alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-34 (b)

[LOGO] Deloitte

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Two World Financial Center
New York, NY 10281-1414
USA

Tel: +1 212 436 2000
Fax: +1 212 436 5000
www.deloitte.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors of
ARCap Servicing, Inc.

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria, that
ARCap Servicing, Inc. (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (the "SEC")
Regulation AB for the SEC Regulation AB Regulated Transactions Servicing
Platform (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006,
excluding the following criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)(i) -
(d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(ii), and (d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not
applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the
Platform. Appendix A to management's assertion identifies the individual
asset-backed transactions defined by management as constituting the Platform.
Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation 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, including tests on a sample
basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing
criteria during the specified period and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to
selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered
by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing
activities related to each specific asset-backed transaction included in the
Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance
arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above
that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the
Company 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 servicing
criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006 for the SEC Regulation AB Regulated Transactions Servicing
Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

March 14, 2007


Member of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
EXHIBIT 35.1

                        Servicer Compliance Statement for
                 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer


                                    JPMorgan

                         Servicer Compliance Statement
                   JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Master Servicer

     A review of the activities of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer
for the transactions  listed on the attached Exhibit A, during the calendar year
ending December 31, 2006, and of its performance under the applicable  servicing
agreements has been made under the undersigned officer's supervision.

     To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  servicer  has
fulfilled all of its obligations  under the agreements in all material  respects
throughout the reporting period.


/s/ Kathleen M. McDonnell                       March 9, 2007
-------------------------
Kathleen M. McDonnell
Vice President
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Master Servicing

                                   Exhibit A

         GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-1, Agreement dated January 1, 2006
        GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-3, Agreement dated February 1, 2006
          GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-5, Agreement dated March 1, 2006
         GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4F, Agreement dated April 1, 2006
          GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-6, Agreement dated April 1, 2006
           GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-9, Agreement dated May 1, 2006
          GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-12, Agreement dated July 1, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1.
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  /s/ W. Kirk BrassfieldW. Kirk Brassfield
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.3

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of
Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2005 (the "Quarterly Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

(ii)	the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



August 2, 2005
                                                /S/ EDWIN A. GUILES
                                              ______________________
                                               Edwin A. Guiles
                                               Chief Executive Officer
#### Edward Xenodochius, Respondent, v. Fifth Avenue Coach Company, Appellant.

Motion for reargument denied, with costs. Present — Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
H. R. 6023 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

An Act 

To require the United States Postal Service to continue selling the Multinational 

Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp until all remaining stamps are 

sold, 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 ‘‘Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2021’’. 

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION; REQUIREMENT TO SELL ALL STAMPS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2(c) of the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Act of 2010 (39 U.S.C. 416 

note; Public Law 111–241) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (2)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘of at least 6 years,’’; and 

(B) by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘and ending not earlier than the date on which 

the United States Postal Service provides notice to Congress under paragraph (5)’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(5) REQUIREMENT TO SELL ALL STAMPS PRINTED.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The United States Postal Service 

shall sell each copy of the Multinational Species Conservation Fund Semipostal Stamp that the United States Postal 

Service prints under this Act. 

‘‘(B) NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS.—The United States 

Postal Service shall notify the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs in the Senate, the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, 

the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the House 

of Representatives, and the Committee on Natural 

Resources of the House of Representatives when all copies 

of the Multinational Species Conservation Fund Semipostal 

Stamp printed under this Act have been sold.’’. 

(b) RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by 

subsection (a) shall take effect as if enacted on the day after 

the date of enactment of the Multinational Species Conservation 

Funds Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Public Law 

113–165; 128 Stat. 1878). 

SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 

with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined 
H. R. 6023—2 

by reference to the latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of 

PAYGO Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the 

Congressional Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior 

to the vote on passage. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
226 La. 103

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Samuel BRUMFIELD.

No. 41826.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 2, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1954.

