alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2** 

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

** **

**RESTATED OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, 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 theperiod covered by this report on Form 10–K of WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR13 Trust (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 ofa  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 Form10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.         Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB,and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation 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 anexhibit 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. 

 

 

Date:  As of March 15,2007

|   |   | /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann                                                                        |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  ThomasG. Lehmann                                                                 |
|   |   | Title:   President and Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor |
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:93-cr-01029-MP

RAY EPPS,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 303, Motion Reimbursement of Funds, filed by

the defendant, Ray Epps. In his motion, Defendant requests that the Court order the government

to reimburse him for $36,650.00 in payments he made toward his Court-imposed fine of

$38,600.00. Defendant states that the money for these payments came from benefits paid to Mr.

Epps by the Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”)--benefits the VA later told him should not

have been paid (“unearned benefits”). Since the VA discovered that it had been paying unearned

benefits to Defendant, the VA has been withholding $300.00 from his monthly benefits check in

order to pay down Defendant’s debt to the VA. Although the grounds for the requested

reimbursement are not entirely clear, Defendant appears to be arguing that the VA benefits he

diverted toward his fine should not have been accepted by the government, because no such

benefits were due to Defendant at the time.

On May 29, 2009, the Court ordered the government to file a response to Defendant’s

motion. Doc. 304. Because of the age of this case, the electronic notice listing for the United

States Attorney’s Office was out of date, and no paper copy of the order was forwarded to the
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:93-cr-01029-MP*return*returnRAY

government. As a result, the government was not aware of the Court’s order and did not file a

timely response. The government has now moved, however, for leave to file late. There being

good cause for the government’s late filing, the government’s motion (Doc. 306) is GRANTED,

and its response (Doc. 305) is accepted. 

In its response, the government stresses that Defendant’s criminal fine and his debt for

VA benefits overpayment are two separate debts. It also notes that, on April 17, 2000, the

government filed a motion (Doc. 300) to remit the unpaid balance of Defendant’s criminal fine

on the grounds that Defendant had paid a significant portion of the fine, his benefits were being

reduced, and the government determined that it was unlikely to obtain further significant

payments toward his fine. The Court granted the government’s motion on May 1, 2000. Doc.

301. Had the VA not paid Defendant the unearned benefits, the government states that it would

not have filed a motion to remit the unpaid balance of Defendant’s criminal fine, leaving

Defendant with even more debt.

In any event, Defendant has not presented sufficient legal justification for granting the

requested relief. The Court has already remitted the unpaid balance of Defendant’s criminal fine

and finds no reason to reimburse the amount paid. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Defendant’s Motion for Reimbursement of Funds (Doc. 303) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-9 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-9 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-9 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-9 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-9 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-9 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 6 of 6
27.402 Policy.       (a) 						            To carry out their missions and programs, agencies acquire or obtain access to many kinds of data produced during or used in the performance of their contracts. Agencies require data to-                                                         (1) 								                Obtain competition among suppliers;                                                            (2) 								                Fulfill certain responsibilities for disseminating and publishing the results of their activities;                                                            (3) 								                Ensure appropriate utilization of the results of research, development, and demonstration activities including the dissemination of technical information to foster subsequent technological developments;                                                            (4) 								                Meet other programmatic and statutory requirements; and                                                            (5) 								                Meet specialized acquisition needs and ensure logistics support.                                                                             (b) 						            Contractors may have proprietary interests in data. In order to prevent the compromise of these interests, agencies shall protect proprietary data from unauthorized use and disclosure. The protection of such data is also necessary to encourage qualified contractors to participate in and apply innovative concepts to Government programs. In light of these considerations, agencies shall balance the Government’s needs and the contractor’s legitimate proprietary interests.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 27.4 - Rights in Data and Copyrights
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.2.11




