alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
           HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2006-HSA4 (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer (the "Servicer")  pursuant to the Servicing  Agreement,  dated as of
July 28, 2006 (as amended from time to time, the "Agreement"), among Residential
Funding  Company,  LLC (formerly  Residential  Funding  Corporation),  as master
servicer,  JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as indenture trustee,  and the Home Equity
Loan Trust 2006-HSA4, as the issuing entity, 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 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  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:    Managing Director
§ 11.335 Requirements to qualify for an STCW endorsement as an electro-technical officer on vessels powered by main propulsion machinery of 750 kW/1,000 HP or more (operational level). ( a ) To qualify for an STCW endorsement as an electro-technical officer (ETO), an applicant must— ( 1 ) Provide evidence of 36 months combined workshop skills training and approved seagoing service of which not less than 30 months must be seagoing service in the engine department of vessels. Experience gained in the deck department may be creditable for up to 3 months of the service requirements; or completion of an approved training program, that includes a combination of workshop skill training and seagoing service of not less than 12 months, and which meets the requirements of Section A-III/6 of the STCW Code (incorporated by reference, see § 11.102 of this part);
( 2 ) Provide evidence of meeting the standard of competence specified in Section A-III/6 of the STCW Code;
( 3 ) Provide evidence of having satisfactorily completed approved training in the following subject areas: ( i ) Medical first-aid provider.
( ii ) Basic and advanced firefighting in accordance with § 11.303 of this subpart.
( iii ) Proficiency in survival craft and rescue boats other than fast rescue boats (PSC) or proficiency in survival craft and rescue boats other than lifeboats and fast rescue boats (PSC-limited); and
( 4 ) Provide evidence of having satisfactorily completed approved professional training in the following subject areas: ( i ) Onboard computer networking and security.
( ii ) Radio electronics.
( iii ) Integrated navigation equipment.
( iv ) Ship propulsion and auxiliary machinery.
( v ) Instrumentation and control systems.
( vi ) High-voltage power systems.
( b ) Any applicant who has served in a relevant capacity onboard a vessel for a period of not less than 12 months within the last 60 months must provide evidence of— ( 1 ) Seagoing service; and
( 2 ) Having achieved the standards of competence specified in Section A-III/6 of the STCW Code.
( c ) An applicant who holds an STCW endorsement as OICEW, second engineer officer, or chief engineer officer will be allowed to receive the ETO endorsement upon completion of the requirements in Section A-III/6 of the STCW Code.
( d ) An applicant who does not hold any other national or STCW endorsement will be issued, upon completion of the requirements in this section, the ETO endorsement without any corresponding national endorsement.
[USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77909, Dec. 24, 2013, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58277, Sept. 29, 2014]
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed November 23, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1514

Lower Tribunal Nos. F20-6820, F20-6263, F20-14272, F20-14273

________________

Arnold Caso,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Miranda, Judge.

Arnold Caso, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Because the trial court's exercise of discretion in ruling on the merits 

of a motion to reduce or mitigate sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) is not subject to appellate review, we dismiss 

this appeal. See Smith v. State, 902 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Graham 

v. State, 845 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). See also Diaz v. State, 931 

So. 2d 1002, 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (observing that “an order denying a 

motion to reduce or mitigate a sentence is not appealable” but may be 

treated as a petition for writ of certiorari where the trial court denied the 

motion as untimely without reaching the merits). 

Appeal dismissed.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 7, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1048 Lower Tribunal No. 06-21-M

________________ Eniel Planas, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Ruth Becker, Judge. Eniel Planas, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 14-20425-7

v.

HON. JUDITH E. LEVY

CHRISTOPHER PIERCE,

 

 Defendant. 

/

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE(R. 479)

On April 14, 2016, Defendant Christopher Pierce pleaded guilty to assault 

resulting in serious bodily injury in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 1949(A)(3), 2. This Court sentenced him to 96 months in prison. (R. 296, PgID. 

1298). On September 1, 2020, Pierce filed a pro se motion for compassionate 

release from USP Thomson. (R. 479). On September 24, 2020, the Court appointed 

counsel for Pierce. (R. 480). 

If a defendant makes a motion for compassionate release, the district court 

may not act on it unless the defendant files it “after” either completing the 

administrative process within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) or waiting 30 days from 

when the warden at his facility received his request. 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A); 

United States v. Alam, 960 F. 3d 831, 833-35 (6th Cir. 2020). As the Sixth Circuit 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 483, PageID.2688 Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 3
explained in Alam, exhaustion of administrative remedies is “a mandatory 

condition” that “must be enforced” when the government raises it. Id. 

On September 22, 2020, the Bureau of Prisons notified the government that

USP Thomson did not receive a request for compassionate release from Pierce. See

Gov. Sealed Exhibit 1. Further, Pierce has not provided proof that he has exhausted 

his administrative remedies. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Pierce’s motion

without prejudice. Pierce may refile after he exhausts his administrative remedies 

within the BOP. 

Pierce’s motion should be denied. 

