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

** **

**LONG BEACH SECURITIES CORP. **

**RESTATED OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Douglas A. Potolsky, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to befiled in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10–K of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-7 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain anyuntrue 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 beprovided under Form 10–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 Item1123 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-backedsecurities 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–18have 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 information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Deutsche BankNational Trust Company.

 

 

 

Date:  As of March 15,2007

|   |   | /s/ Doug Potolsky                                                                            |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  DougPotolsky                                                                     |
|   |   | Title:   President and Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor |
No. 2661.

#### Estevan Romero *v.*The State.

Theft—Fact Case.—See the opinion in extenso for the substance of evidence *held*insufficient to support a conviction for horse theft.

Appeal from the District Court of Atascosa. Tied below before the Hon. D. P. Harr.

The conviction in this case was for the theft of a mare, the alleged property of John Birmingham. The penalty assessed against the appellant was a term of five years in the penitentiary. The evidence adduced upon the trial is summarized in the opinion of the court.

Ho brief for the appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Hurt, Judge.

This is a conviction for the theft of a certain, horse, the alleged property of John Birmingham. It appears that Birmingham lost a sorrel colt, about eighteen months old, in the summer of 1883. When lost the colt was branded B con*131nected to top of a square. When found by Birmingham in the possession of Julian Perez, in September, 1886, it was branded R connected to right side of first described brand, under a semi circle.

Opinion delivered October 29, 1887.

Birmingham’s testimony,—being upon the question as to whether the mare found in the possession of Perez was the •colt lost by him in 1883,—is, in substance, as follows: “The •colt was foaled mine. I only knew the animal, when I found it, by the brand. I could not swear to it, except by the brand. .According to the best of my knowledge and belief it was my .animal; but I could not swear positively to it, except by the brand. There was no flesh marks that I could swear to, except that it had a small neck, and its form. There were no special marks or flesh marks I could swear to. I knew it to be the same colt by its brand and by its small neck and form.”

Birmingham’s brand, so far as appears from the record, was not recorded. It is evident from his testimony, looking to all of his statements, that he did not know and would not swear to the animal found in the possession of Perez as his property, except from the appearance of the brand, together with the small neck and form. The brand, not being recorded, could furnish no proof of ownership whatever. It could not aid or strengthen proof arising from flesh marks, or from any other source. (Rev. Stats, art. 4561; Coffelt v. The State, 19 Texas Ct. App., 436; Myers v. The State, 21 Texas Ct. App., 448.)

The proof arising from flesh marks not being sufficient, when considered separate and apart from that arising from the brand, to establish ownership in Birmingham, most clearly there is a failure of proof upon this allegation.

The colt was taken, or strayed off in the summer of 1883; the mare,—supposed to be the same,—was found in defendant’s possession, if shown to have been in his possession at all, in April, 1886, more than two and a half years elapsing between the two dates.' Appellant’s possession was not questioned; and if it had been we do not think it was sufficiently recent to call upon him for an explanation. •

Because the proof of ownership is not sufficient, and because the proof of guilt is not sufficient, the judgment is reversed and -the cause is remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
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 Annual Report of Switch & Data Facilities Company, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George Pollock, Jr., 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 result of operations of the Company.

Dated: February 26, 2008



|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    GEORGE POLLOCK,
JR.                                                                    
|George Pollock, Jr.                                                                           
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)
§ 502.11 Actions on requests. ( a ) The Administrative Officer or any employee acting in that official's capacity will determine within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any a request whether to comply with the request. Upon receipt of a request for a Commission record which is available, the Administrative Officer or other employee will notify the requester as to the time the record is available, and will promptly make the record available after advising the requester of the applicable fees under § 502.13. The person making the request will be notified immediately after any adverse determination, the reasons for making the adverse determination and the right of the person to appeal.
( b ) Any denial of a request for a record will be written and signed by the Administrative Officer or other employee, including a statement of the reason for denial. That statement will contain, as applicable: ( 1 ) A reference to the specific exemption under the Freedom of Information Act authorizing the withholding of a record, and to the extent consistent with the purpose of the exemption, an explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld.
( 2 ) If a record requested does not exist, or has been legally disposed of, the requester will be so notified.
( c ) In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section may be extended by written notice to the person making the request setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No extension notice will specify a date that would result in an extension for more than twenty working days. As used in this paragraph, “unusual circumstances” means, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request— ( 1 ) The need to search for and collect the requested records from other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request;
( 2 ) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or
( 3 ) The need for consultation, which will be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject-matter interest therein.
#### Thomas Shiels, as Receiver of the Property of R. A. Brachvogel, Trading as Nix-E Company, Appellant, *v.*Jenny K. Stafford, Respondent.

*Shiels*v. *Stafford,*131 App. Div. 932, affirmed.

