alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PHHMC Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-3

CERTIFICATION

I, Terence W. Edwards, certify that:

            1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on
Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
on Form 10-K of the trust (the "Trust") created pursuant to the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement dated September 1, 2006 (the "Agreement") among PHH Mortgage
Capital LLC (the "Depositor"), PHH Mortgage Corporation (the "Master Servicer")
and Citibank, N.A. (the "Trustee") (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

            2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken
as a whole, do 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 report;

            3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and
other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

            4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
Master Servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted
in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under
Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the Master Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the
Agreement in all material respects; and

            5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities
required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of
Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as
an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any
material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
the information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: the
Trustee.

Date: March 30, 2007

/s/ Terence W. Edwards
---------------------------
Name:         Terence W. Edwards
Title:        President and Chief Executive Officer
Company:      PHH Mortgage Corporation
#### Douglas P. Smith, Appellant, v Hines GS Properties, Inc., et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs. Koehler Masonry Corp. et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

[815 NYS2d 82]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered April 18, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as based on Labor Law § 241 (6), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, that portion of the motion denied, and the claim under section 241 (6) reinstated.

The open area between the building under construction and the materials storage trailers was not a “passageway” or walkway covered by Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (1) *(see Dalanna v City of New York,*308 AD2d 400 [2003]). Nevertheless, the tradesmen at the site routinely traversed this physically defined area as their only access to equipment and materials, making it arguably an integral part of the work site. A question of fact is thus presented as to whether the spot where plaintiffs fall occurred was a “working area” within the meaning of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) *(see Maza v University Ave. Dev.*
      *434
      *Corp.,*13 AD3d 65 [2004]; *but see Muscarella v Herbert Constr. Co.,*265 AD2d 264 [1999]).

We decline to consider the arguments for affirmative relief raised herein by the nonappealing defendants and third-party plaintiffs. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Michael Hill, Chief Executive Officer, President, Secretary and Treasurer of Gemini Explorations, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) | the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Gemini Explorations, Inc. for the year ended April 30, 2007 (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 Gemini Explorations, Inc. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dated:  August 14, 2007

/s/ Michael Hill

Michael Hill

Chief Executive Officer, President, Secretary and Treasurer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Gemini Explorations, Inc. and will be retained by Gemini Explorations, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

CW1338158.1
#### § 58.223 Special treatment equipment.

Any special equipment (instantizers, hammer mills, etc.) used to treat dry milk products shall be of sanitary construction and all parts shall be accessible for cleaning and inspection. New or replacement instantizing systems shall comply with the 3-A Accepted Practices for Instantizing Systems for Dry Milk and Dry Milk Products.
§ 4279.265 Guarantee application processing. ( a ) *Eligibility determination.* Upon receipt of a complete Phase 1 application, the Agency will determine if the Borrower, Lender, and Project are eligible and if the Project is technically and economically feasible, as provided under paragraph (b) of this section. ( 1 ) If the Borrower, Lender, or the Project is determined to be ineligible for any reason, the Agency will inform the Lender, in writing, of the reasons. No further evaluation of the application will occur.
( 2 ) If the Agency determines it is unable to guarantee the loan, the Agency will inform the Lender in writing. Such notification will include the reasons for denial of the guarantee.
( b ) *Technical and economic feasibility.* ( 1 ) The Agency's determination of a Project's technical and economic feasibility will be based on: ( i ) The Agency's analysis of the technical report and Feasibility Study submitted in the application conducted by qualified independent third parties;
( ii ) The Lenders credit evaluation; and
( iii ) Other application materials.
( 2 ) The Agency's determination of a Project's technical feasibility will be based on the technical report. In addition, prior to the issuance of the Conditional Commitment for a Project utilizing technology that does not have a history of successful utilization in a Commercial-scale operation of a Biorefinery that produces an Advanced biofuel, Renewable chemical, or Biobased product, evidence demonstrating 120 days of continuous, steady state production from an integrated demonstration unit must be provided by the Borrower to the Lender and the Agency for review and determination of technical feasibility. Authoritative demonstration campaign results must be provided in 30-day intervals. The integrated demonstration unit must prove out the Project's ability to utilize Project-relevant biomass and produce Advanced biofuel at a yield and quality consistent with the design basis of the Project. The Borrower must provide to the Agency, for review and approval, sufficient information on the integrated campaign design so as to ensure operation duration, quality, and quantity specifications are met and incorporated into the final design criteria for the commercial facility.
( 3 ) Projects determined by the Agency to be without technical or economic feasibility will not be selected for funding.
[80 FR 36425, June 24, 2015, as amended at 85 FR 29596, May 18, 2020]
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No s . 1D 18