December 31, 2017 


CorEnergy Infrastructure Trust, Inc.
1100 Walnut Street, Suite 3350
Kansas City, Missouri  64106
Re:    Management Agreement for CorEnergy Infrastructure Trust, Inc.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Reference is made to that certain Management Agreement, dated as of May 8, 2015 and effective as of May 1, 2015, by and between CorEnergy Infrastructure Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and Corridor InfraTrust Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Manager”) (as such agreement has been, and may be further, amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Management Agreement”). Capitalized terms used and not defined herein are used as defined in the Management Agreement. The Company and the Manager have entered into this Letter Agreement to waive a portion of the Incentive Fee set forth in Section 8(b) of the Management Agreement applicable to the dividend paid during the calendar quarter ending December 31, 2017. This letter in no way supersedes our May 9, 2016 letter agreement concerning the Management Fee calculation.
This letter documents that the Manager has recommended, and the Company has agreed, that the Manager shall only be paid an Incentive Fee of $74,636 as a result of the dividend paid during the Company’s December 31, 2017 calendar quarter. This agreed upon incentive fee payment constitutes a waiver by the Manager of $74,230 of the Incentive Fee that would otherwise be due to the Manager from the Company.
The foregoing waiver shall not apply to any prior or future periods, although the Manager reserves the right to waive in the future any Incentive Fee payment to which it may be entitled for one or more future fiscal quarters of the Company.
The Company and the Manager mutually acknowledge and agree that this modification to the Incentive Fee payment right represents a discretionary action on the part of the Manager that is not required under the terms of the Management Agreement and that, except as specifically set forth herein, and as modified in our prior May 9, 2016 letter agreement concerning the Management Fee calculation, all provisions of the Management Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by this letter.
	
				
	 
	 
	Very truly yours,

	 
	 
	CORRIDOR INFRATRUST MANAGEMENT, LLC

	 
	 
	By:  /s/ Richard C. Green, Jr.                                 

	 
	 
	Name:  Richard C. Green, Jr., Managing Director

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	Agreed and accepted:
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	CORENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE TRUST, INC.
	 

	By:  /s/ David J. Schulte                                          
	 
	 

	Name:  David J. Schulte, President
	 
	 






1100 Walnut Street, Suite 3350, Kansas City, MO 64106 | Main: 816.875.3705 | Fax: 816.875.5875 | corenergy.reit
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JONIA GREEN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:20-cv-05957-MCR-MAF

KILOLO KIJAKAZI,

Acting Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R

The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on November 4, 

2021. ECF No. 20. The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Because no objections were filed, the parties 

waived their right to challenge the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to 

factual and legal conclusions. 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined the 

Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 20, is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 3:20-cv-05957-MCR-MAF Document 21 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20-cv-05957-MCR-MAF

2. Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED because it is supported by 

substantial evidence and premised on the proper legal principles. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 

Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to the Court to award reasonable attorney’s fees, is 

therefore, DENIED.

4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the file

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of January 2022.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. Casey Rodgers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

.

Case 3:20-cv-05957-MCR-MAF Document 21 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 2
#### Peter Spathis, Respondent, v King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc., Appellant.

In an action to recover damages, *inter alia,*for defamation, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 16, 1979, as awarded plaintiff punitive damages in the amount of $5,400, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the award of punitive damages is deleted therefrom, and the action is remitted to Trial Term for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment. There is no evidence in the record to justify an assessment of punitive damages against defendant. (Cf. *Craven v Bloomingdale,*171 NY 439; *Rose v Imperial Engine Co.,*127 App Div 885, affd 195 NY 515.) Titone, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,282,321
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,949
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      11,291,537
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,295,750)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,518,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      5,856,962
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,518,545
<SALES>                                        626,354
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               636,386
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               494,260
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             133,318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,808
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,808
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 16
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 16
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 3 of 16
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 4 of 16
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 5 of 16
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 6 of 16
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 7 of 16
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 8 of 16
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 9 of 16
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 10 of 16
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 11 of 16
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 12 of 16
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 13 of 16
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 14 of 16
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 15 of 16
Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 8 Filed 06/12/20 Page 16 of 16
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 36 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 36 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 36 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 36 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 36 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 36 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 36 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 7 of 7
§ 4279.235 Collateral. The Lender is responsible for obtaining and maintaining proper and adequate Collateral to protect the interest of the Lender, the Holder, and the Agency. Collateral must be of such a nature that repayment of the loan is reasonably ensured when considered with the integrity and ability of Project management, soundness of the Project, and the Borrower's prospective earnings. The Collateral may include, but is not limited to, the following: Revenue, land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, machinery, equipment, inventory, accounts receivable, contracts, cash, or other accounts, licenses and assignments of leases or leasehold interest. ( a ) The entire loan, the guaranteed and unguaranteed portions, must be secured by a first lien on all assets of the Project including all assets in the Project budget. The Agency may consider a subordinate lien position on inventory and accounts receivable to Working Capital loans including revolving lines of credit provided the Agency determines the Working Capital is necessary for the operation and with the Subordination, the loan remains adequately secured.
( b ) The entire loan must be secured by the same security with equal lien priority for the guaranteed and unguaranteed portions of the loan. The unguaranteed portion of the loan will neither be paid first nor given any preference or priority over the guaranteed portion.
Case 3:06-cv-00627-WKW-SRW Document 6 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MAURICE HENRY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-561-AW-MAF