(Argued January 24, 1910;

decided February 8, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 15, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover the balance of a sum of money alleged to have been deposited with the defendant.

*J. Warren Greene*and *Frederick C. Gladden*for appellant.

*James M. Beck*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.
Exhibit 3.1

STATE OF DELAWARE

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF

AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF

FIRST PLACE FINANCIAL CORP.

First Place Financial Corp. (the Corporation), a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware does hereby certify:

FIRST: That at a meeting of the board of
directors of the Corporation resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment to Article Fourth, Section A of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of said Corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and
directing that the proposed amendment be considered at the next annual meeting of stockholders of said Corporation.

SECOND: That thereafter, the
annual meeting of stockholders of said Corporation was called and held upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute
were voted in favor of the amendment.

THIRD: That Article Fourth, Section A, of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of First
Place Financial Corp. is amended to read as follows:

A. The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the Corporation shall
have authority to issue is fifty-six million (56,000,000) consisting of:



| | 1. | Three million (3,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, par value one cent ($.01) per share (the Preferred Stock); and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Fifty-three million (53,000,000) shares of Common Stock, par value one cent ($.01) per share (the Common Stock).
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOURTH: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed, acknowledged and signed this Certificate of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation on behalf of the Corporation this 6th day of February, 2009.



By:

/s/ J. Craig CarrJ. Craig CarrGeneral Counsel and Corporate Secretary
Cmte 1-13-11 Response to Draft Final 

Alice Hoist <aholst@indems.org> 

01/13/2011 11:15 AM To 

"hmi11er®fec.gov" <hmi11er@fec.gov> 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

Indiana Democratic Party draft final audit report 

History: 

This message has been forwarded. 

Dear Henry, 

I have received the Draft Final Audit Report (LRA #823) dated December 

17, 2010, and have read and understand its contents, in addition to 

amending our 2007 reports to materially correct misstatements detailed by 

the Audit staff, i have reconciled our cash balance on our most recent 

(2010 post-general) report with a note that the change was a result of an 

audit adjustment. The state party does not intend to take further action 

and waives a hearing before the commission. 

I hope that we have satisfactorily fulfilled the Commission's 

expectations. Please let me know if i can be of any further assistance. 

Best regards, 

Al 1 ce 

Alice Hoist 

Director of Operations and Compliance 

Indiana Democratic Party 

115 w Washington St 

Ste 1165 - south Tower 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

317-231-7101 office 

317-489-7456 cell 

317-231-7129 fax 

aholst@i ndems.org 

Page 1
§ 605.6 Remedial action, voluntary action, and self-evaluation. ( a ) *Remedial action.* ( 1 ) If the Director finds that a recipient has discriminated against persons on the basis of handicap in violation of section 504 or this part, the recipient shall take such remedial action as the Director deems necessary to overcome the effects of the discrimination.
( 2 ) Where a recipient is found to have discriminated against persons on the basis of handicap in violation of section 504 or this part and where another recipient exercises control over the recipient that has discriminated, the Director, where appropriate, may require either or both recipients to take remedial action.
( 3 ) The Director may, where necessary to overcome the effects of discrimination in violation of section 504 or this part, require a recipient to take remedial action ( i ) with respect to handicapped persons who are no longer participants in the recipient's program or activity but who were participants in the program when such discrimination occurred or
( ii ) with respect to handicapped persons who would have been participants in the program or activity had the discrimination not occurred.
( b ) *Voluntary action.* A recipient may take steps, in addition to any action that is required by this part, to overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation in the recipient's program or activity by qualified handicapped persons.
( c ) *Self-evaluation.* ( 1 ) A recipient shall, within one year of the effective date of this part: ( i ) Evaluate, with the assistance of interested persons, including handicapped persons or organizations representing handicapped persons, its current policies and practices and the effects thereof that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part;
( ii ) Modify, after consultation with interested persons, including handicapped persons or organizations representing handicapped persons, any policies and practices that do not meet the requirements of this part; and
( iii ) Take, after consultation with interested persons, including handicapped persons or organizations representing handicapped persons, appropriate remedial steps to eliminate the effects of any discrimination that resulted from adherence to these policies and practices.
( 2 ) A recipient that employs fifteen or more persons shall, for at least three years following completion of the evaluation required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, maintain on file, make available for public inspection, and provide to the Director upon request: ( i ) A list of the interested person consulted
( ii ) a description of areas examined and any problems identified, and
( iii ) a description of any modifications made and any remedial steps taken.
[47 FR 8573, Mar. 1, 1982, as amended at 68 FR 51381, Aug. 26, 2003]
#### Foster *v.*Case, executrix.

Submitted July 16,

Decided November 12, 1906.

Petition for. injunction. Before Judge Lewis. Baldwin superior court. May 17, 1906.

*Hines & Vinson*and *Moore &*Moore, for plaintiff.