*24Neal N. Bagwell, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Cul-ligan Asst. Atty. Gen., Joseph A. Sims, Dist. Atty., Hammond, Grover L. Covin'g-ton, Asst. Dist. Atty., Kentwood, Erlo J. Durbin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Denham Springs, for appellee.

LE BLANC, Justice.

The defendant was indicted, tried and found guilty of the theft of a cow. Upon being sentenced to be imprisoned at hard labor in the State Penitentiary for a period of four years, he took and perfected the present appeal, having reserved certain bills of exception which appear in the record.

On the day his case had been fixed and was called for argument and submission in this Court, he made no appearance either in person or through counsel and no brief was filed on his behalf. Under those circumstances the Court would be justified in dismissing the appeal. However, as we have done before in similar situations in criminal cases, we examined the entire record to ascertain whether or not there are any errors patent on its face and having found none will follow the course heretofore pursued of affirming the judgment. See State v. De Soto, 221 La. 624, 60 So.2d 65; State v. Weaver, 222 La. 148, 62 So.2d 255.

For the reasons stated, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
**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 the period covered by this report on Form 10–K of Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,WMALT Series 2006-AR3 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 of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere 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 Form 10–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) inall material respects, except for Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., for whom I have insufficient information to base an assessment; and5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report inaccordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10–K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: None. The following unaffiliated parties did not provide sufficient information upon which reasonable reliance could be based:Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 

Date:  March 15, 2007

  /s/ Thomas G. LehmannName:  Thomas G. LehmannTitle:    President
#### COHEN v. WIGGIN.

No. 16768.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 24, 1938.

Clarence Dowling, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Clarence F. Favret, of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit by a physician for a fee. Dr. Joseph Cohen, the plaintiff, alleges that he agreed with Charles Wiggin, Jr., the defendant, to undertake the prenatal care and the delivery of Mrs. Wiggin’s first child, for the sum of $150. Defendant admits having made a contract with plaintiff, but contends that the sum agreed upon was indefinite, in that it was to be between $125 and $150, and that it was to include hospitalization; that is to say, the cost of a room in the Touro Infirmary exclusive of the cost of nurses.

There was judgment below in favor of plaintiff as prayed, for, and defendant has appealed.

The issue between the parties has been narrowed by the testimony and admission of counsel to the sum of $54, since it is conceded that $96 is due Dr. Cohen; the cost of hospitalization being $54. The probability that Dr. Cohen included hospital expenses in naming a sum as the price of his professional services seems to us very remote. Moreover, there is in the record the testimony of Dr. Jacobs to the effect that $150 is a very reasonable fee for obstetrical services in connection with the delivery of a child, particularly the first child. Both Drs. Jacobs and Cohen testified that greater skill and care is required and more difficulty is to be expected in the case of "primipura” or first childbirth, especially when' the mother has reached the age of 29, as Mrs. Wiggin had when her child was born. Their statement in this regard is borne out by the record, for Mrs. Wiggin suffered very serious complications which endangered her life and caused the death of her unborn child.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### Samuel Diamond, Respondent, v. Joseph Abrahams, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 163 (Thursday, August 21, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49493-49494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19408]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,892]


Barnes Aerospace, Ceramics Division, Windsor, CT; Notice of 
Negative Determination on Reconsideration

    On July 11, 2008, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on July 21, 2008 (73 FR 42368).
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that imports of multi-layer ceramic green sheet 
did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject 
firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred.

[[Page 49494]]

    In the request for reconsideration the petitioner alleged that 
business at the subject firm declined because the subject firm's major 
customer is importing or will be importing like or directly competitive 
products. In particular, the petitioner stated that the customer is 
changing its purchases from a ceramic based substrate to a plastic 
based substrate.
    On reconsideration the Department of Labor surveyed this declining 
customer regarding its purchases of like or directly competitive 
products with multi-layer ceramic green sheet during 2006, 2007, and 
January through February 2008 over the corresponding 2007 period. The 
survey revealed that the customer did not import like or directly 
competitive products with multi-layer ceramic green sheet during the 
relevant period.
    The petitioner also stated that there was a shift in production of 
multi-layer ceramic green sheet to Taiwan.
    The fact that the subject firm's customers are shifting their 
production abroad is not relevant to this investigation. According to 
section (a)(2)(B) of the Trade Act, in order to be eligible for TAA on 
the basis of a shift in production abroad, the shift in production must 
be implemented by the subject firm or its subdivision.
    In this case, the subject firm did not import multi-layer ceramic 
green sheet nor was there a shift in production from subject firm 
abroad during the relevant period.