- 3675 1D18

- 3783 ( C onsolidated for disposition)

_____________________________
L EVY M. B ISHOP , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James C. Hankinson , Judge

. April 5, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. Levy Bishop appeals orders revoking his probation in two separate cases. We consolidate the appeals, and we affirm.
Bishop raises a single issue on appeal. He contends that there was ineffective assistance of counsel obvious on the face of the record. Although ineffective

- assistance claims are typically cognizab le only in postconviction proceedings, in rare instances, appellants can raise ineffective assistance on direct appeal. Sims v. State , 260 So. 3d 509, 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). But to do so, an appellant must show, among other things, “indisputable prejudic e.” Id. (quoting Morales v. State , 170 So. 3d 63, 67 (Fla. 1st2 DCA 2015) ). Here, Bishop argues his counsel was ineffective for not adequately pursuing the earlier

- filed motion to suppress . But rather than demonstrate indisputable prejudice , Bishop has only argued that had the court granted the motion, Bishop would have prevailed

— and that had the court not granted the motion, the issue would have at least been preserved for appellate review. This falls well short of what is necessary to meet the narrow excep tion to the general rule, so Bishop’s ineffective

- assistance claims may only be raised in a postconviction proceeding.

A FFIRMED

.
W OLF , B ILBREY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kasey Lacey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, for Appellee.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bush Industries, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 29, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Neil Frederick,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Neil Frederick
------------------

Neil Frederick
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2002
#### § 51.711 Very serious damage.

*Very serious damage* means any specific defect described in Table 1 to § 51.713; or an equally objectionable variation of any one of these defects, any other defect, or any combination of defects, which very seriously detracts from the appearance, or the edible or marketing quality of the fruit.

[85 FR 68428, Oct. 29, 2020]
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 5

- 00 273

- C R



### ____________________

EX PARTE TIMOTHY SCOTT WEEKS

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 15

- 28805

________________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER

The appellant, Timothy Scott Weeks, filed a n unopposed motion to abate the

appeal and to remand the case to the trial court for preparation of written findings

of fact and conclusions of law. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.072, § 7(a)

(West 2015).

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the appeal is abated and the case is

remanded to the trial court for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be included in a

supplemental clerk’s record and filed with the Court of Appeals by September 21

,2 2015 . The appeal will be reinstated without further order of the Court when the

supplemental clerk’s record is filed. The brief of the appellant is due twenty days

after the supplemental clerk’s record is filed.

ORDER ENTERED August 20 , 2015

.

PER CURIAM

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN R. BRIGGS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner

of Social Security Administration,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-35893

D.C. No. 1:12-cv-02117-MC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 5, 2016** 

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, D. W. NELSON, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Steven R. Briggs appeals pro se the district court’s judgment affirming the

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, finding him not disabled within

the meaning of the Social Security Act, except for a closed period of time from

FILED

FEB 09 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
September 7, 2006 through January 18, 2008. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th

Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

Briggs challenges the accuracy of the administrative record. More

specifically, Briggs contends that the district court erred in not investigating his

allegation that the transcript of his hearing before the administrative law judge

(“ALJ”) was altered to delete the ALJ’s ruling regarding Briggs’s period of

disability. Both the hearing transcript and the entire administrative record were

certified as accurate and complete. See 28 U.SC. § 753(b) (stating that a certified

transcript is “deemed prima facie a correct statement of the testimony”). Briggs’s

bare assertion that the hearing transcript was altered is not sufficient to undercut

the presumptive accuracy of that record. See Abatino v. United States, 750 F.2d

1442, 1445 (9th Cir. 1985) (noting that appellants have the burden of proof

regarding the accuracy of the appellate record supporting their appeal). 

