alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OAO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

United States of America )

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Jermaine K. Crews Case No: 4:03cr30

USM No: 11787-017

Date of Previous Judgment: February 23, 2004 Randolph P. Murrell

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) Defendant’s Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of 9 the defendant 9 the Director of the Bureau of Prisons : the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

9 DENIED. : GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of 121 months is reduced to 97 .

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: 29 Amended Offense Level: 27

Criminal History Category: III Criminal History Category: III

Previous Guideline Range: 108 to 135 months Amended Guideline Range: 87 to 108 months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

: The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.

9 The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time

of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the

amended guideline range.

9 Other (explain):

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

As with the original sentence, the amended sentence is at the mid-point of the guideline range.

Defendant’s motion to appoint counsel (doc. 73) is hereby denied.

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated February 23, 2004 shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: May 1, 2008 s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Judge’s signature

Effective Date: Stephan P. Mickle

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

Case 4:03-cr-00030-SPM-AK Document 75 Filed 05/01/08 Page 1 of 1
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000523 17-OCT-2018 08:24 AM
UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
MOAMM AR BADAWI DOK HAN, etal., P e ti ti one r s, v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 08 -0 98 7 ( JD B) GEORG E W. BUSH , et al., Re spo nde nt s. OR DE R Pur su ant t o p e tit ion e r' s r e sp on se to t he Court ' s Se pte mbe r 1 , 2 00 9 O rd e r t o Sh owCa us e why his habea s petition should not be dismissed, and upon consider ation of the e ntire re cord h e r e i n , i ti s h e r e b y ORDERED that pe tit ion e r' s h a be a s c or pu s p e tit ion

is DI SM ISSED WITHOUT P REJUDICE . SO ORDERED. / s / J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Dated: Septembe r 23, 2009
1996 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-26-1996

United States v. Sokolow

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 95-1292,95-1367

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1996 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"United States v. Sokolow" (1996). 1996 Decisions. Paper 202.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996/202
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ___________ 

 Nos. 95-1292/1367 

 ___________ 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 vs. 

 CRAIG B. SOKOLOW, 

 Appellant 

 ___________ 

 ORDER 

 Present: MANSMANN and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges, 

 and RESTANI, Judge, Court of International Trade.* 

 It is hereby ORDERED that the opinion dated April 18, 

1996, in the above case is hereby vacated. 

 It is further ORDERED that the petition for panel 

rehearing filed by appellant in the above entitled case having 

been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of 

this court, and no judge who concurred in the decision having 

asked for rehearing, is denied. 

 It is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall file the 

enclosed opinion. 

 BY THE COURT, 

 Carol Los Mansmann 

 Circuit Judge 

 

Dated: July 26, 1996 

* Judge Restani, who sat by designation on the original panel, 

is limited to voting for panel rehearing only.
# L_2014138DE.01011501.xml

| 13.5.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 138/115 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 138/115

---

Berichtigung des Beschlusses 2014/145/GASP des Rates vom 17. März 2014 über restriktive Maßnahmen angesichts von Handlungen, die die territoriale Unversehrtheit, Souveränität und Unabhängigkeit der Ukraine untergraben oder bedrohen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 78 vom 17. März 2014
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 78 vom 17. März 2014

Seite 16, Artikel 1 Absatz 1:

anstatt:

„(1)   Die Mitgliedstaaten ergreifen die erforderlichen Maßnahmen, um den im Anhang aufgeführten natürlichen Personen, die für Handlungen verantwortlich sind, die die territoriale Unversehrtheit, Souveränität und Unabhängigkeit der Ukraine untergraben oder bedrohen, und den mit ihnen verbundenen natürlichen Personen die Einreise in oder die Durchreise durch ihr Hoheitsgebiet zu verweigern.“

muss es heißen:

„(1)   Die Mitgliedstaaten ergreifen die erforderlichen Maßnahmen, um den im Anhang aufgeführten natürlichen Personen, die für Handlungen verantwortlich sind, die die territoriale Unversehrtheit, Souveränität und Unabhängigkeit der Ukraine untergraben oder bedrohen, und den darin aufgeführten, mit ihnen verbundenen natürlichen Personen die Einreise in oder die Durchreise durch ihr Hoheitsgebiet zu verweigern.“

