alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 34.4


[LOGO]

                          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, 2006. 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, 2006. 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 of
less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that
comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the 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, 2006
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

                                          /s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, PA
February 22, 2007

          KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
             member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative
#### SOUTHERN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. CONGREGATION AGUDATH ACHIM ANCHE SFARD.

No. 17177.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 24, 1941.

J. Studebaker Lucas, of New Orleans, for Southern Broadcasting Corporation, appellant.

Maurice B. Gatlin, of New Orleans, for Charles C. Carlson, appellee.

McCALEB, Judge.

This is a companion case to that of Day Stores, Inc., v. Southern Broadcasting Corporation et al., La.App., 1 So. 99, decided this day. The suit was brought by Southern Broadcasting Corporation against Congregation Agudath Achim Anche Sfard for the sum of *$101.80*allegedly due on a contract made for advertising over Radio Station WJBW. The defendant appeared and admitted indebtedness but resisted liá-•bility on the ground that it did not know whether the amount due was payable to plaintiff or to Charles C. Carlson. It converted the action into an interpleader suit and deposited the money in the registry of the court.

Carlson, appearing as a claimant to the fund, filed a rule for judgment on the face of the pleadings, which was sustained by the trial judge for the same reasons giv*103en by him in the case of Day Stores, Inc., v. Southern Broadcasting Corporation et al. This appeal was taken by the Southern. Broadcasting Corporation from the adverse decision.

For the reasons given by us in Day Stores, Inc., v. Southern Broadcasting Corporation et al., supra, the judgment appealed from is reversed, the motion of Charles C. Carlson for judgment herein on the pleadings is denied and it is now ordered that the case be and it is remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans for further proceedings in accordance with law and not inconsistent with the views expressed in our opinion in the Day Stores, Inc., matter. The costs of this appeal to be paid by Charles C. Carlson, other costs to await the final determination of the cause.

Reversed and remanded.
#### John F. Tolson, Respondent, v. The National Provident Union, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on the opinion .of Mr. Justice Carr at Special* Term. (Reported in 60 Misc. Rep. 460.) Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.

*

 Trial.—[Rep.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6257 

To prohibit the Federal Government from imposing a vaccine mandate on 

individuals traveling on public or private transportation for hire within 

the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2021 

Mr. WEBSTER of Florida (for himself, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mrs. 

MCCLAIN, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. POSEY, Mr. PERRY, 

Mrs. BOEBERT, Mr. BUDD, and Mr. GAETZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Federal Government from imposing a vaccine 

mandate on individuals traveling on public or private 

transportation for hire within the United States, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Saving Americans 

5 From Executive Reach in Travel Act’’ or the ‘‘SAFER 

6 Travel Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6257 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF FEDERAL VAC2 CINATION REQUIREMENT FOR TRAVEL. 

3 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an Exec4 utive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5, United 

5 States Code) may not issue, implement, or enforce any 

6 regulation, requirement, guidance, or other directive that 

7 requires an individual to be vaccinated against COVID– 

8 19 as a condition to travel within the United States on 

9 any commercial public or private transportation subject to 

10 regulation by the Federal Government, including air, rail, 

11 commercial motor vehicle, vessel, or other public or private 

12 form of transportation. 

13 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE VACCINA14 TION REQUIREMENT FOR TRAVEL. 

15 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no entity 

16 engaged in the operation of any public or private transpor17 tation for hire that is subject to regulation by the Federal 

18 Government may require an individual to be vaccinated 

19 against COVID–19 as a term or condition of travel. 

20 SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON PERIOD OF MANDATORY QUAR21 ANTINE. 

22 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an Exec23 utive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5, United 

24 States Code) may not issue, implement, or enforce any 

25 regulation, requirement, guidance, or other directive that 

26 requires a citizen of the United States or lawful permaVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:16 Dec 19, 2021 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6257.IH H6257

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6257 IH

1 nent resident of the United States to enter into a period 

2 of quarantine related to COVID–19 after having traveled 

3 on any commercial public or private transportation subject 

4 to regulation by the Federal Government, including air, 

5 rail, commercial motor vehicle, vessel, or other such public 

6 or private transportation. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
23.3





CONSENT OF SCHLUMBERGER
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION





As
independent petroleum engineers, Data & Consulting Services Division of
Schlumberger Technology Corporation hereby consents to the inclusion or
incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No.
333-149190), the registration statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-159888), the registration statement (File No. 333-153579) on Form S-3/A and
the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2 for the fiscal year ended 31
December 2008 of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P. of information from our firm’s
reserve report dated 29 January 2009 entitled Reserve and Economic Evaluation of
Proved Reserves of Certain BreitBurn Management Company, LLC Illinois and
Michigan Basin Oil and Gas Interests As of 31 December 2008and all
references to our firm included in or made a part of the BreitBurn Energy
Partners L.P. Annual report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2.





