alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER SHAUN

LAMAR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20cv301-TKW-MAF

M.V JOSEPH,

Defendant.

______________________/

ORDER

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 5). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed for failure to 

comply with a court order. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the file.

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of February, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00301-TKW-MAF Document 6 Filed 02/05/21 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 33.4**

** **

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK fsb**

** **

**SERVICER’S REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

 

Washington Mutual Bank fsb (the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2006 and for theperiod from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the “Reporting Period”) of the Platform Transactions (as defined below) with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB (12 CFR part 229.1122), except the followingcriteria 1, 2, 3, 4(iii)-(xv), which we have concluded are either (i) not applicable to the servicing of the mortgage loans included in the Platform Transactions (each, a “Mortgage Loan”), or (ii) performed by other parties with respect to theMortgage Loans (such criteria, after giving effect to the foregoing exceptions, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”)**.**  The transactions covered by this Servicer’s Assessment are those securitizations of pools of mortgage loans forwhich the Asserting Party performed servicing functions set forth in Item 1122(d) that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and prior to January 1, 2007, andthat included one or more classesof publicly offered securities registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Platform Transactions”).

 

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period, using the Applicable ServicingCriterion,  and has concluded that it has complied in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Mortgage Loans. 

 

Deloitte & Touche LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Asserting Party’s assessment ofcompliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.

 

Dated:  February 22, 2007

 

 

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK fsb

 

 

By: **_/s/ Richard Wardell**____________

Name:  Richard Wardell

Title:    Senior Vice President
# L_2014138EN.01011401.xml

| 13.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 138/114 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 138/114

---

Corrigendum to Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 127 of 29 April 2014
  )

On page 50, Article 12:

for:

‘1.   Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 4 October 2015. They shall forthwith transmit to the Commission the text of those provisions.’,

read:

‘1.   Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 4 October 2016. They shall forthwith transmit to the Commission the text of those provisions.’;

on page 50, Article 13:

for:

‘The Commission shall, by 4 October 2018 submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council, assessing the impact of existing national law on confiscation and asset recovery, accompanied, if necessary, by adequate proposals.

In that report, the Commission shall also assess whether there is any need to revise the list of offences in Article 5(2).’,

read:

‘The Commission shall, by 4 October 2019 submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council, assessing the impact of existing national law on confiscation and asset recovery, accompanied, if necessary, by adequate proposals.

In that report, the Commission shall also assess whether there is any need to revise the list of offences in Article 5(2).’.

---
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Sang Park, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC;

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(s) 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)) for the registrant and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2007             
|                                    
|/s/ Sang Park                       
|Sang Park                           
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-51076 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN VENCES-JAIMES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-01-CR-136-ALL-SS

-------------------- April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Vences-Jaimes appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Vences-Jaimes complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process Clause.No. 01-51076 -2- Alternatively, Vences-Jaimes contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Vences-Jaimes acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### Theron S. Atwater, Appellant, *v.*The American Bag Loaning Company (Limited) et al., Respondents.

(Argued June 17, 1884 ;

decided June 24, 1884.)

*Henry G. Atwater*for appellant.

*E. N. Taft*for respondent.

Agree to dismiss appeal on argument.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
#### § 58.916 Homogenizer.

Homogenizers where applicable shall be used to reduce the size of the fat particles and to evenly disperse them in the product. Homogenizers shall comply with the applicable 3-A Sanitary Standards.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter                ended                December 31, 2006 (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 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                         Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           Mar-31-1998
<CASH>                                      23,556
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         262
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    394
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      70,507
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        71,302
<LOANS>                                    296,794
<ALLOWANCE>                                  3,168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             413,032
<DEPOSITS>                                 324,539
<SHORT-TERM>                                40,200
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,397
<LONG-TERM>                                  4,861
<COMMON>                                     8,110
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,925
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             413,032
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,828
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              994
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                33
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             7,855
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,437
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,110
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,745
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  323
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,356
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,420
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     409
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,011
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 6.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 6.30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                8.37
<LOANS-NON>                                  3,239
<LOANS-PAST>                                   537
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             3,153
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  419
<RECOVERIES>                                   111
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,168
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0
         

</TABLE>
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Academic StandardsBlock SchedulingClassroom EnvironmentEducational ChangeElementary Secondary EducationFaculty DevelopmentFlexible SchedulingMathematics CurriculumMathematics EducationNational StandardsScience CurriculumScience Education

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6558

WILLIAM WAYNE ROARK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN SMITH,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.

(CA-02-4111-4-22)

Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: August 11, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Wayne Roark, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William Wayne Roark, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm because, as noted by the district court,

Roark failed to demonstrate that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) is an

inadequate or ineffective remedy. See In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192,

1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997). 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
47.207-1 Qualifications of offerors.

(a) Operating authorities. The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.247-2, Permits,

Authorities, or Franchises, when regulated transportation is involved. The clause need not be used

when a Federal office move is intrastate and the contracting officer determines that it is in the

Government’s interest not to apply the requirement for holding or obtaining State authority to

operate within the State.

(b) Performance capability for Federal office moving contracts.

(1) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.247-3, Capability to Perform a Contract for

the Relocation of a Federal Office, when a Federal office is relocated, to ensure that offerors are

capable to perform interstate or intrastate moving contracts involving the relocation of Federal

offices.

(2) If a Federal office move is intrastate and the contracting officer determines that it is in the

Government’s interest not to apply the requirements for holding or obtaining State authority to

operate within the State, and to maintain a facility within the State or commercial zone, the

contracting officer shall use the clause with its AlternateI.

(c) Inspection of shipping and receiving facilities. The contracting officer shall insert the provision at

52.247-4, Inspection of Shipping and Receiving Facilities, when it is desired for offerors to inspect

the shipping, receiving, or other sites to ensure realistic bids.

(d) Familiarization with conditions. The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.247-5,

Familiarization with Conditions, to ensure that offerors become familiar with conditions under which

and where the services will be performed.

(e) Financial statement. The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.247-6, Financial

Statement, to ensure that offerors are prepared to furnish financial statements.

Parent topic: 47.207 Solicitation provisions, contract clauses, and special requirements.
#### § 51.1834 Reasonably well colored.

*Reasonably well colored* means that a good yellow or reddish tangerine color shall predominate over the green color on at least one-half of the fruit surface in the aggregate, and that each fruit shall show practically no lemon color.
Exhibit 32.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Financial Officer Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, as the chief executive officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003,
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 results of operations of the
Company.


                                         /s/ C. E. PORTER
                                         -------------------------
                                         C. E. Porter
                                         Chief Executive Officer





Date:  November 11, 2005
Summary of Executive Officer Base Salary Compensation



 EXHIBIT 10.3 
 Summary of Executive Compensation 
 The following is a summary of the revised base salary compensation of
Adept’s executive officers, approved April 1, 2009. 
  

				
	 Current Executive Officers
	  	Revised Annual
Base Salary
	 John Dulchinos
	  		
	 President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	185,250
	 Lisa M. Cummins
	  		
	 Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	176,000
	 Joachim Melis
	  		
	 Vice President of Worldwide Sales
	  	€	112,000
	 David Pap Rocki
	  		
	 Vice President of Worldwide Operations
	  	$	138,110
# 52.228-6 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**52.228 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Annual Report of Liberty Energy Corp. (formerly DMA
Minerals Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Daniel Martinez-Atkinson, Chief Executive 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
16th day of October, 2008.


/s/ Daniel Martinez-Atkinson
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer