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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2732 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2732

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
       coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel DIXIE.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 1993

   Mr. Baker of California introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
       coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel DIXIE.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel 
DIXIE (official number 513159).

                                 <all>
```
EX-34.7
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
Suite 2000
355 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1568



Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


The Board of Directors
Countrywide Bank, FSB:


We have examined management's assessment, included in the Assessment of
Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that Treasury Bank, a division of
Countrywide Bank, FSB (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
for publicly issued HELOC and other residential mortgage-backed securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (the Platform), specifically Items
1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii), for which the Company provides custodial
operations of pool assets and related documents, as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007. Management has determined that all other criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the Company because the Company does not
perform activities with respect to the Platform relating to those criteria.
Schedule A to the Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria
identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by
management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assessment about the Company's compliance
based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures, as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform,
testing selected 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 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.



(page)



In our opinion, management's assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007
is fairly stated in all material respects.


/s/ KPMG LLP



Los Angeles, California
February 28, 2008



2

KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
#### Alexander CAMERON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-7955.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 22, 2007.

Decided: March 29, 2007.

Alexander Cameron, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Cameron seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assess*339ment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cameron has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Cameron’s motion to direct his correctional institution to provide him copies of legal documents free of charge. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
2001-0524.

#### State v. Brown.

Mahoning App. No. 96 C.A. 56. By entry filed June 17, 2009, this court ordered that appellant’s sentence be carried into execution on Thursday, February 4, 2010. In order to facilitate this court’s timely consideration of any matters relating to the execution of appellant’s sentence,

It is ordered by the court that the Chief Justice may suspend application of any provisions of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court, including but not limited to the filing requirements imposed by S.Ct.Prac.R. 14.1.

It is further ordered that service of documents as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. 14.2 shall be personal, by facsimile transmission, or by email.

It is further ordered that counsel of record for the parties shall provide this court with a copy of any document relating to this matter that is filed in or issued by any other court in this state or any federal court, as well as any commutation, pardon, or warrant of reprieve issued by the governor. A copy of the document shall be delivered to the Office of the Clerk as soon as possible, either personally, by facsimile transmission, or by email.
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Terrance J. Lillis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of PrincipalLife Income Fundings Trust 2007-29 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report isincluded in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 27, 2008   /s/ Terrance J. Lillis   Terrance J. Lillis  Chief Financial Officer- Retirement and Investor Services
Exhibit 32(b)
 CORE MOLDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 /s/ Herman F. Dick, Jr.Herman F. Dick, Jr.Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer
and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 12, 2008
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of E.B.N.R., a child, * From the 318th District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. FM58,482.

No. 11-16-00086-CV * July 28, 2016

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q/A of IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the Report), I, Kendra A. Borrego, Chief Financial Officer of IMPAC Medical
Systems, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | such 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 such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc..
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



April 16, 2004



/s/ KENDRA A. BORREGOKendra A. BorregoChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated July 16, 2020, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2027 contained in Amendment No.
1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-237695) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


July 16, 2020
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 22, 2010 

d1115 

Order 

 

November 22, 2010 

141716 & (18) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141716 

 COA: 298130 

Oakland CC: 2008-222486-FH 

GACOLBY TARSHAR MOORE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 13, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for the 

appointment of substitute appellate counsel, in light of Halbert v Michigan, 545 US 605; 

125 S Ct 2582; 162 L Ed 2d 552 (2005). Based on our review of the record, the Oakland 

Circuit Court erred in failing to timely appoint appellate counsel. This delay, in turn, led 

the defendant to seek appellate relief in the Court of Appeals beyond the 12-month 

deadline in MCR 7.205(F)(3). We further note that on July 14, 2010, the circuit court 

entered an order granting appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and also granting the 

appointment of substitute counsel, but there is no indication that substitute counsel was in 

fact appointed. Once appointed, substitute counsel may file an application for leave to 

appeal in the Court of Appeals, and/or any appropriate postconviction motions in the trial 

court, within six months of the date of the circuit court’s order appointing counsel. 

Counsel may include among the issues raised, but is not required to include, the issue 

raised by the defendant in his application for leave to appeal in this Court. In all other 

