alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
99.1

Servicer's Statement of Compliance

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 2004 fiscal year.

(A) I have reviewed the activities and performance of the Servicer during the
preceding fiscal year under the terms of the applicable Servicing Agreement,
Trust Agreement, Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or Seller/Servicer Guide
and to the best of this Officer's knowledge, the Servicer has fulfilled all of
its duties, responsibilities or obligations under these Agreements throughout
such year, or if there has been a default or failure of the Servicer to
perform any of such duties, responsibilities or obligations, a description of
each default or failure and the nature and status thereof has been reported as
appropriate and is set forth below.

Exceptions: None.

(B) The Servicer is currently an approved FNMA (#23221-000-1) and FHLMC
(#298704) servicer in good standing;

(C) The Fidelity Bond and the Errors and Omissions Insurance Policy required
under the terms of the applicable Servicing Agreement, Trust Agreement,
Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or Seller/Service Guide are currently in
the process of being renewed; a copy of the related declaration page
evidencing each such policy will follow under separate cover;

(D) All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled in accordance with the terms
of the applicable Servicing Agreement, Trust Agreement, Pooling and Servicing
Agreement and/or Seller/Servicer Guide;

(E) All information statements required to be filed pursuant to Internal
Revenue Code section 6050H, 6050J and/or 6050P have been timely filed; and

(F) The Servicer has a viable contingency plan to minimize financial loss and
disruptions of service to the institutions and customers it serves and to
ensure a timely resumption of operations in the event of a disaster.


This certification covers the period of January 1, 2004 through
December 31, 2004.




Ameriquest Mortgage Company

By: /s/: Jane Johnson
By:      Jane Johnson
Title:   Executive Vice President
         Loan Servicing Division








<page>

EXHIBIT A

AMSI 2004:
AMSI 2004-R1; AMSI 2004-R2; AMSI 2004-R3; AMSI 2004-R4; AMSI 2004-R5;
AMSI 2004-R6; AMSI 2004-R7; AMSI 2004-R8; AMSI 2004-R9; AMSI 2004-R10;
AMSI 2004-R11; AMSI 2004-R12; AMSI 2004-IA1; AMSI 2004-FR1

ARSI 2004:
ARSI 2003-W10; ARSI 2004-W1; ARSI 2004-W2; ARSI 2004-W3; ARSI 2004-W4;
ARSI 2004-W5; ARSI 2004-W6; ARSI 2004-W7; ARSI 2004-W8; ARSI 2004-W9;
ARSI 2004-W10; ARSI 2004-W11; ARSI 2004-PW1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2967 Received in Senate (RDS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2967

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 27, 2005

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in 
       Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, 
Michigan, shall be known and designated as the ``Rosa Parks Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Rosa Parks Federal 
Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 26, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2719 In Re: PIERRE JOLIGARD, a/k/a Georges Pierre Joligard, Debtor.

_________________________ WILLIAM E. FINDLER; CHRISTINA M. JOLIGARD, Plaintiffs - Appellees, versus PIERRE JOLIGARD, a/k/a Georges Pierre Joligard, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Al exandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-1281, BK-95-13940, AP-95-1484, AP-95-1506) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: July 31, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pierre Joligard, Appellant Pro Se. William E. Findler, Christina M. Joligard, Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district co urt's order affirming the bankruptcy court's determination that amounts due to Appellant's ex-wife and the guardian ad litem appointed to represent their child's interests were not dischargeable in bankruptcy. 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. Findler v. Joligard , Nos. CA-96-1281, BK-95-13940, AP-95-1484, AP-95-1506 (E.D. Va. Nov. 12, 1996). We dispense withoral 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
#### Joseph L. Fishman, as Executor of Ceferino Hernandez, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v Daniel J. Henry et al., Defendants, and Evergreen Third Diversified Corp., Respondent.

Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 30, 1977, denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, is unanimously reversed, on the law, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to appellants, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of foreclosure is granted, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. In this action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, plaintiffs’ papers establish a default in payment on installments and acceleration of the mortgage, an agreement (or counter offer) to accept one half the balance due on certain conditions, the attempt by plaintiffs to withdraw from that agreement and acquiescence by defendants, failure of defendants to make a tender pursuant to the agreement, or to comply with the other conditions of the agreement. The opposing papers consist of an affidavit by an attorney without personal knowledge of the facts making a conclusory statement that there was a tender but with no supporting evidence or details whatsoever, and with no suggestion that other conditions were met. Defendants have thus failed to meet their obligation. "It is incumbent upon a defendant who opposes a motion for summary judgment to assemble, lay bare and reveal his proofs, in order to show that the matters set up in his answer are real and are capable of being established, upon a trial * * * An opposing affidavit by an attorney without personal knowledge of the facts has no probative value and should be disregarded.” *(Di Sabato v Soffes,*9 AD2d 297, 301.) As plaintiffs agree, the $140 received by the mortgagee from the tenant of the premises as rent shall be applied against the balance due under the mortgage. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Silverman, Fein and Markewich, JJ.
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GORDON ERSPAMER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LONG

TERM DISABILITY PLAN,

Defendant

 /

No. C-08-4692 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER

Before the Court is defendant Morrison & Foerster LLP Long Term Disability Plan’s

“Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge,” filed May 28,

2010, by which defendant objects to certain statements in Magistrate James Larson’s

Order of May 18, 2010 (“Order”)

In said Order, Magistrate Judge Larson set a briefing schedule and hearing date for

plaintiff Gordon Erspamer’s Motion to Quash or for a Protective Order, filed May 15, 2010. 

In so doing, Magistrate Judge Larson noted that defendant had propounded “numerous

document requests and noticed multiple depositions,” which Magistrate Judge Larson

described as “clearly excessive” and “unenforceable” in light of his interpretation of this

Court’s Order of April 20, 2010. Defendant objects to the above-referenced commentary,

on the ground such remarks constitute a premature determination of plaintiff’s motion prior

Case 3:08-cv-04692-MMC Document 95 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

to affording defendant an opportunity to file its response thereto. The Court disagrees.

Read in context, the challenged statements in Magistrate Judge Larson’s Order are

preliminary in nature, as plaintiff’s motion has not been granted, either in whole or in part. 

Indeed, there would have been no need to set a briefing schedule had Magistrate Judge

Larson intended by his inclusion of such comments to resolve plaintiff’s motion. Further,

the inclusion thereof may assist the parties in resolving or limiting the instant discovery

disputes, whether through the meet and confer process or otherwise, and/or provide

guidance to defendant with respect to the showing it might wish to make in its opposition. 

In sum, the Court finds the inclusion of the challenged content was neither clearly

erroneous nor contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

Accordingly, defendant’s Motion for Relief is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04692-MMC Document 95 Filed 06/08/10 Page 2 of 2
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****Light list. Volume II, Atlantic Coast,Shrewsbury River, New Jersey to Little River, South Carolina.
 
2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006| 2007 | 2009
2010 | 2011| 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017| 2018 | 2019
2020 | 2021
 
SuDoc Number:HS 7.22:V.2/
Item Number:0520-L-02 (online)
CGP System Number:000609056
 
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
August 3, 2017********
§ 1006.530 Where can I find the EPLS? ( a ) You may access the *EPLS* through the Internet, currently at *http://epls.arnet.gov .*
( b ) As of November 26, 2003, you may also subscribe to a printed version. However, we anticipate discontinuing the printed version. Until it is discontinued, you may obtain the printed version by purchasing a yearly subscription from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by calling the Government Printing Office Inquiry and Order Desk at (202) 783-3238.
exv10w6






Exhibit 10.6




Second Amendment

to the

First Interstate BancSystem, Inc.

2001 Stock Option Plan




     This Amendment (the “Amendment”) by First Interstate BancSystem, Inc., a Montana
corporation (the “Company”), to its 2001 Stock Option Plan (the “2001 Plan”) is
entered into by the Company as of September 23rd, 2010.



     Whereas, the Company previously adopted the 2001 Plan pursuant to which the Company
may grant equity awards to its directors, officers and other employees in an effort to attract,
retain and motivate individuals who are expected to make important contributions to the Company.
The 2001 Plan was amended effective May 9, 2003.



