alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(o)

Contract No. 117118

 

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY OF AMERICA (Natural)

TRANSPORTATION RATE SCHEDULE FTS AGREEMENT DATED February 25, 2000

UNDER SUBPART G OF PART 284 OF THE FERC'S REGULATIONS

 

1.	SHIPPER is: NORTH SHORE GAS COMPANY, a LDC.

2.	(a)	MDQ totals: 60,000 MMBTU per day.

	(b)	Service option selected (check any or all):

	[ ] LN	[ ] SW	[ ]NB

3.	TERM: November 1, 2000 through March 31, 2003.

4.	Service will be ON BEHALF OF: [X] Shipper or [ ]Other:

5.	The ULTIMATE END USERS are customers within any state in the continental U.S.; or (specify state)________________________________________________.

6.	[ ] This Agreement supersedes and cancels a _____________ Agreement dated ___________.

[X]	Service and reservation charges commence the latter of:

(a) November 1, 2000, and

(b) the date capacity to provide the service hereunder is available on Natural's System.

[ ]	Other:_____________________________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         777,835
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  355,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                   13,645
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,201,345
<PP&E>                                         20,276,999
<DEPRECIATION>                                 14,664,073
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,099,895
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          363,087
<BONDS>                                        2,435,216
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,058
<COMMON>                                       173,140
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,099,895
<SALES>                                        1,504,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,504,145
<CGS>                                          276,014
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,803,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             269,859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (535,771)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (535,771)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (713,588)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.43)



</TABLE>
OFFICE OF THE Al-I-ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

E&-r. - - AUSTIN 

t0t087, lfurlr a0mr, 

8r prooodurr nod 4lrporitl 

8t 8 tU 8&18 h&8 .b88& ai+ 

OOV8F8d jrrdg8Ot 

lillqU8llt t8X88; 

uandrr tu 8818 

8O!l Of th8 f8Ot th8t 10 

th8 property fro6 Zr. 

V8 faOt8 YOU har8 r8qU8St8d OUr Opst8t8 Of Ten8 h8S Ul iIlt43lu8t 

OOUr88 t0 mnU8. 

in 8 tU 8818, 8lld thra plWVi(l88: 

“To b8 ntd108d bl hiS (th8 ‘218X’k) 8Ubj8Ot 

to th0 Otdrr Of th8 OOUXt for l MtiOd Of tro 

y8an ml888 Oth8PwilO Ord8r84 br th8 OOUct, 

at &oh t-0 th8 8oUrt mar Or48r th8 IeM t0 

bo pdd to the 8wo 8l g8inrt r rha Said tu88 

WOFI 8888888dt . . ." 
Xn tho oam o? Yoora 1. Rogan 09 6. U, lO¶, 

a0 ,PlW8 ~OX't 10 418m88185 th8 qU"hOa Of U&O I8 

8ditld t0 th8 810888 MDOf fOr WhiOklUkd 801d an48? l 

tar 8018, Ii886 thlr 18ll&U8@81 

-Xf thon U8.m 0x8088 in th8 bid over 

th8 Moaot Whi8h tho.rhori?f oould lawfully 8ol18Ot, itTm8 th8 pl'OO8848 Of th8 8818 Of ROgOl'8' 

i8Od ULd 88iOIM8d &I hirr 10 th8 hod8 Of th8 

8h8rhf. g 

uOd8r th8 f8Ot8 r-8 $t8t8& th8 #495.5t d-8 

not DolOn6 t0 th8 611at8 ai t8XB8 8n6 it k8 a0 lOt8l'88t 

thorola. A8 t0 ThO i# Wltitl8d t0 8Otd ROE8r i8 8 qUO8- 

tlO0 th4t EU8t DO dOt8rmilud by th8 mltri8t aOtU% 

Tour8 lOl-7 tmllr 

ATTORHUT OuRuRAl. O? RxA5 

ho. E. B8rmu 

biIi8knt 

OmlLE
EX-35 (j)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

March 12, 2007

JP Morgan Acceptance Corporation I

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan
    Trust 2006-S2

Per  Section 11.05 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 4/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion
thereof:

(A)  a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or
     portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or
     such other applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function
     Participant, has been made under such officer's supervision and

(B)  to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
     applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function Participant, in
     all material respects throughout such year or portion thereof, or, if there
     has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect,
     specifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature and
     status thereof.


