
read ‘“Window Period’ means the one-year period commencing on the date of a Change of Control.
Furthermore, only the first Change of Control shall be counted in determining whether there is a
Window Period, and, as a result, there will not be multiple Window Periods under this Agreement
triggered by Changes of Control.”



     (5) All other provisions of the Retention Agreement remain in effect as written.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first
set forth above.



	 	 	 
	ARBITRON INC.

	 	EXECUTIVE
	By: __________________________________________

	 	_____________________________________________
	Name:

	 	 
	Title:
#### Francis B. Thurber and others, Respondents, v. John E. McIntire, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Van Brunt, P. J.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 9, 2010.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta**                     (Steve Foley, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:                

*1. Marty E. Adams*, Salineville, Ohio; Kevin T. Thompson, Saint Augustine, Florida; and John S. Loeber, Travelers Rest, South Carolina; to acquire voting shares of Palm Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Palm Bank, both of Tampa, Florida.                

**B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City**                     (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

*1. Verlyn Joseph Herman, Jr., and Aaron Joseph Herman*, both of Norton, Kansas; as members of a family group acting in concert, to retain voting shares of First Norton Corporation, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of First Security Bank & Trust Company, both of Norton, Kansas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 20, 2010.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-1310 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
** Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**Certification**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned doeshereby certify that:

 

The Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the “Form 10-Q”) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|                        |  /s/ David R. Carlucci                                    |   |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: November 2, 2005 |  David R. Carlucci                                        |
|                        |  Chief Executive Officer and   President             |
|                        |                                                           |
|                        |                                                           |
|                        |  /s/ Nancy E. Cooper                                      |   |
| Date: November 2, 2005 |  Nancy E. Cooper                                          |
|                        |  Senior Vice President and   Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not beingfiled as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to IMS Health Incorporated and will beretained by IMS Health Incorporated and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL BOZIER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 56 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of June, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
4852-3746-6781.3

EXHIBIT C

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3679-3 Filed: 08/23/19 Entered: 08/23/19 15:40:17 Page 1

of 2
4852-3746-6781.3 Exhibit C

EXPENSE SUMMARY (COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP) FOR THE PERIOD 

JANUARY 29, 2019 THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2019

EXPENSES AMOUNTS

Computerized Research N/A

Meals N/A

Travel N/A

Transportation $ 13.78

Duplicating $ 633.37

Transcription Services N/A

Third Party Consulting Fees N/A

Telephone Conferencing N/A

Messenger $ 109.50

Filing Fees $ 112.50

Court Website Subscription Fee for Case No. JCCP4974 $ 105.00

Total Expenses Requested: $ 974.15

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3679-3 Filed: 08/23/19 Entered: 08/23/19 15:40:17 Page 2

of 2
#### HENRY MAYNARD and Wife, DESSIE MAYNARD, v. GENEVA MARTIN HOLDER, Widow; GRACIE HOLDER JONES and ROBERT JONES, Her Husband; CLOIE HOLDER WALL and DUTCH WALL, Her Husband; BERDIE HOLDER WALL and ROSCOE WALL, Her Husband; VALLIE HOLDER HODGE and ARTHUR HODGE, Her Husband; and NANNIE HOLDER JACKSON and ALVESTA J. JACKSON, Her Husband.

(Filed 22 November, 1939.)

1. Quieting Title § 1: Statutes § 5d—

The statute relating to actions to quiet title is a remedial statute and must be liberally construed.

2. Quieting Title § 1—

An action to quiet title may be maintained to determine conflicting claims of title to a strip of land lying between the lands of the parties, C. S., 1743.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Stevens, J.,*at May Civil Term, 1939, of ¥ake.

Reversed.

This was an action to quiet title to certain described land. Plaintiffs alleged that tbe defendants wrongfully claimed title to a strip of land on the northern side of plaintiffs’ land adjacent to and adjoining lands of defendants, and that the claim of defendants cast a cloud upon the title of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also alleged title by adverse possession. Defendants denied plaintiffs’ title to the land referred to and denied that defendants’ claim constituted any cloud thereon. At the hearing, upon the reading of the pleadings and arguments of counsel, the court below held that the proper relief of plaintiffs was a suit in ejectment and not an action to quiet title, and thereupon dismissed the action at the cost of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs excepted and appealed.

*Stanley L. Seligson and John W. Hinsdale for plaintiffs, appellants.*

*Douglass & Douglass and Thomas W. Ruffin for defendants, appellees.*

Per Curiam.

It is prescribed by C. S., 1743: “An action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property adverse to him for the purpose of determining such adverse claims.”

Giving a liberal construction to this remedial statute, it is apparent that the court below was in error in dismissing this action. The pleadings were sufficient to raise an issue under which the court could proceed to determine the rights of the parties. *Satterwhite v. Gallagher,*173 N. C., 525, 92 S. E., 369; *Hardware Co. v. Cotton Co.,*188 N. C., 442, 124 S. E., 756.

Reversed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5147 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5147

 To provide certain uninsured individuals a special enrollment period 
   after tax filing in 2015 for enrollment in qualified health plans 
          offered through an Exchange, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 17, 2014

 Mrs. Kirkpatrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide certain uninsured individuals a special enrollment period 
   after tax filing in 2015 for enrollment in qualified health plans 
          offered through an Exchange, 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 ``Get Your Refund, Get Your Health 
Care Act''.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL ENROLLMENT PERIOD FOR CERTAIN UNINSURED INDIVIDUALS 
              AFTER TAX FILING PERIOD IN 2015.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
require that Exchanges established under title I of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) provide to 
qualified uninsured individuals a 60-day special enrollment period that 
begins on April 15, 2015 (or, if earlier, on the date such individual 
files an income tax return applicable to the first taxable year 
beginning on or after January 1, 2014).
    (b) Qualified Uninsured Individual Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``qualified uninsured individual'' means an individual who--
            (1) is eligible, but who has not elected, to enroll in a 
        qualified health plan offered through an Exchange established 
        under title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
        (Public Law 111-148) during the open enrollment period for 
        2015; and
            (2) is liable for a penalty under section 5000A of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to any month in 
        2014.
                                 <all>
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133244 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133244 

 COA: 271385 
 Wayne CC: 96-004759-01

DONALD MICHAEL SIMMONS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 31, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d0618 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk