alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.3

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Corey E. Shaker, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hometown Auto
Retailers, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
      being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
      quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
      evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
      controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
      registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


November 12, 2002                      /s/ Corey E. Shaker
                                       -------------------------------------
                                       Corey E. Shaker
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       37
Exhibit 35.6



|     |  |  |  |                                                                                                                        
|---- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  | Corporate Trust Services
 MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road Columbia, MD 21045
 Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380

Citibank, N.A.

388 Greenwich
Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|RE: | Annual Statement of Compliance for Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2012-1
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of January 1, 2014 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized
officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period):

(a) A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such
officers supervision; and

(b) To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 1, 2016



|              
|--------------
|LOGO          
|              
|Kristen Cronin
|Vice President



|                       |  |  |  |     
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  |  |  | LOGO
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7831

EDWARD LONNIE MCCARROLL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JAMES B. HUNT; FRANKLIN FREEMAN; EDWARD

DEVITO; SHELLY S. HOLT; ERNEST B. FULLWOOD;

WILLIAM J. BONEY, JR.; JOSEPH MCQUEEN, JR.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CA-95-916-5-F)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Lonnie McCarroll, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. McCarroll v. Hunt, No. CA-95-916-5-F (E.D.N.C. Nov. 2,

1995). 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
### Tertiary stratigraphy and paleobotany of the Cook Inlet region, Alaska

By: J. A. WolfeD.M. HopkinsE. B. Leopold

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp398A

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (4393 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (2573 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 2**                            (593 pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# DOD, Japan MOD Sign Technology and Security of Supply Arrangements

Department of Defense

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
#### § 115.703 May we accept for deposit into a trust account money not specified in § 115.702?

No, we will not accept funds from sources that are not identified in the table in § 115.702 for deposit into a trust account.
#### § 101.12 Records and reports.

Loan agreements between the United States and tribes, corporations, partnerships, cooperative associations and individual Indians for financing economic enterprises, and to relending organizations, will require that borrowers establish and maintain accounting and operating records that are satisfactory to the Commissioner and submit written reports as required by the Commissioner. The records, accounts, and loan files shall be available for examination and audit by the Commissioner at any reasonable time. Unless an exception is approved by the Commissioner, borrowers will be required to have an annual audit made of the records of relending programs and economic enterprises financed with revolving loan funds, by a certified public accountant or a firm of certified public accountants or other qualified public accountants satisfactory to the Commissioner.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60695

Summary Calendar

GLENN A. HERRINGTON,

Petitioner,

versus

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review from a Final Order

of the Federal Aviation Administration

(97-SW-08)

August 28, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This is a petition for review brought by Glenn Herrington

following an adverse ruling of the FAA Appeals Panel. The FAA

reassigned Herrington and downgraded him in pay based upon his

alleged falsification of time records, failure to attend a

mandatory meeting, and possession of a conflict of in terest.

Herrington appealed , and the Appeals Panel found sufficient

evidence to susta in only the record falsification and attendance

charges, but it upheld the penalty imposed by the FAA. Herrington

now seeks review from this court.2

In his original brief, Herrington does not explicitly

challenge the findings of the Appeals Panel, which we find amply

supported by the record anyway. Rather, Herrington raises a number

of procedural challenges. He first complains that he was denied

union representation at the Appeals Panel hearing, a right which is

provided to certain FAA employees under a federal col lective

bargaining agreement. Although he was demoted to a position that

carries with it a right to union representation, at t he time his

demotion was imposed, Herrington was a supervisory employee without

union-representation rights. Because Herrington was not a member

of the bargaining unit at the time the adverse employment action

was taken against him, he is not entitled to rely u p on the

grievance procedures of the collective bargaining agreement. See

Devine v. Levin

, 739 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Indeed, if

Herrington were c overed by the collective bargaining agreement,

then he would not be entitled to an appeal with the FAA Appeals

Panel, which he himself sought.

Herrington also cites several er rors in the manner in which

his Appeals Panel hearing was conducted. Our review of the record

reveals that Herrington failed to object to these purported errors

during the hearing and, in fact, expressly acquiesced in many of

them. Having failed to object, Herrington waived these purported

errors. S ee 49 U.S.C. § 46110. We are convinced that the Appeals

Panel hearing was conducted in a fair manner and produced a

reliable result.

PETITION DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                   BD
<MULTIPLIER>                1,000
<CURRENCY>                  USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                     1.00
<CASH>                              6,690
<RECEIVABLES>                      39,429
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                     0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                   0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                78,089
<PP&E>                             10,282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    151,724
<SHORT-TERM>                       30,500
<PAYABLES>                         22,249
<REPOS-SOLD>                            0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                     0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                 51,659
<LONG-TERM>                             0
<COMMON>                            7,345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              13,847
<PREFERRED>                             0
<OTHER-SE>                         26,124
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      151,724
<TRADING-REVENUE>                  80,250
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                  297
<COMMISSIONS>                           0
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>           0
<FEE-REVENUE>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<COMPENSATION>                     23,323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    20,457
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       20,457
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       27.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                       27.85
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                        Amendment to Clearing Agreement

     The undersigned hereby amend the clearing agreement dated as of September
28, 1999, between Broadcort Capital Corp. (the "Clearing Firm") and Knight
Securities, L.P. (hereinafter referred to as the "Introducing Firm") in the
manner set forth herein.

