alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31
                                                                    ----------



                                 CERTIFICATION


             I, David A. Spector, certify that:

             1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all
             reports on Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports
             filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this
             annual report of, Aames Mortgage Investment Trust 2005-2, Series
             2005-2;

             2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken
             as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the
             period covered by this annual report;

             3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing
             information required to be provided to the trustee by the master
             servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement,
             for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

             4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement
             included in the report and required to be delivered to the
             trustee in accordance with the terms of the pooling and
             servicing, or similar, agreement, and except as disclosed in the
             reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
             the servicing agreement; and

             5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to
             the master servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing
             standards based upon the report provided by an independent public
             accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the
             Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or
             similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or
             similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

             In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
             information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
             Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as master servicer and Aames Capital
             Corporation, as servicer.


             Date: March 29, 2006


                                                    /s/ David A. Spector
                                                    --------------------
                                                    David A. Spector
                                                    Senior Managing Director
EXHIBIT 32.2



               CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                  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 Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of First
Keystone Corporation (the "Corporation") for the period ended September
30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, Diane C.A. Rosler, Chief Financial Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

    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 Corporation as of and for the period covered
        by the Report.



                                  /s/ Diane C.A. Rosler
                                  Diane C.A. Rosler
                                  Chief Financial Officer


November 7, 2008
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.558 Notice relating to overpayments and underpayments. ( a ) *Notice of overpayment and underpayment determination.* Whenever a determination concerning the amount paid and payable for any period is made and it is found that, with respect to any month in the period, more or less than the correct amount was paid, written notice of the correct and incorrect amounts for each such month in the period will be sent to the individual against whom adjustment or recovery of the overpayment as defined in § 416.537(a) may be effected or to whom the underpayment as defined in §§ 416.536 and any amounts subject to installment payments as defined in § 416.544 would be payable, notwithstanding the fact that part or all of the underpayment must be withheld in accordance with § 416.543. When notifying an individual of a determination of overpayment, the Social Security Administration will, in the notice, also advise the individual that adjustment or recovery is required, as set forth in § 416.571, except under certain specified conditions, and of his or her right to request waiver of adjustment or recovery of the overpayment under the provisions of § 416.550.
( b ) *Notice of waiver determination.* Written notice of an initial determination of waiver shall be given the individual in accordance with § 416.1404 unless the individual was not given notice of the overpayment in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Notice relating to installment payments to individuals whose drug addiction or alcoholism is a contributing factor material to the determination of disability.* Whenever a determination is made concerning the amount of any benefits due for a period that must be paid in installments, the written notice will also explain the amount of the installment payment and when an increased initial installment payment may be made (as described in § 416.544). This written notice will be sent to the individual and his or her representative payee.
[40 FR 47764, Oct. 10, 1975, as amended at 55 FR 33668, Aug. 17, 1990; 60 FR 8150, Feb. 10, 1995]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.4



February 13, 2006

Grant Thornton LLP
American Center Building, Suite 800
27777 Franklin Road
Southfield, MI 48034

Dear Sir or Madam:

As of and for the year ended December 31, 2005, Origen Financial, Inc. and
subsidiaries ("the Company") has complied in all material respects with the
minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for
this same period, the Company had in effect a fidelity bond for the amount of
$3,000,000 and errors and omissions policy in the amount of $10,000,000.

Very truly yours,

Origen Financial, Inc.


/s/ Ronald A. Klein
--------------------------------
Ronald A. Klein,
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ W. Anderson Geater Jr.
--------------------------------
W. Anderson Geater Jr.,
Chief Financial Officer


/s/ David C. Daugherty
--------------------------------
David C. Daugherty, Controller


/s/ Douglas Burdett
--------------------------------
Douglas Burdett, EVP - Servicing
#### Helen McKNIGHT, Appellant, v. BRUCE MOTOR FREIGHT, Inc., a Corporation.

No. 15287.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

May 13, 1955.

R. E. Killmar and W. W. Reynoldson, Osceola, Iowa, for appellant.

Frank W. Davis and Ray H. Johnson, Jr, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from District Court dismissed, on stipulation of parties.
Exhibit
32




CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The
certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the annual
report on Form 10-K of SMART Modular Technologies (WWH), Inc. (the “Report”) for
the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code.




Iain
MacKenzie, the Chief Executive Officer, and Jack A. Pacheco, the Chief Financial
Officer of SMART Modular Technologies (WWH), Inc., each certifies that, to the
best of his knowledge:




1.           the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Exchange Act; and




2.           the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of SMART Modular Technologies
(WWH), Inc.