Seite 17, Artikel 2 Absatz 1

anstatt:

„(1)   Sämtliche Gelder und wirtschaftlichen Ressourcen, die im Besitz oder im Eigentum der im Anhang aufgeführten natürlichen Personen, die für Handlungen verantwortlich sind, die die territoriale Unversehrtheit, Souveränität und Unabhängigkeit der Ukraine untergraben oder bedrohen, und der mit ihnen verbundenen natürlichen oder juristischen Personen, Organisationen oder Einrichtungen stehen oder von diesen gehalten oder kontrolliert werden, werden eingefroren.“

muss es heißen:

„(1)   Sämtliche Gelder und wirtschaftlichen Ressourcen, die im Besitz oder im Eigentum der im Anhang aufgeführten natürlichen Personen, die für Handlungen verantwortlich sind, die die territoriale Unversehrtheit, Souveränität und Unabhängigkeit der Ukraine untergraben oder bedrohen, und der darin aufgeführten, mit ihnen verbundenen natürlichen oder juristischen Personen, Organisationen oder Einrichtungen stehen oder von diesen gehalten oder kontrolliert werden, werden eingefroren.“

---
[LETTERHEAD OF GMAC BANK]


                  MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTION CONCERNING COMPLIANCE
                 WITH REGULATION AB ITEM 1122 SERVICING CRITERIA


March 6, 2007


GMAC Bank  (the  "Company")  has  responsibility  for  assessing  compliance  to
Regulation AB Item 1122(d) Servicing Criteria for the GMAC Bank Platform. As of,
and for the period ending December 31, 2006, the Company has used the applicable
1122(d) servicing criteria listed below for assessing  compliance.  The Company,
in all  cases,  acts  only as the  Document  Custodian  and  performs  no  other
servicing functions.

-       1122(d)(4)(i),(ii)

The following servicing criteria are not applicable to the Company:

-       1122(d)(1)(i),(ii),(iii),(iv); 1122(d)(2)(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),
                (vii); 1122(d)(3)(i),(ii),(iii),(iv);
        1122(d)(4)(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi),(xii),(xiii),
                (xiv),(xv)

The Company has complied in all material respects, with the applicable servicing
criteria  above  as of and for the  period  ending  December  31,  2006  for the
asset-backed   transactions  listed  in  Appendix  A  taken  as  a  whole  (such
transactions, collectively, the "GMAC Bank Platform").

An  independent  registered  public  accounting  firm has issued an  attestation
report on the Company's  assessment of compliance with the applicable  servicing
criteria as of, and for the period ending December 31, 2006.



GMAC Bank



/s/ Robert Groody
Robert Groody, Chief Mortgage Accounting Officer, GMAC Bank


<PAGE>








APPENDIX A

   SECURITY


SACO 06-1
SACO 06-12
SACO 06-8
2006-5
SACO  06-10
SACO  06-6
SACO  06-7
SACO  06-9
SACO  06-9
GPMF2006AR6
GPMF2006AR7
GPMF2006AR8
2006-ARS1
LMT 2006-7
LXS 06-18N 2006-B
BAFC 06-5
HBVW 06-SB1
GSMPS06RP1
GSR 2006-2F
GSR2006-AR1
GSR 2006-4F
MSM 06-10SL
MSM 06-14SL
GPMF2006AR4
GPMF2006AR5
LXS2006-12N
LXS2006-GP4
2006-3H
2006-GEL3
LMT 2006-2
SAIL2006-2
2006-4N
2006-GP1
2006-GP2
2006-GP3
LXS 06-10N
NAAC2006S1
NAAC2006S2
2006-GEL4
2006-RF2
2006-S1
LXS  06-10N
LXS  06-12N
LXS  2006-7
LXS  2006-8
LXS2006-11
LXS2006-13
2006-1
MALT 2006-1
MALT 2006-3
MASD 2006-1
2006-HE1
CSMC 2006-1
CSMC  2006-8
CSMC 2006-9
LUM 2006-4
LUM 2006-5
MARM 06OA2
MARP 06-2
MIT 2006-1
MSM 06-1AR
MSM 06-9AR
MSM06-13ARX
MSM06-15XS
MSM06-16AX
MSM06-17XS
SASCO 06BC2
BAFC 06-1
BAFC 06-2
BAFC 06-4
GSR  2006-3F
MASTR  06-1
MASTR  06-3
MASD 2006-2
ACE2006-SL1
ACE2006-SL4
MASD 2006-2
MASD 2006-3
BAYVW2006-D
BSABS06SD2
BSALTA 06-1
BSALTA  06-3
BSALTA  06-4
BSALTA  06-5
BSALTA  06-8
BSARM2006-2
DBALT06AB1
DBALT06AB2
DBALT06AB3
DBALT06AB4
DBALT06AF1
DBALT06AR1
DBALT06AR2
DBALT06AR3
DBALT06AR5
DBALT06AR6
DBALT06OA1
HBRVW 06-10
HBRVW 06-8
HBRVW 06-8
PRIME06-CL1
SACO  06-11
SAIL  2006-3
2006-AR3
2006-AR4
2006-S5
ARMT  2006-2
GSR2006-AR2
HBVW2006-13
HBVW2006-14
MARP 06-1
NHELI 06AF1