Conclusion

    After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative 
determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance 
for workers and former workers of Barnes Aerospace, Ceramics Division, 
Windsor, Connecticut.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 14th day of August, 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-19408 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
adc_Ex10_38


		
			 
		

		
			Exhibit – 10.38
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			Summary of Material Terms of Employment
		

		
			Danielle Spehar
		

		
			General Counsel
		

		
			(Effective March 1, 2019)
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						Position:

					
					
						General Counsel, reporting directly to Joel Agree, Chief Executive Officer and President of Agree Realty Corporation (“ADC”).  ADC has its sole and exclusive discretion to change, extend or to curtail the precise services and duties to be performed.

				
	
					
						Employment At-Will:

					
					
						Employment is “at-will.” There is no guaranty that employment by ADC is for any period of time and employment may be terminated for any reason whatsoever or for no reason and with or without cause. 

				
	
					
						Annual Base Salary and Cash Bonus:  2

					
					
						$250,000.00, payable in accordance with ADC’s normal payroll practices and subject to all required withholdings and deductions, with annual cash bonus target of $75,000.00 (with a range of $50,000.00 to $100,000.00) based on the achievement of metrics set by management.    

				
	
					
						Long-Term Incentive Compensation: 2

					
					
						Eligible to receive, on an annual basis, restricted stock of ADC.  The estimated annual amount for the 2019 calendar year is targeted to be $200,000.00.  The amount of the annual restricted stock awards will depend on the satisfaction of certain corporate performance goals (as will be detailed from time to time in the future), which will account for 75% of the award determination, with the remaining 25% of the determination based on ADC’s exercise of its discretion.  Such awards are subject to ADC’s existing programs and agreements, including applicable vesting and forfeiture provisions.

				
	
					
						Benefits:

					
					
						Entitled to the same employee benefits, on generally the same terms, as those made available to other ADC employees at the same level.

				
	
					
						Confidentiality and Restrictive Covenants:

					
						 

					
					
						Subject to confidentiality, non-compete, non-solicitation and non-disparagement requirements and certain other restrictive covenants.
Southern California Gas Company is today filing with the
Commission its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2003.

	To accompany the report we are enclosing the statements of
Southern California Gas Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of
Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Quarterly Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

(ii)	the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



May 5, 2003
                                                /s/ Edwin A. Guiles
                                              ______________________
                                               Edwin A. Guiles
                                               Chief Executive Officer





Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Quarterly Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

(ii)	the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



May 5, 2003
                                               /s/ Debra L. Reed
                                             ______________________
                                               Debra L. Reed
                                               Chief Financial Officer
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6323 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to adjust the effective date of 

certain reductions and discontinuances of compensation, dependency and 

indemnity compensation, and pension under the laws administered by 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2021 

Mr. STEIL (for himself and Mr. LAMB) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to adjust the effective date of certain reductions and discontinuances of 

compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, 

and pension under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

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 ‘‘Survivor Benefits Fair5 ness Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6323 IH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE OF CERTAIN REDUCTIONS AND 

2 DISCONTINUANCES OF COMPENSATION, DE3 PENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION, 

4 AND PENSION UNDER LAWS ADMINISTERED 

5 BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5112(b)(1) of title 38, 

7 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘last day of 

8 the month before’’ and inserting ‘‘last day of the month 

9 during which’’. 

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

11 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to a reduction or 

12 discontinuance of compensation, dependency or indemnity 

13 compensation, or pension by reason of a marriage, remar14 riage, or death occurring on or after the date of the enact15 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS