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

                       CERTIFICATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I, George A. Powell, certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Birch Branch,
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 controls 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 entities,
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:  May 16, 2005

/s/ George A. Powell
George A. Powell
Vice-President, Secretary and Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                           MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                         565
<SECURITIES>                                                    24
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   44
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    18
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 0
<PP&E>                                                         342
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 660
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            0
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     620
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   660
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               210
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   50
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                160
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            160
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   160
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    .95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0


</TABLE>
Q 

>45 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

January 12, 2010 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Anita C. Willis, Esq. 

400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300 

Culver City, CA 90230 

(fax no. 310-391-7572) 

Pamela J. Walls, Esq. 

County of Riverside 

3960 Orange Street 

Riverside, CA 92501 

(fax no. 951-955-6363) 

--n 

o> 

',o 

Re; ORANGE COUNTY SOARING ASSOCIATION, et al, v. THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, 

FAA Docket No. 16-09-13 

Dear Ms. Willis and Ms. Walls: 

The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") received your written request dated January 8, 

2010, for an extension of time until January 28, 2010, in which to file a Rebuttal to the 

Complainant's Reply. Your Rebuttal is presently due on January 18, 2010. Based on Respondent 

Counsel's representation that there is no opposition to the request and based upon good cause 

shown, the FAA hereby grants the request for an extension imtil January 28,2010, for the 

Respondent to file its Rebuttal. 

Taymond Veatch 

Attorney, Airport Law (AGC-610) 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

cc: Ronald J. Cozad, Esq. 

Law Offices of Ronald J. Cozad 

2100 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 214 

Carlsbad, CA 92011 

(fax no. 760-454-1705)
Incentive Awards Amendment 10.1






TFS Financial Corporation                                EXHIBIT 10.1    
2008 Equity Incentive Plan
First Amendment to Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective this [____] day of [_______________], 2012, by and between [_____________] (“Participant”) and TFS Financial Corporation, a Federal corporation (the “Company”), pursuant to the provisions of the TFS Financial Corporation 2008 Equity Incentive Plan.


W I T N E S S E T H:


WHEREAS, the Company and Participant are party to that certain Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement, effective as of August 11, 2008 (the “Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, the Company and Participant desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, and of the premises, covenants, terms and conditions contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:


1.Terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.
        
2.Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


3.    Timing of Payout.  Payout of all vested RSUs shall occur as soon as administratively feasible following Participant's Termination of Service with the Company or its Subsidiaries, but in no event later than sixty (60) days after the effective date of termination; provided, however, that if the Participant is then a “Specified Employee” under Section 409A, the RSUs shall be paid out in accordance with Section 8.1(pp)(v) of the Plan.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, upon the vesting of any RSUs, the Company may, in its sole discretion, distribute Stock of the Company subject to vested RSUs to pay Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA”) tax imposed under Section 3101, Section 3121(a) and Section 3121(v)(2) on the vesting of RSUs and to pay income tax at source on wages imposed under Section 3401 or the corresponding provisions of applicable state, local, or foreign tax laws as a result of the payment of the FICA amount and, pursuant to Section 13(c) of this Agreement, the Company may retain such Stock to satisfy the minimum amount of such required tax withholding.


3.This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which will constitute an original and all of which together will constitute one agreement.  The signature page of any individual or entity, or copies or facsimiles thereof, may be appended to any counterpart of this Amendment and when so appended will constitute an original.


4.Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and are unmodified hereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed or caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first above written.















TFS Financial Corporation




By:                     
Name:                     
Title:                    
                                            


                                            
[_________________]
§ 20.230 How and when must I identify workplaces? ( a ) You must identify all known workplaces under each Department of the Treasury award. A failure to do so is a violation of your drug-free workplace requirements. You may identify the workplaces_ ( 1 ) To the Department of the Treasury official that is making the award, either at the time of application or upon award; or
( 2 ) In documents that you keep on file in your offices during the performance of the award, in which case you must make the information available for inspection upon request by Department of the Treasury officials or their designated representatives.
( b ) Your workplace identification for an award must include the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the award takes place. Categorical descriptions may be used (e.g., all vehicles of a mass transit authority or State highway department while in operation, State employees in each local unemployment office, performers in concert halls or radio studios).
( c ) If you identified workplaces to the Department of the Treasury awarding official at the time of application or award, as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and any workplace that you identified changes during the performance of the award, you must inform the Department of the Treasury awarding official.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1211

To amend the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to enhance the availability of investment capital for low- and moderate-income housing in lowand moderate-income neighborhoods.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 10, 1995

Mrs. ROUKEMA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To amend the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to

enhance the availability of investment capital for lowand moderate-income housing in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Reinvest5 ment Improvement Act of 1995’’.
2

•HR 1211 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT

2 OF 1977.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 804(a)(1) of the Commu4 nity Reinvestment Act of 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2903(a)(1)) is

5 amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(1) assess the institution’s record of meeting

7 the credit needs—

8 ‘‘(A) of its entire community, including

9 low- and moderate-income neighborhoods;

10 ‘‘(B) of targeted low- and moderate-income

11 neighborhoods designated by the appropriate

12 Federal financial supervisory agency or the ap13 propriate State bank supervisor; or

14 ‘‘(C) with respect to real property des15 ignated for targeted persons with incomes of

16 less than 60 percent of the median income in

17 the area where such property is located,

18 consistent with the safe and sound operation of such

19 institution.’’.