SCHLUMBERGER
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION





By: /s/ Charles M. Boyer II,
      P.G.





Charles
M. Boyer II, PG Advisor Unconventional Reservoirs


Pittsburgh
Consulting Services


Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania


March 17,
2010
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 1593** 

DAVOUD ALLEN EGHBALI ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, at the Savannah River National Lab ,
Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Aiken

. J. Michelle Childs , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv
- 03460

- JMC )

Submitted : October 15, 2015 Decided: November 25, 2015

Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Davoud Allen Eghbali, Appellant Pro Se. Terri Hearn Bailey , Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Davoud Allen Eghbali appeals the district court ’ s order s
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his employment discrimination complaint and denying

his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewe d the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court ’s orders

. See Butler v. Drive Auto. Indus. of

Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2015). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequa tely
presented in the materials before th is court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**P & F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**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 on Form 10-Q of P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Joseph A. Molino, Jr., Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 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/ Joseph A. Molino, Jr.   |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Joseph A. Molino, Jr.       |
| Principal Financial Officer |
| May 17, 2004                |

 

----
No. 06-13-00179-CR IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

STEVEN COLE, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from Gregg County

* * * * * STATE’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING ITS PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW * * * * * Lisa C. McMinn State Prosecuting Attorney Bar I.D. No. 13803300

P. O. Box 13046 Austin, Texas 78711 information@spa.texas.gov 512/463-1660 (Telephone) 512/463-5724 (Fax) PD-0077-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 1/20/2015 3:33:50 PM Accepted 1/22/2015 3:36:30 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKNo. 0 6- 13 -0 01 79 -CR IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF THE STAT E OF TEXA S

STEVEN COLE , App el la nt V. STATE OF TE XAS, App el le e * * * * *

STATE ’S MOT IO N TO EXTE ND TIME FOR FILI NG IT S PETI TI ON FOR DIS CRETI ONARY REVIEW * * * * * TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS: Pu rs ua nt to th e Ru le s of Appe ll at e Pro ced ur e, th e St at e m ov es th is Hon or ab le Co ur t to ex te nd th e ti m e fo r fil in g it s Pet it io n fo r Dis cret io na ry Rev ie w in th is cas e to

an d in cl ud in g th e 19 da y of Feb ru ary, 20 15

. The Co ur t o f A p pe al s rev ers ed th App el la nt ’s co nv ic ti on on Decem be r 18 , 20 14 . No m ot io n fo r reh eari ng was fil ed

. The St at e is un ab le to fil e it s pet it io n by th e Ja nu ary 20 , 20 15 de ad li ne fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s: Co un se l was ou t of to wn fro m Decem be r 19 , 20 14 - Decem

be r 26 , 20 14 , an d co un se l fil ed pe ti ti on s fo r di sc ret io na ry rev ie w in Gor e v. St at e , PD-1 63 9- 14 on Ja nu ary14, 20 15 , an d Lemi ng v. St at e , 06 -1 3- 00 26 4- CR on Ja nu ary 16 , 20 15

.W HEREFORE, th e St at e pr ay s th at it s m ot io n to ex te nd th e ti m e fo r fil in g it s

pe ti ti on fordi sc ret io na ry rev ie w un ti l Fe br ua ry

19 , 20 15 , be g ran te d.

Res pe ct fu ll y

su bm it te d,

/s / Li sa C. McM in n Lis a C. Mc Mi nn St at e Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y Bar I .D. No. 13 80 33 00 P.O. Box 13 04 6 Aus ti n, Tex as 78 70 1 in fo rm at io n@ sp a.te xa s.g ov 51 2/ 46 3- 16 60 (Tele ph on e) 51 2- 46 3- 57 24 (Fax )CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE

A c o p y of th e fo reg oi ng St at e’s Mo ti on to Ext en d th e Tim e fo r Fi li ng it s Pet it io n fo r Dis cret io na ry Rev ie w ha s be en e-s erv ed or e-m ai le d on th is th e 20 da y th of Jan ua ry , 20 15 to : Zan Co ls on Bro wn Ass is ta nt Dis tri ct Att or ne y 10 1 Eas t M et hv in , Sui te 33 3 Lon gv ie w, Texas , 75 60 1 zan .bro wn@ co .gre gg .tx .us Ebb Mo bl ey P.O. Box 23 09 Lon gv ie w, Texas 75 60 6 eb bm ob @a ol .co m

/s / Li sa C. McM in n Lis a C. Mc Mi nn St at e Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y
#### RATCLIFF v. INDUSTRIAL LIFE INS. CO.