Certified By:
/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
Kristen Ann Cronin, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
#### STATE ex rel. KENNER v. JONES, Judge.

No. 2048.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 4, 1939.

Frances A. Kenner, of Bay St. Louis, Miss., in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

On the face of her application for writs of mandamus and certiorari, it appears that the relatrix submitted a formal remittitur to the District Judge reducing the amount claimed in her suit from the sum of Twenty Thousand dollars ($20,000) to Two Thousand dollars ($2,000) after the judgment dismissing her said suit had been signed in the District Court. As shown in her application her purpose was to prepare for an appeal to this Court, which in fact she did immediately move for upon the refusal of the District Judge to permit her to enter the remittitur. On his further refusal to grant her an order of appeal to this Court, she has presented her application for writs.

The District Judge was correct in his ruling in which he refused her permission to enter a remittitur after he had signed the judgment. See Spector v. Union City Transfer Company, La.App., 182 So. 524. As the case now stands, the amount in controversy is still the sum of Twenty Thousand dollars ($20,000), and this Court being vested with jurisdiction to the extent of Two thousand dollars ($2,000) only in cases of this kind, it follows that we could not entertain the appeal.

For these reasons the writs applied for are denied at the cost of the relatrix.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM                        .                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Postal Service notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal Administrations to the Competitive Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3).

# DATES:

August 27, 2008.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margaret M. Falwell, 703-292-3576

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that it has filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of United States Postal Service to Add Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal Administrations to the Competitive Product List, and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) the Enabling Governor's Decision and Two Functionally Equivalent Contracts with Foreign Posts.*                     Documents are available at                     *http://www.prc.gov*, Docket Nos. MC2008-6, CP2008-14, and CP2008-15.                

Neva R. Watson,

Attorney, Legislative.

[FR Doc. E8-19801 Filed 8-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Frances B. Mendoza, Plaintiff, *v.*Armando E. Mendoza, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

December 19, 1947.

*1061
      *Joseph L. Greenberg*for defendant.

*George G. Hunter, Jr.,*and *Robert S. Carroll*for plaintiff.

Henry Clay Greenberg, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the third cause of action in the amended complaint. The original complaint contained two causes of action seeking annulment of the marriage between the parties. Service of the summons by publication was commenced against the defendant, a nonresident. He appeared by moving to dismiss the complaint. Within 20 days thereafter, plaintiff served an amended complaint in which a third cause of action was added. In that cause of action plaintiff seeks a money judgment for $20,000 alleged to have been fraudulently obtained from her by the defendant and his father. Defendant contends that though his motion to dismiss the complaint had the effect of a general appearance in the action, the court should as a matter of discretion dismiss the third cause of action without prejudice and remit plaintiff to an independent suit therefor. Defendant urges that he should not be subjected to a suit on a cause of action wholly separate and distinct from the causes asserted by plaintiff at the time of the former’s appearance in the action.

It is well settled that the right of a plaintiff to amend the complaint as a matter of course pursuant to section 244 of the Civil Practice Act includes the right entirely to change the nature of the cause of action asserted. *(Brown*v. *Leigh,*49 N. Y. 78.) An amended complaint served as a matter of right may also add additional causes of action. Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the merits had the effect of a general appearance. ‘ ‘ A voluntary general appearance of the defendant is equivalent to personal service of the summons upon him.” (Civ. Prac. Act, § 237.) It follows that plaintiff had an absolute right to amend her complaint by substituting entirely different causes of action or by adding separate and distinct causes of action, just as if personal service of the summons had been made upon defendant.

The case of *Alkalaj*v. *Alhalaj*(190 Misc. 326) is clearly distinguishable. There the plaintiff did not amend as a matter of right but applied for permission to serve a supple*1062mental complaint. That motion was addressed to the court’s discretion. In the instant case no discretion is vested in the court to curtail the plaintiff’s right to amend as a matter of course pursuant to section 244 of the Civil Practice Act.

The motion is denied, with leave to answer within 10 days from the service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of BuckeyeGP Holdings L.P. (“BGH”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Forrest E. Wylie, Chief Executive Officer of MainLine Management LLC, the general partner ofBGH, hereby certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of BGH.