Date:  November
12, 2008


/s/
      Iain MacKenzie


Name:
            Iain
      MacKenzieTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer, President and
Director





/s/
      Michael Gennaro


Name:
            Michael
      GennaroTitle:
            Principal
      Financial Officer
(No. 73-CC-338

#### Linda L. Fitzsimmons, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed August 23, 1973.*

Linda L. Fitzsimmons, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
§ 679.270 What are the special designation provisions for single-area States? ( a ) The Governor of any State that was a single-State local area under the WIA as in effect on July 1, 2013 may designate the State as a single-State local area under WIOA.
( b ) The Governor of a State local area under paragraph (a) of this section who seeks to designate the State as a single-State local area under WIOA must: ( 1 ) Identify the State as a single-area State in the Unified or Combined State Plan; and
( 2 ) Include the local plan for approval as part of the Unified or Combined State Plan.
( c ) The State WDB for a single-area State must act as the Local WDB and carry out the functions of the Local WDB in accordance with WIOA sec. 107 and § 679.370, except that the State is not required to meet and report on a set of local performance accountability measures.
( d ) Single-area States must conduct the functions of the Local WDB as outlined in paragraph (c) of this section to achieve the incorporation of local interests but may do so in a manner that reduces unnecessary burden and duplication of processes.
( e ) States must carry out the duties of State and Local WDBs in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of Labor.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY

 4,785

 4,291

 5,557

 4,407

 4,143

 4,401

 3,825

 4,586

 4,361

 5,474

 3,819

 3,930

 3,903

 6,847

 5,104

 4,439

 3,404

 4,369

 4,665

 3,462

 3,408

 3,746

 4,251

 3,989

 3,715

 3,353

 3,977

 4,032

 3,856

 3,925

 4,454

 132,952

 130,850

 128,384

 127,244

 125,068

 122,751

 120,794

 118,388

 116,825

 115,127

 114,571

 112,471

 110,581

 108,759

 109,826

 109,184

 107,941

 105,778

 104,640

 103,840

 101,936

 100,077

 98,632

 97,739

 96,642

 95,339

 93,757

 92,847

 92,035

 91,097

 90,271

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2017 SHASTA LAKE FLOOD CONTROL REQUIREMENTS RUN DATE: August 11, 2017

 137,737

 135,141

 133,941

 131,651

 129,211

 127,152

 124,619

 122,974

 121,186

 120,601

 118,390

 116,401

 114,484

 115,606

 114,930

 113,623

 111,345

 110,147

 109,305

 107,302

 105,344

 103,823

 102,883

 101,728

 100,357

 98,692

 97,734

 96,879

 95,891

 95,022

 94,725

 6,491,000

 6,470,000

 6,449,000

 6,427,000

 6,406,000

 6,385,000

 6,363,000

 6,342,000

 6,321,000

 6,300,000

 6,278,000

 6,257,000

 6,236,000

 6,214,000

 6,193,000

 6,172,000

 6,150,000

 6,129,000

 6,108,000

 6,086,000

 6,065,000

 6,044,000

 6,022,000

 6,001,000

 5,980,000

 5,959,000

 5,937,000

 5,916,000

 5,895,000

 5,873,000

 5,852,000

 SHASTA 

INFLOW 

C. F. S. 

 PREV DAY

 F. C. PAR 

 (COL 3) 

 X .95 

 F. C. 

 PARAM 

 (COLS. 

 1 + 2 ) 

 .0356* 

 X DAYS 

 12/23 THRU

3/20 

 530,000

 MINUS 

 F. C. 

 PARAM

 (COL 3)

 COLS 

 4 X 5 

 F. C. 

 RESERV 

 (1,300,000 

 - COL 6 ) 

 MINUS 

 14,943 

 PER DAY

 AFTER 

 3/20 

 ADJUSTED 

 F. C. 

 RESERV 

 (7-8) 

 PERM 

 STORAGE 

 COMMENTS:

 * LEAP YEAR CONSTANT = .0352 

 CONSTANT .0356 = 1,300,000 / (TOTAL DAYS X (530,000 - 110,000 ) )

 IF COL 3 IS GREATER THAN 530,000 OR LESS THAN 110,000 USE THOSE VALUES FOR COL 3 INSTEAD OF THE COMPUTED VALUE. 

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

 139,949
#### EVENS, Respondent, v. EVENS, et al, Appellants.

(240 N. W. 335.)

(File No. 7158.

Opinion filed January 25, 1932.)

*Joe H. Kirby,*of Sioux Falls, for Appellants.

*Calchoell ■& Burns,*of Sioux Falls, for Respondent.

PER OURIAM.

Plaintiff sued defendants in municipal court to recover certain installment payments of money. On appeal to this court from an order sustaining a demurrer below, the sufficiency of the complaint was established. Evens v. Evens, 55 S. D. 482, 226 N. W. 725. After the remand (accruing unpaid installments having meanwhile mounted to sum in excess of the limited jurisdiction of a municipal court), plaintiff dismissed that action without prejudice, and brought the present suit in circuit court upon an identical complaint, except for claiming- a greater number of installments past due. Trial was to the court on stipu*391lated facts. From judgment for the plaintiff and denial of new trial, defendants have appealed.

It is conceded that the stipulated facts support the allegations of the complaint. The present appeal presents the identical legal questions adjudicated between the same parties on the former appeal, and no others, and appellants so state. All points now urged received the careful consideration of this court at that time, 'were fully dealt with in the opinion, and' a petition for rehearing was filed, considered, and denied. On the authority of the former decision, the judgment and order now appealed from are affirmed, and we deem it our duty to award respondent damages for the delay caused by this appeal in a sum equal to io per cent on the amount of the judgment, and the clerk of this court is directed to tax the same as a part of the costs pursuant to statute.

All the Judges concur.
** As of the period ending March 31, 2023, U.S. Department of State (DOS) and the Executive Office of the President (EOP)                    award recipients are no longer required to submit                 quarterly Federal Cash Transaction Reports (FCTR).... Read                  More**** Cancellation & End of Fiscal                  Year 2023 Payment Processing Deadlines: Awards funded from 2018 fixed appropriation will                  cancel on September 30, 2023... Read                  More**

# **What is Payment Management Services ?**

The Payment Management Services (PMS) is a shared service provider and a leader in          processing grant payments for the federal government. PMS offers awarding agency and grant recipients with          cash management services, centralized payment services, personal grant accounting support, and Financial          Reporting Support. PMS promotes financial integrity and operational efficiencies within the federal government          through exceptional accounting practices.

----

## **GRANT AWARD AND PAYMENT CYCLE**

----

## **PROGRAM FEATURES**

        - Agencies overview of approval and/or rejection of submitted payments
        - Customizable Configurable System
        - Effective Financial Internal Controls
        -  FISMA High Secure Payment System
        - Central Accounting Reporting System (CARS) reporting system to record government            financial data
        -  Interagency Governmental Payment and Collection transfer services (IPAC) transfers            to federal agencies with descriptive data
        -  Validates against DO NOT PAY listing to prevent and detect improper payments
        -  Single Point of Entry for Federal Financial Reports
        -  Online Reporting

## **BENEFITS**

        - Quick and easy user Set-up
        - Access to account information and reporting
        - Efficient and Accurate Payment System
        - Secured Funding Request transfers
        -  Automated submission of Federal Financial Reports
        - Variety of Payment Options (ACH, Fedwire, Warehouse)
        -  Eliminates duplicate entries across various grant Financial Systems by sharing            reconciled data
        -  Live Customer Support