No. 16264.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. *7,*1935.

Loys Charbonnet and E. B. Charbonnet, Jr., both of New Orleans, for appellant.

*429Gill & Simon, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This matter comes before us on motion to dismiss the appeal; appellee contending that it should be dismissed, for the reason that no citation of appeal was issued or served. The appeal was requested by motion, and the order was granted as a result of the motion. The record contains nothing on which we can base the conclusion that the motion was not made in open court and, in the absence of any such showing in the record, we will assume that it was made in open court. See Richardson v. Caloavello, 3 La. App. 535; Bishop-Wyatt Co. v. Latin-American Life & Casualty Ins. Co., Inc., 12 La. App. 58, 125 So. 167; James v. City of New Orleans, 14 La. App. 311, 125 So. 464; Marsh v. Avegno, 3 La. App. 294, 295; Swain v. Globe Lumber Co., Ltd., 144 La. 207, 80 So. 256, 257.

If the appeal was granted on motion in open court, as we must assume that it was under the authorities above set forth, there was* no necessity that a citation issue or be served. See the above authorities, particularly Swain v. Globe Lumber Co., supra, in which the court said: “The appeal having been granted in open court, no further citation was necessary.”

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                    |   |                                                             |   |
|-------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:      May 15, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Darrin      M. Ocasio                                   |   |
|                    |   | Darrin      M. Ocasio                                            |   |
|                    |   | Principal      Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer |   |
|                    |   |                                                             |   |
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99-B

                            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 Otter Tail Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin
G. Moug, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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/ Kevin G. Moug
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Kevin G. Moug
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        August 14, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES INCLUDED IN THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,709
<SECURITIES>                                    65,413
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,195
<ALLOWANCES>                                       849
<INVENTORY>                                     16,748
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               102,321
<PP&E>                                         158,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,580
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 243,834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,802
<BONDS>                                         13,891
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,552
<OTHER-SE>                                      92,269
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   243,834
<SALES>                                         84,719
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                90,094
<CGS>                                           69,259
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,403
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,323
<INCOME-TAX>                                        28
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,295
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,295
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49
        

</TABLE>
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Annual Report of Summit Exploration Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended February 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Alan Hart, Chief Executive 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 25th day of May, 2007.

BY:
/s/ ALAN HART                        Alan  Hart, Principal Executive Officer **
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nekis ATWATER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-1689.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 5, 2002.

Decided Nov. 7, 2002.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 2002.

Before Hon. FLAUM, Chief Judge, Hon. POSNER, and Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the district judge exceeded the scope of our remand (272 F.3d 511 (7th Cir.2001)). He did not. In the first decision of the district court, the judge (a different judge) increased the defendant’s sentence on the ground that the defendant, who had robbed a bank with another man, Cagle, must have known that Cagle was carrying a gun (the basis for the sentencing increase, U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C)) because the judge had “never heard of a bank robbery without a firearm.” We vacated the judgment because we did not think that such a presumption was adequate to justify the increase. At the sentencing hearing on remand, Cagle testified that Atwater had given him the gun. The judge believed Cagle and therefore denied Atwater a sentencing discount for acceptance of responsibility, on the ground that Atwater had lied in denying that he had known about the gun. The appeal contends that our remand did not authorize the judge to revoke the acceptance of responsibility discount given him by the original sentencing judge. Not so. One of the puzzlements expressed in our first decision was that the judge, while convinced that Atwater knew Cagle was carrying a gun, in which event Atwater must have lied in denying that he knew that, had nevertheless given him the acceptance of responsibility discount. We said: “He gave Atwater a sentencing discount for acceptance of responsibility, which he would not, *or at least should not,*have done if he thought Atwater was lying.” 272 F.3d at 512 (emphasis added). In making clear that Atwater should not receive the discount if he had perjured himself, we authorized the judge, in resentencing Atwater, to deny the discount should the judge find, as he did, that Cagle was telling the truth and therefore that Atwater was lying.

Affirmed.