alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[E&Y Logo] **********Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm****Board of Directors****SunTrust Bank**We have examined management's assertion included in the accompanying report of Certification  Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that SunTrust Bank (the "Company")  complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(4)(i), and 1122(d)(4)(ii) of  the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the residential mortgage loan servicing platform of SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Refer to  management's assertion for the asset backed transactions covered by this platform. Management is  responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to  express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the applicable 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 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 assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 for the residential mortgage loan servicing platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. **/s/ Ernst & Young LLP**March 6, 2008
#### State v. Roberson

Case below: 182 N.C. App. 133

No. 707P05-2

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA04-1645-2)

Denied 05/03/07
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 PML, Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB
for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth L. Minton, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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; and

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

/s/ Kenneth L. Minton
Kenneth L. Minton
Chief Executive Officer
PML, Inc
August 28, 2002
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.29


                           DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL, INC.

10304 Interstate 10 East, Suite 369                           Tel: 713-673-6432
Houston, Texas 77029                                           Fax:713-673-1966

                                LETTER AGREEMENT

         This LETTER AGREEMENT is entered into and effective as of the 1st day
of September, 1998 and continuing until August 31, 1999 (not withstanding the
date of actual execution) by and between DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL INC. and VISTA
HEALTHCARE INC.

                                   WITNESSETH

         Dynacq International Inc. agrees to provide, through its licensed
pharmacist, Chiu Moon Chan, as it has in the past, services including but not
limited to the following:

         1.   Pharmaceutical services for the benefit of Vista Healthcare Inc.
              and Ambulatory Surgical Care facility;

         2.   Inventory Control;

         3.   Storage of pharmaceuticals;

         4.   Distribution of pharmaceuticals;

         5.   Satisfaction all local, state and federal licensing requirements.

         Vista Healthcare Inc. agrees, as follows:

         1.   To pay Dynacq International Inc., in advance, Fifty Thousand
              Dollars ($50,000.00) annually for pharmaceutical services from
              Dynacq International Inc.;

         2.   That Vista Healthcare Inc. has not paid for these services for
              the contract years ending August 31, 1995 and August 31, 1998,
              and therefore agrees to pay One Hundred Thousand Dollars
              ($200,000.00) upon execution of this agreement.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Dynacq International Inc. and Vista Healthcare
Inc. have executed this agreement this 1st day of October 1998, but effective
as of the date first written above.

Vista Healthcare, Inc.                     Dynacq International, Inc.


By:      /s/  Glenn Rodriguez              By:    /s/  Philip Chan
   ---------------------------                ------------------------------
         Glenn Rodriguez                          Philip Chan
         President                                Vice President
#### James Jackson *against*Stone.

)hY|Sen?yof *?ect®c""" defendant'gives up the poss?3_ person” LÍaS plaintiff recovers judgment, . . such third person is liable for the *mtsna*profits; the repo very in ejectment is conclusive evidence against him, and he canned set up a title in himself as a bar.

THIS was an action of trespass, *iormesne profits,*which was tried before Mr. Justice *Platt,*at the *Greene*circuit, in *Sepfemher*1 81 T *lemotr,*1010.

The plaintiff, in this suit, commenced two actions of ejectment, in 1810, on the demise of *Joseph Atwood,*against *Samuel*
      *448
      *Baldwin*and *Benjamin Baldwin,*for lands in *Windham,*in,: the couniy 0f Greene, in which judgments were recovered, in *October*term, 1813, .whereon writs of possession were issued,; which were executed in *December*following. Previously, however, .to these judgments being obtained, the defendant had purchased from one *Scott*about 20 acres of the premises, for which he had received a deed in fee, with warranty,1 and called Upon the *Baldwins*to deliver to him the possession of the land contained in his deed, which they agreed to do, on; his' allowing them the appraised value of their improvements; they were appraised, the defendant not being present, at 140 dollars, and the *Baldwins*abandoned the possession ■ of about 20 acres to him, and remained in possession of the residue until they .were; turned out by the writs of possession before mentioned. The defendant, oft this trial, showed a perfect, title to. the premises Which he claimed. t , ;

A verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on á casé to be made, which was now submitted- to the court without argument.

*Per Curiam.*

The defendant, ás respecté' the title to the premises, stands in the same situation as the *Baldwins,*from whom he took the possession of the parcel of land,, for which the action of ejectment was brought, The defendant in an action of ejec tment cannot,, by giving up, the possession to a third person, after the commencement of the suit, defeat the effect of the recovery. It,is. perfectly well settled that a recovery In ejectment,: as far as respects the right to *mesne profits,*is conclusive of the title, as to the land possessed by the defendant when the action was brought, into whose hands soever it may subsequently pass, by transmutation Of the possession from the defendant in ejectment.

The plaintiff must have-judgment.
<PAGE>


                                                      Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
Nos. 33-56354, 33-70632, 33-72752, 33-83956, 33-94756, 333-06733, and 333-06939
on Form S-8, Registration Statements No. 333-11029, 333-11031, and 333-17453
of the Company on Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 333-34021 on
Form S-4 of HFS Incorporated (the "Company") of our report dated March 31, 1997,
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company related to the
consolidated balance sheets of HFS Incorporated and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related statements of income, stockholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 1996.



Deloitte & Touche LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
March 31, 1997
1The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Judge for

the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3888

___________

Forrest Mittendorf, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

James Purkett; Marilyn Schleappe; *

Travis Grubbs, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: March 27, 2000

 Filed: April 3, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Forrest Mittendorf appeals from the district court’s1 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the

superintendent, a nurse supervisor, and a security aide at the Farmington Correctional
-2-

Center. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781,

783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we conclude dismissal was proper. 