2006-J1
2006-AR1
2006-AR2
2006-HLTV1
2006-HE1
2006-HE2
2006-HE3
2006-HE4
2006-HE5
§ 4284.16 Other considerations. ( a ) *Environmental requirements.* Grants made under this subpart must comply with 7 CFR part 1970. Applications for technical assistance or planning projects are generally excluded from the environmental review process by § 1970.53, provided the assistance is not related to the development of a specific site. Applicants for grant funds must consider and document within their plans the important environmental factors within the planning area and the potential environmental impacts of the plan on the planning area, as well as the alternative planning strategies that were reviewed.
( b ) *Civil rights.* All grants made under this subpart are subject to the requirements of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin as outlined in 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E. In addition, the grants made under this subpart are subject to the requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability; the requirements of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; and title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by private entities in places of public accommodations. This program will also be administered in accordance with all other applicable civil rights law.
( c ) *Other USDA regulations.* The grant programs under this part are subject to the provisions of the following regulations, as applicable: ( 1 ) 2 CFR part 400, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards;
( 2 ) 2 CFR part 415, General Program Administrative Regulations;
( 3 ) 2 CFR part 417, Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension;
( 4 ) 2 CFR part 418, New Restrictions on Lobbying; and
( 5 ) 2 CFR part 421, Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance).
[69 FR 23425, Apr. 29, 2004, as amended at 79 FR 76017, Dec. 19, 2014; 81 FR 11053, Mar. 2, 2016]
# 30.607 Subcontract administration.

When a negotiated CAS price adjustment or a determination of *noncompliance* is required at the subcontract level, the CFAO for the subcontractor *shall* furnish a copy of the negotiation memorandum or the determination to the CFAO for the contractor of the next higher-tier subcontractor. The CFAO of the contractor or the next higher-tier subcontractor *shall* not change the determination of the CFAO for the lower-tier subcontractor. If the subcontractor refuses to submit a GDM or DCI proposal, remedies are made at the prime contractor level.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 30.6 - CAS Administration
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2473 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Basic Violet 11 Dye. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2006 

Mr. DEWINE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Basic Violet 11 Dye. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. BASIC VIOLET 11 DYE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by striking subheading 9902.70.03 and inserting 

7 in numerical sequence the following new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.32.13 Basic Violet 11 Dye (CAS 

No. 2390–63–8) (provided 

for in subheading 

3204.13.60) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 2473 IS 

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### § 51.2286 Application of tolerances.

The tolerances provided in these standards are on a lot basis, and they shall be applied to a composite sample representative of the lot. However, any container or group of containers in which the walnuts are obviously of a quality materially different from that in the majority of containers shall be considered a separate lot, and shall be sampled separately.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C SECTION 350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Oakmont Acquisition Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert J. Skandalaris, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 14, 2006



|                                  
|----------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Skandalaris         
|Robert J. Skandalaris             
|Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
#### Seven Sixty Travel, Inc., Plaintiff, v American Motorists Insurance Company et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Blue Tours International et al., Third-Party Defendants; Martin Treistman, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered March 21, 1979 in Albany County, which granted a motion for summary judgment and dismissed the third-party complaint against Martin Treistman. Order affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Aaron E. Klein at Special Term (98 Mise 2d 509; see, also, *Krause v American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co.,*22 NY2d 147, 155; *Exchange Mut. Ind. Ins. Co. v Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Co.,*243 NY 75, 79; *Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y. v Royal Ind. Co.,*41 AD2d 37, 40). Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Staley, Jr., and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2621 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Mixture (1:1) of polyricinoleic 

acid homopolymer, 3-(dimethylamino)propylamide, dimethylsulfate, 

quaternized and polyricinoleic acid. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 24, 2006 

Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DEWINE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Mixture 

(1:1) of polyricinoleic acid homopolymer, 3- 

(dimethylamino)propylamide, dimethylsulfate, 

quaternized and polyricinoleic acid. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 2621 IS

1 SECTION 1. MIXTURE (1:1) OF POLYRICINOLEIC ACID 

2 HOMOPOLYMER, 3- 

3 (DIMETHYLAMINO)PROPYLAMIDE, 

4 DIMETHYLSULFATE, QUATERNIZED AND 

5 POLYRICINOLEIC ACID. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.04.15 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 Mixture (1:1) of polyricinoleic acid homopolymer, 3- 

9 (dimethylamino)propylamide, dimethylsulfate, quaternized 

10 and polyricinoleic acid) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

11 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

14 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

15 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2141

PRINCE NAPHAZI,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: May 18, 2011 Decided: June 14, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander M. Chanthunya, Silver Spring, Maryland, for 

Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. 

Nicastro, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffery R. Leist, OFFICE OF 

IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Prince Naphazi, a native and citizen of Zimbabwe, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s 

denial of his applications for relief from removal. 

Naphazi first challenges the determination that he 

failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal 

of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien 

“must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that 

no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear 

of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 

(1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude 

that Naphazi fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary 

result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Naphazi cannot 

meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. 

Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.

Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
§ 51.882 U.S. Fancy Table. “U.S. Fancy Table” consists of bunches of well developed grapes of one variety, except when designated as assorted varieties, which are at least reasonably well colored, uniform in appearance when so specified in connection with the grade, and which meet the following requirements: ( a ) Basic requirements for berries: ( 1 ) Mature;
( 2 ) Firm;
( 3 ) Firmly attached to capstem;
( 4 ) Not weak;
( 5 ) Not shriveled at capstem;
( 6 ) Not shattered;
( 7 ) Not split or crushed;
( 8 ) Not wet.
( b ) Basic requirements for bunches: ( 1 ) Fairly well filled;
( 2 ) Not excessively tight for the variety.
( c ) Basic requirements for stems: ( 1 ) Well developed and strong;
( 2 ) Not dry and brittle.
( d ) Berries free from: ( 1 ) Decay;
( 2 ) Waterberry;
( 3 ) Sunburn;
( 4 ) Almeria Spot.
( e ) Stems free from: ( 1 ) Mold;
( 2 ) Decay.
( f ) Berries not damaged by: ( 1 ) Any other cause.
( g ) Bunches not damaged by: ( 1 ) Shot berries;
( 2 ) Dried berries;
( 3 ) Other defective berries;
( 4 ) Trimming away of defective berries;
( 5 ) Any other cause.
( h ) Stems not damaged by: ( 1 ) Freezing;
( 2 ) Any other cause.
( i ) Size: ( 1 ) For berries: Exclusive of shot berries and dried berries, the following percentages, by count, of the berries on each bunch shall have the minimum diameters indicated for varieties as follows: ( i ) For Ribier, Cardinal, Robin, Exotic, Queen, Italia Muscat, and other similar varieties, 90 percent shall be at least twelve-sixteenths of an inch;
( ii ) For Thompson Seedless, Perlette, Delight, Beauty Seedless, Sugraone, Flame Seedless and other seedless varieties, 75 percent shall be at least ten-sixteenths of an inch; and,
( iii ) For other varieties 90 percent shall be at least ten-sixteenths of an inch.
( 2 ) For bunches: ( i ) Not less than one-fourth pound.
( j ) For tolerances see § 51.886.
[36 FR 9126, May 20, 1971. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, and amended at 48 FR 19350, Apr. 29, 1983; 56 FR 15802, Apr. 18, 1991; 64 FR 14576, Mar. 26, 1999]
EXHIBIT 35.2
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
             RALI SERIES 2006-QS11 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Executive Vice President