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

								PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP

								400 S. Hope St.

								Los Angeles, CA 90071-2889

								Telephone: (213) 236-3000

								Facsimile: (813) 637-4444

Report of Independent Accountants

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of

Green Point Mortgage Funding, Inc.

We have examined management's assertion about GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.'s ("the Company"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of GreenPoint Bank, compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 included in the accompanying management's assertions (see Exhibit I). Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. 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 standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 27, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1561 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1561

 To amend title 11, United States Code, with respect to exceptions to 
    discharge in bankruptcy for certain qualified educational loans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 2007

  Mr. Durbin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 11, United States Code, with respect to exceptions to 
    discharge in bankruptcy for certain qualified educational loans.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL LOANS.

    Section 523(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``dependents, for'' and all that follows through subparagraph 
(B) and inserting ``dependents, for an educational benefit overpayment 
or loan made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or an 
obligation to repay funds received from a governmental unit as an 
educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 12
 CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS (BEFORE
FIXED CHARGES) TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK
DIVIDENDS
(In thousands, except ratios)
(Unaudited)
  Nine MonthsEnded
    
    
    Year Ended December 31,September 30,2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Fixed charges
    
    $
    104,945
    
    
    $
    258,453
    
    
    $
    275,648
    
    
    $
    235,521
    
    
    $
    106,909
    
    
    $
    44,939Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    15,180
    
    
    
    20,251
    
    
    
    20,256
    
    
    
    20,256
    
    
    
    20,256
    
    
    
    20,259Combined fixed charges and
preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    120,125
    
    
    $
    278,704
    
    
    $
    295,904
    
    
    $
    255,777
    
    
    $
    127,165
    
    
    $
    65,198Fixed charges
    
    $
    104,945
    
    
    $
    258,453
    
    
    $
    275,648
    
    
    $
    235,521
    
    
    $
    106,909
    
    
    $
    44,939Income from continuing
operations
    
    
    126,668
    
    
    
    125,923
    
    
    
    24,713
    
    
    
    3,843
    
    
    
    17,195
    
    
    
    39,869$
    231,613
    
    
    $
    384,376
    
    
    $
    300,361
    
    
    $
    239,364
    
    
    $
    124,104
    
    
    $
    84,808Ratio of income from continuing
operations (before fixed
charges) to combined fixed
charges and preferred
stock dividends
    
    
    1.93:1
    
    
    
    1.38:1
    
    
    
    1.02:1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.30:1Deficiency of income from
continuing operations (before
fixed charges) to combined
fixed charges and preferred
stock dividends
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    16,413
    
    
    $
    3,061
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 170 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 170

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
              telephone and other communications services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

    Mr. Ensign (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Coburn, Mr. 
    Stevens, Mr. McCain, Mr. Vitter, and Mr. Crapo) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
              telephone and other communications services.

    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 ``Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON TELEPHONE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS 
              SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 33 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to facilities and services) is amended by striking subchapter 
B.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 4293 of such Code is amended by striking 
        ``chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections 4064 and 
        4121) and subchapter B of chapter 33,'' and inserting ``and 
        chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections 4064 and 
        4121),''.
            (2)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 6302(e) of such Code is 
        amended by striking ``section 4251 or''.
            (B) Paragraph (2) of section 6302(e) of such Code is 
        amended--
                    (i) by striking ``imposed by--'' and all that 
                follows through ``with respect to'' and inserting 
                ``imposed by section 4261 or 4271 with respect to'', 
                and
                    (ii) by striking ``bills rendered or''.
            (C) The subsection heading for section 6302(e) of such Code 
        is amended by striking ``Communications Services and''.
            (3) Section 6415 of such Code is amended by striking 
        ``4251, 4261, or 4271'' each place it appears and inserting 
        ``4261 or 4271''.
            (4) Paragraph (2) of section 7871(a) of such Code is 
        amended by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), by 
        striking subparagraph (C), and by redesignating subparagraph 
        (D) as subparagraph (C).
            (5) The table of subchapters for chapter 33 of such Code is 
        amended by striking the item relating to subchapter B.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills first rendered more than 90 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02745-LTB

WILLIAM L. GLADNEY,

Applicant,

v.