     Whereas, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the
“Board”) has recommended, and the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of
the Company and its shareholders to amend the 2001 Plan in accordance with the provisions hereof.



     Now, therefore, based on the foregoing recitals, the Company hereby agrees as
follows:



     1. Section 7.6 of the 2001 Plan, titled “Payment,” shall be revised to add at the end
thereof:




In addition, the form of payment known commonly as “net exercise” shall be acceptable for
the exercise of nonqualified options under the 2001 Plan. Shares attributable to the
exercise price of an option through net exercise shall be deemed to have been issued, and
shall no longer be included in the Stock available for benefits under the 2001 Plan.



     2. Section 10.2 of the 2001 Plan, titled “Holding Period,” shall be deleted in its
entirety effective as of September 23rd, 2010.



     3. Except as modified in this Amendment, all other terms of the 2001 Plan shall remain in full
force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment effective as of the date first
above written.



 









 





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 	COMPANY:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	First Interstate BancSystem, Inc.,

a Montana corporation	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ TERRIL R. MOORE
 

Terrill R. Moore
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Executive Vice President &
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Chief Financial Officer
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRC GROUP, LLC, a California Limited

Liability Co.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

QUEPASA CORPORATION, a Nevada

Corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01506 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF COUNSEL’S

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In this contract dispute between two businesses, plaintiff’s counsel Sinsheimer Juhnke

Lebens & Melvor moves to withdraw as counsel of record for plaintiff BRC Group, LLC due to

plaintiff’s alleged failure to pay SJLM. This motion is not accompanied by the simultaneous

appearance of substitute counsel. Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), counsel “may not withdraw

from an action until relieved by order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in

advance to the client and to all other parties who have appeared in the case.” When withdrawal

by an attorney from an action is not accompanied by simultaneous appearance of substitute

counsel or agreement of the parties to appear pro se, leave to withdraw may be subject to the

condition that papers may continue to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes, unless and

until the clients appear by other counsel or pro se. Civil L.R. 11-5(b).

Attorney Roger B. Frederickson of SJLM has submitted a sworn declaration that he has

“communicated with BRC regarding SJLM’s intent to withdraw” (Frederickson Decl. at 4). It is

unclear from his declaration whether reasonable advance written notice was provided pursuant to

Case 3:09-cv-01506-WHA Document 49 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

the local rules to plaintiff and to defendants. No details are provided regarding the dates of his

communications with plaintiff, whether they were in writing, or whether he communicated with

defendants at all. In addition, plaintiff is a corporation, and corporations cannot appear pro se. 

Civil L.R. 3-9(b). There is no indication as to the status of plaintiff’s search for substitute

counsel, if any. Plaintiff’s lack of representation would therefore create unnecessary delay.

SJLM cannot be allowed to leave its client without representation. Thus, the request to

withdraw as counsel is DENIED until plaintiff obtains substitute counsel. Plaintiff should work

with its current counsel to obtain new counsel so that current counsel can be relieved. In the

meantime, SJLM retains all the responsibilities of counsel of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01506-WHA Document 49 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

          I,  William M.  McKay,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Registrant,
     certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Emergent Group
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 control and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and 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 entitles, 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 functions):

     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 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.



Date: November 13, 2003                                     /s/ William M. McKay
                                                            --------------------
                                                               William M. McKay,
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
#### Cody *v.*Kinsey.

August 19, 1912.

Habeas corpus. Before Judge Walker. Warren superior court. April 8, 1912.

*L. D. McGregor,*for plaintiff in error. *M. L. Felts,*contra.

Evans, P. J.

This beix^g a coxxtest over the possessioxx of a child, between the grandmother axxd the father, and the evidence being sufficient to authorize a conclusion that the father, upon the death of the child’s xxxother, and when the child was but a few months old, gave the child to the grandmother to rear, the judgment of the superior court, affirming the judgment of the ordinax-y awarding the custody of the child to the grandmother, will not be disturbed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 232.540 Method of loan payment and amortization period.

See 24 CFR 200.82 titled “Maturity” for loan payment and amortization period requirements applicable to mortgages insured under 24 CFR part 232.

[80 FR 48027, Aug. 11, 2015]