First, Mr. Mittendorf--by claiming that the superintendent has falsely imprisoned

him--has challenged the validity of his conviction or sentence, without alleging that

either has been affected adversely. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87

(1994) (§ 1983 action should be dismissed if judgment would necessarily imply

invalidity of conviction or sentence, unless conviction or sentence was reversed,

expunged, declared invalid, or called into question). Second, his bare allegations that

he was assigned to rake leaves and move heavy furniture, and that he had been

assigned to clean toilets, which led to the yard-work assignment, also do not state a

viable constitutional claim. See Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1373-74 (8th Cir.

1993). Third, Mr. Mittendorf appears to challenge the confiscation of money in his

checking account, but this also does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (intentional deprivation of property

does not violate due process when meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available).

Finally, we conclude the district court properly denied Mr. Mittendorf permission to

add the State of Missouri as a defendant. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police,

491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989) (state is not “person” under § 1983); Williams v. Missouri, 973

F.2d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (Missouri has not waived sovereign

immunity for § 1983 claims). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 98 (Friday, May 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24048-24049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11985]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72-7-EA; ASLBP No. 09-888-03-EA-BD01]


Detroit Edison Company; Establishment of Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board

    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972 
(37 FR 28710), and the Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR 2.106, 
2.300, 2.313(a), and 2.318, notice is hereby given that an Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board (Board) is being established to preside over 
the following proceeding:

Detroit Edison Company Fermi Power Plant

(Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation)

    This proceeding concerns a Petition to Intervene dated May 7, 2009 
from Beyond Nuclear, et al., that was submitted in response to an April 
17, 2009 notice issued by the NRC Staff that provided the Issuance of 
Order for Implementation of Additional Security Measures and 
Fingerprinting for Unescorted Access to Detroit Edison Company (74 FR 
17890).
    The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:

Ronald M. Spritzer, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Michael F. Kennedy, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Randall J. Charbeneau, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed 
in accordance with the NRC E-Filing Rule, which the NRC promulgated in 
August 2007 (72 FR 49139).


[[Page 24049]]


    Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of May 2009.
E. Roy Hawkens,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-11985 Filed 5-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### Henry T. Lau, Appellant, v Margaret E. Pescatore Parking, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[964 NYS2d 39]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered August 10, 2012, which, in this personal injury action, granted defendants’ motion to vacate the note of issue, and directed that plaintiff appear for a further deposition and provide additional outstanding discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*595The motion court providently exercised its discretion in striking the note of issue and reopening discovery upon defendants’ showing that there were several items of discovery still outstanding *(see Nielsen v New York State Dormitory Auth.,*84 AD3d 519, 520 [1st Dept 2011]). Given the general policy of this State to encourage “open and far-reaching pretrial discovery” *(Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp.,*92 NY2d 952, 954 [1998] [internal quotation marks omitted]), the motion court providently exercised its discretion in determining that plaintiff’s counsel had unduly objected to questions asking plaintiff to identify the location of his accident in photographs, and to questions concerning statements plaintiff may have made to others after the accident. “[I]f there is any possibility that the information is sought in good faith for possible use as evidence-in-chief or in rebuttal or for cross-examination, it should be considered evidence material ... in the prosecution or defense” and thus should be disclosed pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) *CAllen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co.,*21 NY2d 403, 407 [1968] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Further, defendants made an adequate showing that they were entitled to authorizations for the medical providers who treated plaintiff’s conditions related to his vision and feet, given the nature of his accident and claimed damages. The motion court also providently exercised its discretion in directing plaintiff to provide other authorizations, despite his claim to have previously done so, as both defendants claimed to not have received them, and the record is inconclusive on the matter.

Concur—Andrias, J.P, Acosta, Freedman and Richter, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 12, 2020

No. 04

- 18

- 00834

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.H., a Child

,

Appellant

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 20578

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sand ee Bryan Marion , Ch ief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Appellant ’ s motion for rehearing is denied.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of February, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          10,498
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,060
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,558
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 290,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          180,652
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,348
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   290,558
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (30,735)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       170
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (30,894)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (30,894)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.007)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.007)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000890855
<NAME>                        ENEX OIL & GAS INCOME PROGRAM V - SERIES 5, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                         50792
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  41372
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               95011
<PP&E>                                         1184198
<DEPRECIATION>                                 616145
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 676202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          41918
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     634284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   676202
<SALES>                                        470696
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               470696
<CGS>                                          358118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  433208
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               75090
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   37598
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Chandel B., an Infant. Chandel B., Sr., Appellant; Episcopal Social Services, Respondent.

[872 NYS2d 438]

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about March 12, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from, determined that respondent father’s consent was not required for the adoption of the subject child and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The consent of respondent to the adoption of his child was not required since he did not maintain “substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child” (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]). Respondent admitted to never providing financial support for the child *(see Matter of Margaret Jeanette P,*30 AD3d 359 [2006]), and the evidence shows that he did not make any effort to visit or communicate with the child for most of the child’s life, took no steps to formalize his relationship to his son, and made no attempt to participate in the neglect proceedings against him and the child’s mother *(see Matter of Sharissa G,*51 AD3d 1019 [2008]). Furthermore, respondent’s *548contention that he was prevented from maintaining contact with the child by the agency is belied by the record.

The court’s determination that it would be in the child’s best interests to free him for adoption is supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). There is no indication that respondent is capable of caring for his son and the record establishes that the child is doing well in his preadoptive home, which he shares with two of his siblings.

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Gonzalez, Sweeny, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.