 

 
|                       | MAINLINE  MANAGEMENT LLC, as general partner of BGH |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                                |
| Date:  March 16, 2009 | /s/ Forrest E.  Wylie                               |
|                       | Forrest E. Wylie                                    |
| * *                   | *Chief  Executive Officer*                          |

 

----
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2610

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Curtis AJ Harrell lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________ Submitted: April 11, 2022 Filed: May 2, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Curtis Harrell pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was subject to a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Thedistrict court 1 calculated an advisory Guideline range of 188–235 months and

sentenced Harrell to a within-range sentence of 210 months. Harrell appeals and argues that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. We affirm. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the sentencing court fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.” United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012). There was no abuse of discretion in this case. The district court considered mitigating factors including Harrell’s mental condition, his difficult childhood, the abuse he suffered, and his traumatic brain injuries. As an aggravating factor, however, the court also considered Harrell’s significant history of violence. Harrell has felony convictions for first-degree aggravated robbery, prohibited person in possession of a firearm, second-degree assault, and first-degree assault. Harrell’s criminal history demonstrates that he frequently used firearms to commit robberies and assaults. While in pretrial custody on the present charges, Harrell committed several major rule violations including, among others, assault, fighting, sexual harassment, and threats. Given this violent history, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to determine that a Guideline sentence was appropriate in this case. United States v. Brown, 992 F.3d 665, 673 (8th Cir. 2021) (“[Defendant]’s assertion of substantive unreasonableness amounts to nothing more than a disagreement with how the district

1 The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-court chose to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in fashioning his sentence.”). Accordingly,

we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-3-
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1896

In re: ALBERT F. IAQUINTA
,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 5:98

- hc

- 00764

- BR )

Submitted : December 16, 2021 Decided: January 4, 2022

Before RUSHING , Circuit Judge , KEENAN , and FLOYD , Senior Circuit Judge s

.

Petition s denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Albert F. Iaquinta, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Albert F. Iaquinta petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing th at
his case be reassigned to a different district judge. We conclude that Iaquinta is not entitled

to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic rem edy and should be used only in extraordinary

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) ; In re Murphy

- Brown,

LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018)

. Iaquinta ’s conclusory assertions of bias are based
solely on the district judge’s adverse rulings, which is insufficient to warrant reassignment
of the district judge. See Belue v. Leventhal , 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we deny Iaquinta’s petition and corrected petition for a writ of mandamus.
We dispense with ora l argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION S DENIED
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906**

**of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Primoris Services Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian Pratt, Chief Executive Officer and President 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, 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; and

 

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

 

In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below.

 
| Date:   March 16, 2011 | /s/   BRIAN PRATT                       |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                        | Brian   Pratt                           |
| * *                    | *Chief Executive Officer and President* |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
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 on Form 10-K (the Report) of SGS International, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                                                  
|-------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|March 12, 2009 |  | /s/ HENRY R. BAUGHMAN                            
|               |  | Henry R. Baughman                                
|               |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director  
|               | 
|               |  | /s/ JAMES M. DAHMUS                              
|               |  | James M. Dahmus                                  
|               |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EX-33 (b)
(logo) REGULUS


Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria

1. Pursuant to Subpart 229.1100 - Asset Backed Securities, 17 C.F.R. section
   229.1100-229.1123 ("Regulation AB"), Regulus Group LLC, is responsible
   for assessing its compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to
   the remittance processing services it provides to customers who are
   issuers or servicers of asset backed securities transactions and
   who have requested confirmation of Regulus' compliance in connection with
   loan and/or receivables portfolios that include pool assets for asset
   backed securities transactions (the "Platform"). Remittance processing
   is a service whereby check payments that are remitted by mail to a post
   office box are collected, processed through a highly automated data
   capture system, and prepared for deposit to a bank account held by the
   beneficiary of the payment.

2. The servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB were used
   in Regulus' assessment of compliance. Regulus has concluded that the
   servicing criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of
   Regulation AB are applicable to the servicing activities it performs with
   respect to the Platform (such criteria the "Applicable Servicing Criteria").
   Regulus has concluded that the remainder of the servicing criteria set forth
   in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are inapplicable to the activities it
   performs with respect to the Platform because Regulus does not participate in
   the servicing activities referenced by such servicing criteria.

3. As of and for the year ending December 31, 2006, Regulus has complied in all
   material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria set forth in Item
   1122(d) of Regulation AB.

4. KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation
   report on Regulus' assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing
   Criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2006. A copy of that
   attestation report is attached hereto as Exhibit A.


/s/ Kimberlee Clark
Kimberlee Clark
Chief Financial Officer

July 17, 2007