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Briggs

experienced a change in his residual functional capacity, an increase in his ability

to do work, and therefore a medical improvement as of January 19, 2008. See

Molina 674 F.3d at 1110-11. 

AFFIRMED.

2
Case No.: 3:20-cr-56-TKW/HTC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:20-cr-56-TKW/HTC

PETE MOLINA

_____________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 

Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty of Defendant, 

Pete Molina, to Count One of the indictment is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties 

shall appear before this Court for sentencing as directed.

DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of December, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00056-TKW Document 98 Filed 12/15/20 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 3.2C


                              TRANSMONTAIGNE INC.
             Resolutions Adopted By Consent to Corporation Action
                            Dated October 30, 1998


Pursuant to Section 3.1 of the By Laws, the number of directors shall be
increased from 7 to a total of 8, effective October 30, 1998.

Pursuant to Section 3.3 of the By Laws, Simon B. Rich, Jr. be and hereby is
elected as a Director of the Company effective the day and date immediately
following the day and date of the closing of the transactions contemplated by
that certain Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of September 13, 1998 by and
between the Company and Louis Dreyfus Corporation, to serve in such capacity
until the next annual meeting of Shareholders, or until his successor is duly
elected and qualified.
160 So.2d 227

#### Grady Glynn SAULTERS v. Sam SKLAR et al.

No. 47048.

Feb. 14, 1964.

In re: Grady Glynn Saulters applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Claiborne. 158 So.2d 460.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
#### § 4288.107 Exception authority.

The Administrator of the Agency (“Administrator”) may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture, make an exception, on a case-by-case basis, to any requirement or provision of this subpart that is not inconsistent with any authorizing statute or applicable law, if the Administrator determines that application of the requirement or provision would adversely affect the Federal government's interest.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Ralph T. Parks, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Heelys, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:



|Date: March 17, 2008 |  |                                                                 
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|By:                  |  | /s/ RALPH T. PARKSRalph T. Parks
Interim Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
I

Lamp Workshop Agenda

July 19, 1995

9:00 Registration

9:30 Introduction

Discussion of the following:

1) Allowance for measurement uncertainty and manufacturing variance;

2) Testing and compliance of incandescent lamps at design voltage;

3) Expand the voltage range;

4) Definition of colored lamp;

5) Definition of "basic model ."

12:00 to 1:00 Lunch

6) Definition of rough or vibration service incandescent reflector lamp

7) Define or clarify the exemption for the-bulged reflector lamp

8) Safety issues of 34 watt lamps

9) Position on recertification of 8' fluorescent lamps

10) Coordination of test procedures with FTC labeling rules;

11) Effective date for submission of compliance statements and

certification reports; and,

12) Impact of NIST devaluation of the lumen.

4:30 Adjourn

EE-RM-94-220-IF COMMENT 10B
Page 1 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cr83-MCR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:20cr83-MCR

JAMES EDWARD TOLBERT

_______________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. 

R. Crim. P., and has entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects 

mentioned in Rule 11, I determined the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and 

the offense charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of 

the essential elements thereof. I therefore recommend the plea of guilty be accepted 

and the Defendant be adjudicated guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated this 19th day of January 2021.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00083-MCR Document 25 Filed 01/19/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cr83-MCR

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed 

within twenty-four hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different 

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use 

only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the 

magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate 

judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 

3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 3:20-cr-00083-MCR Document 25 Filed 01/19/21 Page 2 of 2