----

## **Our Statistics**
§ 725.202 Miner defined; condition of entitlement, miner. ( a ) *Miner defined.* A “miner” for the purposes of this part is any person who works or has worked in or around a coal mine or coal preparation facility in the extraction, preparation, or transportation of coal, and any person who works or has worked in coal mine construction or maintenance in or around a coal mine or coal preparation facility. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that any person working in or around a coal mine or coal preparation facility is a miner. This presumption may be rebutted by proof that: ( 1 ) The person was not engaged in the extraction, preparation or transportation of coal while working at the mine site, or in maintenance or construction of the mine site; or
( 2 ) The individual was not regularly employed in or around a coal mine or coal preparation facility.
( b ) *Coal mine construction and transportation workers; special provisions.* A coal mine construction or transportation worker shall be considered a miner to the extent such individual is or was exposed to coal mine dust as a result of employment in or around a coal mine or coal preparation facility. A transportation worker shall be considered a miner to the extent that his or her work is integral to the extraction or preparation of coal. A construction worker shall be considered a miner to the extent that his or her work is integral to the building of a coal or underground mine (see § 725.101(a)(12), (30)). ( 1 ) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that such individual was exposed to coal mine dust during all periods of such employment occurring in or around a coal mine or coal preparation facility for purposes of: ( i ) Determining whether such individual is or was a miner;
( ii ) Establishing the applicability of any of the presumptions described in section 411(c) of the Act and part 718 of this subchapter; and
( iii ) Determining the identity of a coal mine operator liable for the payment of benefits in accordance with § 725.495.
( 2 ) The presumption may be rebutted by evidence which demonstrates that: ( i ) The individual was not regularly exposed to coal mine dust during his or her work in or around a coal mine or coal preparation facility; or
( ii ) The individual did not work regularly in or around a coal mine or coal preparation facility.
( c ) A person who is or was a self-employed miner or independent contractor, and who otherwise meets the requirements of this paragraph, shall be considered a miner for the purposes of this part.
( d ) *Conditions of entitlement; miner.* An individual is eligible for benefits under this subchapter if the individual: ( 1 ) Is a miner as defined in this section; and
( 2 ) Has met the requirements for entitlement to benefits by establishing that he or she: ( i ) Has pneumoconiosis (see § 718.202), and
( ii ) The pneumoconiosis arose out of coal mine employment (see § 718.203), and
( iii ) Is totally disabled (see § 718.204(c)), and
( iv ) The pneumoconiosis contributes to the total disability (see § 718.204(c)); and
( 3 ) Has filed a claim for benefits in accordance with the provisions of this part.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Renteria NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50358.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

*654Daniel Renteria-Nunez, Three Rivers, TX, pro se.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Daniel Renteria Nunez (Renteria), federal prisoner # 88091-080, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to correct pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 36. Renteria maintains that an error was made in the written judgments because they fail to reflect the district court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing that his sentences in No. P-01-CR-065-F and No. P-00-CR-425-F were to run concurrently with his prior sentence imposed in No. P-98-CR-119-F. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 authorizes the sentencing court to correct technical, clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record at any time. *See*Fed.R. Crim.P. 36; *Accardi v. Blackwell,*412 F.2d 911, 913 (5th Cir.1969). “Rule 36 is the appropriate remedy to make the judgment and commitment papers conform to the sentence pronounced orally.” *Cook v. United States,*426 F.2d 1358, 1360 (5th Cir.1970) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Renteria’s contention that the district court ordered his sentences in No. P-01CR-065-F and No. P-00-CR-425-F to run concurrently not only with each other, but with a prior sentence imposed in No. P-98-CR-119-F, is refuted by the transcript of the sentence hearing. At sentencing, the court ordered that the sentences in No. P-01-CR-065-F and No. P-00-CR-425-F were to run concurrently. The court made no comment on the concurrency of the sentence in No. P-98-CR-119-F in relation to the sentences in No. P-01-CR-065-F and No. P-00-CR-425-F. The written judgments reflected that the sentences in No. P-01-CR-065-F and No. P-00-CR-425-F were to run concurrently with one another but were silent with regard to Renteria’s sentence in No. P-98CR-119-F. Thus, the district court made no clerical error in its written judgments, and it did not err in denying Renteria’s motion. As the appeal lacks arguable merit, it is frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY ELEV

 716.40

 715.30

 714.23

 713.27

 712.28

 711.06

 709.51

 707.58

 707.01

 708.56

 712.53

 714.38

 715.02

 714.98

 714.57

 714.15

 714.53

 717.23

 723.63

 738.56

 757.12

 763.28

 765.92

 768.04

 772.82

 775.33

 776.78

 777.74

 1,061

 1,025

 990

 960

 929

 893

 847

 793

 777

 821

 937

 995

 1,016

 1,014

 1,001

 988

 1,000

 1,089

 1,320

 1,961

 2,993

 3,388

 3,566

 3,712

 4,053

 4,239

 4,349

 4,423

STORAGE

-28

-36

-35

-30

-31

-36

-46

-54

-16

+44

+116

+58

+21

-2

-13

-13

+12

+89

+231

+641

+1,032

+395

+178

+146

+341

+186

+110

+74

CHANGE

4

2

2

5

4

2

-3

-7

12

42

78

49

31

19

13

13

26

65

136

343

535

214

105

89

187

109

70

52

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 18

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2001 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 26, 2001

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +3,334 2,197 0 518

ACRE-FEET +3,334 4,358 0 1,027

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 1,027

 1,027

 1,089

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L

Table 7