PEOPLE OF COLORADO, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND REINSTATING CASE

This matter arises on the Motion to Reconsider (Doc. # 11) filed by Applicant, a

pro se prisoner litigant, on February 6, 2012. Applicant seeks reconsideration of the

Order of Dismissal and the Judgment entered on December 8, 2011. The Court must

construe the Motion liberally because Applicant is proceeding pro se. See Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.

1991). For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the Motion.

The Court dismissed this action without prejudice because Applicant failed to

comply with Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland’s October 28, 2011 Order directing him

to submit a current, certified copy of his prisoner’s trust fund statement. On January 3,

2012, Applicant filed a Motion to Reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) asking

that the dismissal be vacated. The Court denied the Rule 59(e) Motion because

Case 1:11-cv-02745-LTB Document 13 Filed 02/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Applicant failed to provide any reason or explanation that would explain his failure to

submit a certified account statement within the time provided.

Attached to the instant motion to reconsider, Applicant has submitted a

memorandum from the case manager at his facility. The memorandum explains that

Applicant’s case manager inadvertently provided him with an account statement that

was not certified. Based on the documentation Applicant has submitted, the Court finds

sufficient reason for vacating the dismissal. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Applicant’s Motion (Doc. # 11) is granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Order of Dismissal and the Judgment, entered on

December 8, 2011, are vacated. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to reinstate and

return this action to the Pro Se Docket. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to

Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action (Doc. No. 4) is

granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that process shall not issue until further order of the

Court.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 13th day of February , 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court 

Case 1:11-cv-02745-LTB Document 13 Filed 02/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5512-17T4

ROBERT J. TRIFFIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

YUM & CHILL MILLTOWN 

TB, LLC, 

Defendant-Respondent,

and

RUPAL D. PATEL and NIRAV 

MEHTA,

Defendants. 

______________________________

Argued December 4, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Haas and Enright.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Docket No. DC-018657-17.

Robert J. Triffin argued the cause pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

December 13, 2019
2

A-5512-17T4

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Robert J. Triffin appeals from the June 18, 2018 order dismissing 

his complaint against defendants Yum & Chill Milltown TB, LLC, Rupal D. 

Patel, and Nirav Mehta (collectively defendants) following a bench trial. The 

judge found that Triffin failed to establish his claim that defendants were liable 

to him for the face amount of a check they issued to an employee that was 

subsequently dishonored by a bank.1

On appeal, Triffin asserts the judge erred in dismissing his complaint 

against defendants, and presents the following contentions:

POINT ONE

THE TRIAL JUDGE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE 

ERROR WHEN HE RULED AFTER TRIAL THAT A 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO A PAYROLL SERVICE 

PROVIDER SATISFIES ITS OBLIGATIONS TO A 

HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.

POINT TWO

THE TRIAL JUDGE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE 

ERROR WHEN HE ASSUMED MATERIAL FACTS 

NOT IN EVIDENCE.

1

 Triffin purchased the dishonored check from a check cashing company that 

assigned its right to seek payment of the check to him.
3

A-5512-17T4

POINT THREE

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE 

ERROR WHEN HE ASSUMED THE CRITICAL 

FACT, THAT YUM & CHILL'S CO-DEFENDANT 

JOHNSON WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED[] THAT SHE 

FIRST ELECTRONICALLY DEPOSITED HER 

PAYROLL CHECK BEFORE CASHING IT WITH 

TRIFFIN'S ASSIGNOR.

Having considered Triffin's contentions in light of the record and 

applicable legal principles, we conclude they are without sufficient merit to 

warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             891
<SECURITIES>                                       399
<RECEIVABLES>                                      716
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (9)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,183
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,738
<PP&E>                                           1,495
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,340)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              798
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,051
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,551)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,298
<SALES>                                          5,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,761
<CGS>                                            3,787
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,787
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     25
<INCOME-TAX>                                       290
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (265)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (69)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (334)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>