alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Byrd v. Ecofibers, Inc.

Case below: 182 N.C. App.-(17 April 2007)

No. 229P07

Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-807).

Denied 08/23/07
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                             245,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,354,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,343,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,225,000
<PP&E>                                           3,648,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,127,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,726,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,490,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                         3,041,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,583,000
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,726,000
<SALES>                                          2,042,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,042,000
<CGS>                                            1,783,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,799,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (753,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       221,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (974,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (974,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bradley HOLMES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50305.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 18, 2006.

Renee M. Bunker, USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Matthew C. Winter, FDCA — Federal Defender’s of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*161Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Bradley Holmes appeals from the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. In light of Holmes’s response to this court’s September 22, 2006, order to show cause confirming that he has been released from custody, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. *See United States v. Palomba,*182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.1999).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[PHH Logo] 3000 Leadenhall Road  Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 **R E P O R T   O N   C O M P L I A N C E   W I T H   R E G U L A T I O N   A B****S E R V I C I N G   C R I T E R I A******PHH Mortgage Corporation (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2007 and for the period from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the "CFR"), except for criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d)(3)(i)(c), (d)(4)(ii), (d)(4)(xv), and (d)(1)(iii) of the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the servicing activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria").  The criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d)(4)(vii) and (D)(4)(xi) of the CFR are performed by outsource providers on behalf of the Asserting Party; however, the Asserting Party has monitored the outsourcing of these criteria and assumes responsibility for compliance.  The transactions covered by this report include all non-agency loan sale agreements executed after January 1, 2006 as well as all re-securitization transactions after January 1, 2006 for which the Asserting Party served as the Servicer (the "Platform"). The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2007 and for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Servicing Criteria with respect to the Platform taken as a whole. Deloitte & Touche, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion. PHH Mortgage Corporation Date: February 28, 2008 /s/ Terence W. Edwards Terence W. Edwards President and Chief Executive Officer /s/ Mark Danahy Mark Danahy Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer /s/ Martin L. Foster Martin L. Foster Senior Vice President  Loan Servicing
**Report on Assessment of Compliance****with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria**1. The undersigned authorized officer of LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc. (the "Company") is responsible for assessing the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as defined in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d)(4) (xi) and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the "Regulation AB Servicing Criteria') for residential and commercial mortgage backed securities for which the Company served as third-party property tax payment provider on the underlying collateral (the "Platform"). Except as set forth in the preceding sentence, the servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d) are not applicable to the activities the Company performed with respect to the Platform. 2, The Company used the criteria in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d) to assess the compliance with the applicable Regulation AB Servicing Criteria. 3.Under one of the services offered by the Company, some customers may elect to remit tax payments directly to tax agencies without having the Company remit those property tax payments through our tax payment service. We refer to these customers as "non-outsourced servicer customers." With respect to these non-outsourced customers and the services the Company delivered pursuant to the servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section I122(d)(4)(xi), the Company's assertion is strictly limited to its processing of tax payments submitted through the Company's tax payment service. 4.With respect to servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d)(4)(xii), the Company's assertion is strictly limited to its processing of property tax penalty payments. The Company has determined that its servicer customers may also have access to systems that enable those servicers to process penalties through obligor escrow accounts. Management's assessment  of compliance does not relate to the actual or potential activities of other parties with access to obligor escrow accounts. 5.Based on such assessment, management believes that, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, the Company has complied in all material respects with the Regulation AB Servicing Criteria related to the servicing of the Platform taken as a whole. 6.The registered public accounting firm of Grant Thornton, LLP, has issued an attestation report on the Company's assessment of compliance with the Regulation AB Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Date: February 6, 2008 LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc. /s/ Robert Ige By:  Name:  Robert Ige Its: Executive Vice President
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT


         This is the Fourth Amendment to the Consulting Agreement dated
May 7, 1998 by and between Anthony P. Terracciano, an individual whose mailing
address is 1123 3rd Avenue, Spring Lake, New Jersey  07762 ("Consultant") and
American Water Works Company, Inc. (the "Company"), a Delaware corporation.

                            BACKGROUND

         Consultant and the Company entered into a consulting agreement dated
May 7, 1998.  Consultant has provided the consulting and advisory services
requested to date by the Company.  Consultant and the Company have agreed
to extend the term of the consulting agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties
agree to amend Section 2 of the Agreement in its entirety as follows:

         2.  Term.  The term of this Agreement shall commence on May 7, 1998
and shall continue for a period of 36 months.  The term of this Agreement
may be extended thereafter by mutual agreement of Consultant and the Board.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment.

                                  AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC.


             By:                Marilyn Ware
                                Chairman of the Board of Directors

                                CONSULTANT:
                                Anthony P. Terracciano
May 4, 2000
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1103

JAMES E. BUCKINGHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA99-965-S) Submitted: June 13, 2000 Decided: June 30, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Lee Belsky, Kimberly Ann Alley, SCHLACHMAN, BELSKY & WEINER, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; Daniel S. Katz, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Larry D. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:James E. Buckingham appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the United States and dismissal of his complaint brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680(1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Buckingham v. United States ,No. CA-99-965-S (D. Md. Jan. 3, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00452]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. chapter 35).
    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.
    Title: Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic 
Survey.
    OMB Control Number: 0607-0354.
    Form Number(s): There are no forms. We conduct all interviews on 
computers.
    Type of Request: Emergency review.
    Number of Respondents: 78,000.
    Average Hours per Response: 0.41667.
    Burden Hours: 32,500.
    Needs and Uses: The income data from the ASEC are used by social 
planners, economists, government officials, and market researchers to 
gauge the economic well-being of the country as a whole, and selected 
population groups of interest. Government planners and researchers use 
these data to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of various 
assistance programs. Market researchers use these data to identify and 
isolate potential customers. Social planners use these data to forecast 
economic conditions and to identify special groups that seem to be 
especially sensitive to economic fluctuations. Economists use ASEC data 
to determine the effects of various economic forces, such as inflation, 
recession, recovery, and so on, and their differential effects on 
various population groups.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Section 182; and 
Title 29, United States Code, Sections 1-9.