WALT McNEIL, et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I have considered the magistrate judge’s February 16 Report and 

Recommendation. ECF No. 10. No objections have been filed. I have determined 

the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, and it is now incorporated into

this order. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “This case is dismissed for 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.” The clerk will then 

close the file.

SO ORDERED on March 20, 2021.

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00561-AW-MAF Document 11 Filed 03/20/21 Page 1 of 1
1

 Contrary to Defendant’s representation in his motion, this hearing was set for November 17,

2008. The date was set on October 20, 2008, in document 138 of this case docket.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:01cr48-SPM

TERRENCE WASHINGTON,

Defendant.

___________________________/ 

 

ORDER CONTINUING REVOCATION HEARING

Upon consideration, Defendant’s motion to continue his revocation hearing

(doc. 140) is granted. The sentencing hearing is reset1

 for 1:30 p.m. on

December 15, 2008, at the United States Courthouse in Tallahassee, Florida.

SO ORDERED this thirteenth day of November, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cr-00048-SPM-CAS Document 141 Filed 11/13/08 Page 1 of 1
32.503-8 Liquidation rates-ordinary method.

The Government recoups progress payments through the deduction of liquidations from payments

that would otherwise be due to the contractor for completed contract items. To determine the

amount of the liquidation, the contracting officer applies a liquidation rate to the contract price of

contract items delivered and accepted. The ordinary method is that the liquidation rate is the same

as the progress payment rate. At the beginning of a contract, the contracting officer must use this

method.

Parent topic: 32.503 Postaward matters.
52.227-15 Representation of Limited Rights

Data and Restricted Computer Software.

As prescribed in 27.409(c), insert the following provision:

Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software (Dec 2007)

(a) This solicitation sets forth the Government’s known delivery requirements for data (as defined in

the clause at 52.227-14, Rights in Data-General). Any resulting contract may also provide the

Government the option to order additional data under the Additional Data Requirements clause at

52.227-16, if included in the contract. Any data delivered under the resulting contract will be subject

to the Rights in Data-General clause at 52.227-14 included in this contract. Under the latter clause,

a Contractor may withhold from delivery data that qualify as limited rights data or restricted

computer software, and deliver form, fit, and function data instead. The latter clause also may be

used with its Alternates II and/or III to obtain delivery of limited rights data or restricted computer

software, marked with limited rights or restricted rights notices, as appropriate. In addition, use of

Alternate V with this latter clause provides the Government the right to inspect such data at the

Contractor’s facility.

(b) By completing the remainder of this paragraph, the offeror represents that it has reviewed the

requirements for the delivery of technical data or computer software and states [offeror check

appropriate block]-

□ None of the data proposed for fulfilling the data delivery requirements qualifies as limited rights

data or restricted computer software; or

□ Data proposed for fulfilling the data delivery requirements qualify as limited rights data or

restricted computer software and are identified as follows:

_____________

_____________

_____________

(c) Any identification of limited rights data or restricted computer software in the offeror’s response

is not determinative of the status of the data should a contract be awarded to the offeror.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.227 [Reserved]