respects, the application for leave to appeal and the motion to remand are DENIED, 

because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by 

this Court. 

 We do not retain jurisdiction.
EstForgnNBR Establishment Name Date Listed Date Delisted Date Relisted

LT17EB Biovela-Utenos Mesa, UAB 10/30/2015

LT5304EB UAB Krekenavos Agrofirma (formerly AB Krekenavos Agrofirma) 10/30/2015

LT6805EB UAB Orka Foods 11/08/2021

Underlined/bolded establishments are restricted from shipping the following products due to APHIS disease restrictions for ASF: Not Heat Treated - 

Shelf Stable, Heat Treated but Not Fully Cooked - Not Shelf Stable, and Products with Secondary Inhibitors - Not Shelf Stable

May 22, 2023

Lithuania - Eligible Plants Certified to Export Meat to the United States

Updated items marked with an asterisk (*)
Form 8940 must be submitted electronically through 

Pay.gov. You can access the most recent version of the 

form at Pay.gov.

Go to www.irs.gov/Form8940 for more information.
2009-1779.

#### State v. Pryor.

Hamilton App. No. C-070108. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
2009-1215.

#### Mathys v. Kuhlman.

Ottawa App. No. OT-08-037, 2009-Ohio-2420. Discretionary appeal not accepted. Motions to strike notice of appeal and to dismiss the appeal denied as moot.
| Loans RE        Mtges.InvestmentsOwned        AssetsCharge-offsSecuritiesOA/Judgments58.1%    9.3%7.0%4.7%7.0%2.3%11.6%
                      Source: Reports from FDIC Division of Finance

Back to Chart
 19791980198119821983Other626640606597640Liquidation4234604297781,153    Supervision    2,5402,5442,3592,1292,053Total3,5983,6443,3943,5043,846

                      Source: FDIC, 2001 Annual Report

Back          to Chart |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>   1



                                   Exhibit 11

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED             NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                        ---------------------------  ----------------------------
                                                        September 30   September 30  September 30    September 30
                                                           1996           1997           1996            1997
===================================================================================  ============================
<S>                                                          <C>      <C>                 <C>        <C>        
Shares outstanding at beginning of period, exclusive                                                            
of cheap stock                                               93,225   4,228,500           93,225     612,800    
Weighted average shares:                                                                                        
Issued pursuant to Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83         931,390                      931,390
Issued in connection with the VPI Acquisition                                                      1,147,222    
Issued in the IPO, including the over-allotment                                                    1,770,963    
Issued to convert debt to common shares                                                              224,730    
Common stock equivalent shares related to stock options                  50,759                       44,160    
                                                          ---------   ---------        ---------   ---------    
Weighted average shares outstanding at end of period      1,024,615   4,279,259        1,024,615   3,799,875    
                                                          =========   =========        =========   =========    
</TABLE>
#### SHELL OIL COMPANY and Atlantic Richfield Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2010-5161.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 4, 2011.

*431Michael W. Kirk, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Kyle E. Chadwick, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The United States moves to summarily vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims and remand or, in the alternative, for a stay of proceedings. Shell Oil Company and Atlantic Richfield Company oppose. The United States replies.

We deem the better course is to deny the United States’ motions without prejudice to the United States raising its issues in its briefs.

Accordingly,

It Is OrdeRed That:

(1) The motions are denied.

(2) The United States’ brief is due within 40 days from the date of filing of this order.
Executive Order 13203

# Revocation of Executive Order and Presidential 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered that:

**Section 1.**Executive Order 12871 of October 1, 1993, as amended by Executive Orders 12983 and 13156, which established the National Partnership Council and requires Federal agencies to form labor-management partnerships for management purposes, is revoked. Among other things, therefore, the National Partnership Council is immediately dissolved.                

**Sec. 2.**                     The Presidential Memorandum of October 28, 1999, entitled “Reaffirmation of Executive Order 12871—Labor-Management Partnerships” (the “Memorandum”), which reaffirms and expands upon the requirements of Executive Order 12871 of October 1, 1993, is also revoked.                

**Sec. 3.**                     The Director of the Office of Personnel Management and heads of executive agencies shall promptly move to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing Executive Order 12871 of October 1, 1993, or the Memorandum, to the extent consistent with law.                

**Sec. 4.**                     Nothing in this order shall abrogate any collective bargaining agreements in effect on the date of this order.                 

[FR Doc. 01-4623

Billing code 3195-01-P
|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.      78m(a) or 78o(d)) and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of      operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by      the Report. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May 14,    2009 | /s/ James      Westfall                         |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             | James Westfall                                                                                                                                                          |
|                             | Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                 |
|                             | (Principal Financial  Officer                                                                                                                                           |

----
#### Jason Carl THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-7447.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2014.

Decided: April 28, 2014.

*240Jason Carl Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jason Carl Thomas, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Thomas v. United States,*No. 5:13-hc-02050-D (E.D.N.C. July 8, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*