    This information collection request may be viewed at 
www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce 
collections currently under review by OMB.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 14 days of publication of this notice 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#024d4b50435d5177606f6b71716b6d6c426d6f602c676d722c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b1fef8e3f0eee2c4d3dcd8c2c2d8dedff1dedcd39fd4dec19fd6dec7">[email protected]</span></a> or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: January 9, 2015.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-00452 Filed 1-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M ATTHEW

C R AIG R UB IN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50261

D.C . No. 2:04-c r-00515-R GK M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 25, 2014 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s. M atthe w C ra ig R

ubin a ppe a ls from the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt a n d c ha lle nge s the 78-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for c onduc ting tra

nsa c tions in c rim ina lly

de rive d prope rty , in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED JUN 27 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1957, a

nd witne ss ta

m p e ring, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1512(b)(1). W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . R ubin c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by de ny ing his re que st for a downwa rd a djustm e nt for a c c e pta nc e of re sponsibility

unde r U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 de spitehis se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt for obstruc tion of justic e unde r se c tion 3C 1.1. W e re vie wthe distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination of whe t he r a de fe n da nt ha s a c c e pte d re sponsibility

for c le a r e rror. Se eUnite d State

s v . Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th C ir. 2010). The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in finding tha

t R u bin’ s obstruc tion of justic e , inc luding his flight to Me xic o while se nte nc i ng wa s pe nding in this c a s e , wa s inc onsiste nt with a c c e pta nc e of re sponsibility . Se eid . at 1066-67. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 0 2 6 1 2
|                       |   |                         |   |   |
|----------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                       |   |                         |   |   |
|  August      14, 2009 |   | /s/      J. Collier Sparks   |   |   |
|                       |   |                         |   |   |
|                       |   | J.      Collier Sparks       |   |   |
|                       |   | Chief      Executive Officer |   |   |
|                       |   |                         |   |   |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1636 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1636

  To amend title 39, United States Code, to maintain certain service 
        standards for first-class mail, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2023

Mr. Krishnamoorthi introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
             the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 39, United States Code, to maintain certain service 
        standards for first-class mail, 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 ``Delivering Envelopes Judiciously On-
time Year-round Act'' or the ``DEJOY Act''.

SEC. 2. SERVICE STANDARDS FOR FIRST-CLASS MAIL.

    Section 3691 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(e) Service Standards for First-Class Mail.--Notwithstanding any 
other provision of this title, the service standards for first-class 
mail shall be such standards as in effect on January 1, 2021.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 PharMerica Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory S. Weishar, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended, and

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



/s/    GREGORY S.
WEISHARGregory S. Weishar Chief Executive Officer and Director February 19, 2008
Exhibit
      10.48

    Summary
      of Non-Employee Director Cash Compensation

     

    
      	Annual
              Cash Retainer:	 	$	20,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Annual
              Committee Fee:	 	$	3,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Annual
              Committee Chair Fee:	 	$	5,000
#### In the Matter of Isaac J., Appellant. Monroe County Attorney, Respondent.

[971 NYS2d 725]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Gail A. Donofrio, J.), entered January 3, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order adjudicated respondent to be a juvenile delinquent.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of disposition adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent based on the finding that he had committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]). We reject respondent’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he intended to cause physical injury to the victim or that the victim sustained such injury (see *Matter of Santoshia L.,*202 AD2d 1027, 1027 [1994]; *see also People v Stearns,*72 AD3d 1214, 1217 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 778 [2010]). Although we conclude that a different result would not have been unreasonable inasmuch as respondent testified to a version of the incident different from that presented by petitioner, we perceive no basis to disturb Family Court’s resolution of witness credibility *(see Matter of Eric A.,*66 AD3d 603, 603 [2009]; *Matter of Brooke II.,*45 AD3d 1234, 1234-1235 [2007]). We further conclude that the court did not fail “to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded” *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; *see Matter of Travis D.,*1 AD3d 968, 969 [2003]). Present — Smith, J.P, Peradotto, Garni and Lindley, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Lawrence A. Goldstein et al., Appellants, v 12 Broadway Realty LLC, Respondent.

[961 NYS2d 919]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 25, 2012, which denied petitioners’ motion to, among other things, vacate an arbitration appraisal of real property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s appraiser notified petitioners’ appraiser of a real estate transaction involving principals of respondent and the proposed neutral third appraiser’s firm and offered petitioners’ appraiser the opportunity to follow up with the neutral third appraiser to obtain additional information. Petitioners, however, did not inquire further. Instead, petitioners retained *507the third appraiser and proceeded with the arbitration. Accordingly, the court properly determined that petitioners waived any objections they had in connection with the alleged relationship between the third appraiser and respondent *(see Matter of Namdar [Mirzoeff],*161 AD2d 348 [1st Dept 1990], *lv denied*77 NY2d 802 [1991], *cert denied*501 US 1251 [1991]).

Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Abdus-Salaam, Román and Clark, JJ.