*Allen & Pottle*and *C. T.*Crawford, for defendant.

Lumpkin, J.

1. When a will has been probated in common form, and the sole heir at law, by petition to the court of ordinary, has called upon the executor to probate it in solemn form, and has filed a caveat, a suit by the executor against such heir at law to recover property devised in the will may, in a proper case, be enjoined until the issue of devisavitvel non has been determined. *Hooks*v. *Brown,*125 *Ga.*122. This, however, is not an arbitrary rule, but a matter resting in the sound discretion of the court, under the facts of the particular case.

2. In this ease there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to grant the injunction as prayed, but, instead thereof, enjoining the executrix from, paying out or otherwise disposing of any of the assets until further order.

3. Rulings on a demurrer or a motion to dismiss in the nature of a demurrer to an answer to an equitable petition as a whole, and also certain parts thereof, are not reviewable on a “fast writ” of error. If, under the law and evidence applicable to the case, there was no error in denying an injunction, no reversal can be had on the ground that the presiding judge refused on the hearing to strike certain parts of the answer, upon motion made therefor.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

99–011 2010

111th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 111–152 

VETO MESSAGE ON H.R. 3808 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION OF THE VETO OF H.R. 3808, THE ‘‘INTERSTATE 

RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS ACT OF 2010’’ 

NOVEMBER 18, 2010.—Message and accompanying papers referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
(1) 

MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

It is necessary to have further deliberations about the possible 

unintended impact of H.R. 3808, the ‘‘Interstate Recognition of 

Notarizations Act of 2010,’’ on consumer protections, including 

those for mortgages, before the bill can be finalized. Accordingly, I 

am withholding my approval of this bill. (The Pocket Veto Case, 

279 U.S. 655 (1929)). 

The authors of this bill no doubt had the best intentions in mind 

when trying to remove impediments to interstate commerce. My 

Administration will work with them and other leaders in Congress 

to explore the best ways to achieve this goal going forward. 

To leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed, in addition to 

withholding my signature, I am returning H.R. 3808 to the Clerk 

of the House of Representatives, along with this Memorandum of 

Disapproval. 

BARACK OBAMA. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, October 8, 2010. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
Order filed, December 21, 2017.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00708-CV

____________

FORUM US, INC., Appellant

V.

JEFFREY MUSSELWHITE, AUDIE ROMERO, ANTELOPE OIL TOOL & 

MFG. CO., LLC, INTERVALE CAPITAL, LLC, HKM CONSULTING, LLC 

AND WEARSOX, L.P., Appellee

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-60075

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due November 27, 2017. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Tammy Adams, the substitute court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United St ated District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1572

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Nebraska. * Johnny Vega, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 21, 2009 Filed: July 24, 2009

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Johnny Vega appeals the 188-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty, pursuan t to a plea agreement, to a drug-possession charge. His counsel has moved to withdr aw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Vega’s sentence, which is at the low end of the applicable advisory Guidelines range, is greater than necessary to meet federal sentencing goals and is therefore unreasonable.-2- We conclude that Vega’s challenge to his sentence is foreclosed because he agreed in the plea agreement to a sentence at the low end of the applicable Guidelines range. See United States v. Reyes-Contreras , 349 F.3d 524, 525 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (defendant could not challenge sentence on appeal because he received precisely what he bargained for in pl ea agreement); United States v. Nguyen , 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2005) (“A defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to a specific sentence may not challenge th at punishment on appeal”). In any event, Vega’s sentence is not unreasonable. SeeUnited States v. Toothman , 543 F.3d 967, 970 (8th Cir. 2008) (within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable on appeal); United States v. Haack , 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussing appropriate considerations at sentencing). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s moti on to withdraw, and we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### § 2101.10 The Commission.

The Commission is composed of seven members, each of whom is appointed by the President and serves for a period of four years or until his or her successor is appointed and qualified. The Chairman and Vice Chairman are elected by the members. The Commission is assisted by a staff as authorized by the Commission.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3799

___________ DeAngelo Lamont Thomas, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Alford Northern; Gary Rusher; Ray * Hopper; Stephan Clark; Danny * [UNPUBLISHED] Kirkman; Jonathan Rice; Robert * Hooper; Missouri Department of * Corrections, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 22, 2010 Filed: June 30, 2010

___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this pro se appeal, Missouri inmate DeAngelo Lamont Thomas challenges the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging that the use of pepper spray on hi m amounted to excessive force. Having carefully reviewed the record de novo, see Nelson v. Shuffman , 603 F.3d 439, 445

1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.(8th Cir. 2010) (standard of re view), we agree with the district court that the one-time use of pepper spray in these circumstan ces--Thomas was refusing orders to stop behavior that was deemed to present a security risk--did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, see 8th Cir. R. 47B; and we deny Thomas’s petition for a writ of prohibition.

______________________________

-2-