20 (b) AMENDMENT TO PURPOSE.—Section 802(b) of

21 the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (12 U.S.C.

22 2901(b)) is amended to read as follows:

23 ‘‘(b) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this title to re24 quire each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agen25 cy to use its authority when examining financial institu-
3

•HR 1211 IH

1 tions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the cred2 it needs—

3 ‘‘(1) of the local communities in which they are

4 chartered;

5 ‘‘(2) of targeted low- and moderate-income

6 neighborhoods designated by the appropriate Federal

7 financial supervisory agency or the appropriate State

8 bank supervisor; or

9 ‘‘(3) with respect to real property designated

10 for targeted persons with incomes of less than 60

11 percent of the median income in the area where such

12 property is located,

13 consistent with the safe and sound operation of such insti14 tutions.’’.

15 (c) AMENDMENT TO DEFINITIONS.—Section 803 of

16 the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (12 U.S.C.

17 2902) is amended by adding at the end the following new

18 paragraph:

19 ‘‘(5) STATE BANK SUPERVISOR.—The term

20 ‘State bank supervisor’ has the same meaning as in

21 section 3(r) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.’’.

Æ
EX‐35.1

 

| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2016, byand among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC,as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, andPentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor and as Asset RepresentationsReviewer, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2016-JP4 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from December 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreementduring such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

  

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

/s/Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
#### Betty Runge and Elroy Runge, Plaintiffs, v. Larkin I. Smith, Defendant, and Larkin I. Smith, Defendant, Counterplaintiff and Appellee, v. Betty Runge, Plaintiff, Counterdefendant and Appellant.

Gen. No. 68-30.

Fifth District.

December 31, 1968.

Ryan and Heller, of Mattoon (Harlan Heller, of counsel), for appellant;

Richard F. Record, Jr., of Craig & Craig, of Mattoon, for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE MORAN.

Not to be published in full.
www.gpo.gov

### §286e–1i. Increase in United States quota; consultations with Congress

(a) The United States Governor of the Fund is authorized to consent to an increase in the quota of the United States in the Fund equivalent to 5,310,800,000 Special Drawing Rights, limited to such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriations Acts.

(b)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with the chairman and the ranking minority member of—

(A) the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and any appropriate subcommittee of each such committee; and

(B) the committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate, and any appropriate subcommittee of each such committee,

for purposes of discussing the position of the executive branch and the views of the Congress with respect to any international negotiations being held to consider any future quota increase for the International Monetary Fund which may involve an increased contribution, subscription, or loan by the United States.

(2) Such consultation shall be made—

(A) not later than thirty days before the initiation of such international negotiations;

(B) during the period in which such negotiations are being held, in a frequent and timely manner; and

(C) before a session of such negotiations is held at which the United States representatives may agree to such quota increase.

(July 31, 1945, ch. 339, §41, as added Pub. L. 98–181, title VIII, §802(a)(4), Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1268.)

#### Change of Name

Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs of House of Representatives treated as referring to Committee on Banking and Financial Services of House of Representatives by section 1(a) of Pub. L. 104–14, set out as a note preceding section 21 of Title 2, The Congress.

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in section 286y of this title.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Covalent Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lawrence R. Hoffman, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Lawrence R. Hoffman                                                                             
|Lawrence R. Hoffman Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer

May 15, 2006

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or
as a separate disclosure document.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tarrence C. Canty, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 493]

Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James R Punch, J.), rendered June 21, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.16 [12]), defendant challenges County Court’s suppression rulings. Those challenges are encompassed by defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal *{see People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; *People v Gilbert,*17 AD3d 1164 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 762 [2005]; *see generally People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 285 [1992]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAMSON WESLEY OMWENO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70456

Agency No. A079-211-108

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 20, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Samson Wesley Omweno, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions pro se for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

Immigration Judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

MAY 06 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70456

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, 

Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the

petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Omweno established

changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application.

 See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a), (5); see also Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172,

1181-82 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

As to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the agency’s

determination that Omweno failed to establish past persecution or a clear

probability of persecution in Kenya based on a protected ground, including his

actual or imputed political opinion, his race or ethnicity as a Kiisi, his Christian

religion, or membership in a particular social group. See Parussimova v. Mukasey,

555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected

ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). 

Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Omweno failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured

upon return to Kenya. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1026 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.