     WHEREAS, the Introducing Firm and the Clearing Firm desire to amend the
clearing agreement to provide for rights and responsibilities associated with
rehypothecation of securities and the receipt of control and restricted
securities,

     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set
forth and other good and valuable consideration the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby covenant and agree as folllows:


     A.   The Introducing Firm shall be responsible for all matters associated
          with the receipt and transfer of controlled and restricted securities
          by its clients. Any securities presented by the Introducing Firm's
          clients shall be in fully negotiable form upon receipt by the Clearing
          Firm.

     B.   The Clearing Firm (and not the Introducing Firm) shall have the right
          to rehypothecate any securities owned by the Introducing Firm's
          clients if such securities are not fully paid for.


This Agreement shall become effective as of October 18, 1999 or such other date
mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto.

Made and executed at New York, New York on this 18th day of October, 1999.


                                          BROADCORT CAPITAL CORP.

                                          By /s/ Gregory T. Russo
                                            -----------------------------

                                          Title:   General Counsel
                                                -------------------------


                                          KNIGHT SECURITIES, L.P.

                                          By /s/ Michael T. Dorsey
                                            -----------------------------
                                          Title: SVP & General Counsel
                                                -------------------------


                                       25
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: March 17, 2016 520521 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK ex rel. NAKIA 

CHANEY, 

Appellant,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DOMINIC DAGOSTINO, as 

Schenectady County Sheriff,

 et al.,

Respondents.

________________________________

Calendar Date: January 19, 2016

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ.

__________

Nakia Chaney, Johnstown, appellant pro se.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Caruso, J.)

entered January 15, 2015 in Schenectady County, which dismissed

petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a

proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding claiming

to be illegally detained at the Schenectady County Correctional

Facility. Supreme Court dismissed petitioner's application based

upon petitioner's failure to satisfy the pleading requirements,

including his failure to verify the petition and to attach to it

the mandate under which he was detained or an explanation for why

that mandate could not be obtained (see CPLR 7002 [c]). This

appeal followed, and we affirm.

Having reviewed the record, we agree with Supreme Court,

which is bound by the record before it, that the petition is
-2- 520521 

defective for failing to strictly comply with the requirements of

CPLR 7002 (c) (see People ex rel. Reynoso v McGinnis, 282 AD2d

788, 788 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 718 [2001]; People ex rel.

Fisher v Stinson, 232 AD2d 697, 697 [1996], appeal dismissed 89

NY2d 915 [1996]) inasmuch as the petition was not verified (see

CPLR 7002 [c]; People ex rel. Kearney v Bartlett, 131 AD3d 1313,

1314 [2015]; People ex rel. Walsh v Sabourin, 305 AD2d 759, 759

[2003]) and failed to attach or annex to it the mandate under

which petitioner is detained or an explanation for why a copy of

that mandate could not be obtained (see CPLR 7002 [c] [1]; People

ex rel. Medina v Senkowski, 265 AD2d 779, 779 [1999]). Nor did

petitioner's request to amend or supplement his petition include

a copy of the mandate or an explanation for his failure to

produce it. The remaining issues advanced by petitioner are

inappropriate in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding

because they could have been advanced on either his direct appeal

or in a CPL article 440 motion (see People ex rel. Allen v

Maribel, 107 AD3d 831, 832 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 853 [2013];

People ex rel. Backman v Walsh, 101 AD3d 1316, 1316 [2012], lv

denied 20 NY3d 863 [2013], cert denied ___ US ___, 134 S Ct 84

[2013]). 

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 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 as of the
dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
  By:
    
    /s/ Philip  Cook
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Glenn DardenPhilip CookSenior Vice President  Chief Financial Officer
    
    
    
    Glenn DardenPresident and Chief Executive Officer
### §14309. Acceptance of promotion; oath of office

(a) Acceptance.—An officer who is appointed to a higher grade under this chapter shall be considered to have accepted the appointment on the date on which the appointment is made unless the officer expressly declines the appointment or is granted a delay of promotion under section 14312 of this title.

(b) Oath.—An officer who has served continuously since taking the oath of office prescribed in section 3331 of title 5 is not required to take a new oath upon appointment to a higher grade under this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1611, Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2938.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in sections 3394 and 8394 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–337, §1629(a)(1), (c)(1).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1996, see section 1691(b)(1) of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as a note under section 10001 of this title.
§ 11.1010 Adjudicatory hearing. ( a ) The children's court shall conduct the adjudicatory hearing for the sole purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the minor. The hearing shall be private and closed.
( b ) All the rights listed in § 11.906 shall be afforded the parties at the adjudicatory hearing. The notice requirements of § 11.906(a) are met by a summons issued pursuant to § 11.1009.
( c ) If the minor admits the allegations of the petition, the children's court shall proceed to the dispositional stage only if the children's court finds that: ( 1 ) The minor fully understands his or her rights as set forth in § 11.906 of this part and fully understands the potential consequences of admitting the allegations;
( 2 ) The minor voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly admits to all facts necessary to constitute a basis for children's court action; and
( 3 ) The minor has not, in the purported admission to the allegations, set forth facts which, if found to be true, constitute a defense to the allegations.
( d ) The children's court shall hear testimony concerning the circumstances which gave rise to the complaint.
( e ) If the allegations of the petition are sustained by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the children's court shall find the minor to be a juvenile offender and proceed to the dispositional hearing.
( f ) A finding that a minor is a juvenile offender constitutes a final order for purposes of appeal.
#### H. D. Taylor Company, Respondent, v. Niagara Bedstead Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.