Respectfully submitted,

MATTHEW SCHNEIDER

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

s/ Matthew Roth

Matthew Roth

Assistant United States Attorney

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, MI 48226

Phone: 313-226-9186 phone

E-mail: mroth@usa.doj.gov

Dated: October 1, 2020

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 483, PageID.2689 Filed 10/01/20 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 1, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court Eastern District of Michigan using the ECF 

system, which will send notification of such filing to all users of record:

Daniel Dena, Attorney for Defendant

Deputy Federal Defender

613 Abbott, 5th Floor

Detroit, Michigan 48226

Daniel_Dena@fd.org

s/ Matthew Roth

Matthew Roth

Assistant United States Attorney

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, Michigan 48226

Phone: 313-226-9186 phone

E-mail: mroth@usa.doj.gov

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 483, PageID.2690 Filed 10/01/20 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Louann Hall,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 14-12448

Commissioner of Social Security, Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING 

8/17/16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Represented by counsel, Plaintiff Louann Hall filed this action challenging the

Commissioner’s unfavorable decision disallowing benefits. During the course of this case,

however, a three-judge panel of this Court determined that Plaintiff’s Counsel was no longer

permitted to represent Plaintiff. Thereafter, the magistrate judge assigned to this action struck

the previously-filed motions for summary judgment and set a new briefing schedule for the

parties. The Commissioner filed a motion for summary judgment but Plaintiff, who is now

proceeding pro se, did not.

On August 17, 2016, Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins issued a Report and

Recommendation wherein she recommends that this Court either: 1) affirm the Commissioner’s

decision; or 2) dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. (Docket Entry No. 23).

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a

matter by a magistrate judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after

1

2:14-cv-12448-SFC-SDD Doc # 24 Filed 09/07/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 515
being served with a copy of the R&R. No party has filed any objections and the time for doing

so has passed.

The Court hereby ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and,

under the circumstances presented here, ORDERS that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2016 S/ Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on September 7, 2016, the foregoing document was served on counsel of

record via electronic means and upon Louann Hall via First Class mail at the address below:

Louann Hall 

6101 Woodmoor 

Burton, MI 48509 

S/ J. McCoy 

Case Manager 

2

2:14-cv-12448-SFC-SDD Doc # 24 Filed 09/07/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 516
#### William Brown, Respondent, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

*Brown*v. *N. Y. G. & 3. B. B. B. Go.,*126 App. Div. 240, affirmed.

(Argued October 13, 1909;

decided October 29,1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered May 20, 1908, affirming a judgment -in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action by an employee to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the master’s negligence.

*543
      *A. 11. Cowie*for appellant.

*James 1C. Newell*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, IIiscooic and Chase, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MORRIS WEATHERSPOON,

#471817,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-12756

Plaintiff,

DISTRICT JUDGE LAURIE J. MICHELSON

v.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN

WHALEN

DINSA, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C.

§1983, filed a motion for appointment of counsel on October 22, 2014 [Docket #15].

Unlike criminal cases, there is no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment

of counsel in civil cases. Rather, the Court requests members of the bar to assist in 

appropriate cases. In Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-606 (6 Cir. 1993), the Sixth th

Circuit noted that “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right. It is

a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.” (Internal quotations and

citations omitted).

It is the practice of this Court to defer any attempt to obtain counsel for pro se civil

rights Plaintiffs until after motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment have been

denied. At this point, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is premature. If Plaintiff’s claims

ultimately survive dispositive motions, he may renew his motion for appointment of counsel

2:14-cv-12756-LJM-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 10/27/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 126
at that time.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel

[Docket #15] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

s/R. Steven Whalen

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: October 27, 2014

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record

on October 27, 2014, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla

Case Manager to the

Honorable R. Steven Whalen

2:14-cv-12756-LJM-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 10/27/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 127
----

*go to a larger version of Plate 1 (5.6MB)**go to metadata for this field activity, A-1-98-HW*

----

----

----

SusanA. Cochran

U.S. Department of the Interior,U.S.Geological Survey,Western RegionCoastal and Marine Geology
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-147]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week 
of January 16, 2007:
    A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 2 
p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a) (3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(ii), and (10) permit consideration 
of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Campos, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
January 18, 2007 will be:

Formal orders of investigation;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature;
A regulatory matter regarding a financial institution; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    January 11, 2007.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-147 Filed 1-11-07; 4:25 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b)
AND 15d-14(b)




(Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of China Bio Energy Holdings Group Co.,
Ltd. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
the undersigned does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of his or her knowledge and belief:




(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 the operation of the
Company.





May
      13, 2009By:
                                    /s/
      Gao XinchengName:
                                    Gao
      XinchengTitle:
                                    Chief
      Executive OfficerBy:
                                    /s/
      Albert PuName:
                                    Albert
      PuTitle:
                                    Chief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial
Officer)
§ 113.37-5 General requirements. ( a ) A vessel equipped with fixed pitch propellers must have on the navigating bridge and at the engineroom control station a propeller speed and direction indicator for each shaft.
( b ) A vessel equipped with controllable pitch propellers must have on the navigating bridge and at the engineroom control station a propeller speed and pitch position indicator for each shaft.
[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15272, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28290, June 4, 1996]
p130679.eng

SAT (concerns) (07/16/2013): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Ecotox: Analogs: Migration to groundwater: Negligible PBT rating: P3B2T2 PMN - P3B1T1; Deg Pdt - P3B2T2. // Health Rating: PMN - 1-2; Per-F acid - 2. // Eco Rating: inact material - 2; incomplete incineration product - 3. Health: 2 Drinking Water, Inhalation, XB Testing (No Testing desired) Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 420.00 ppb), XB Testing (Testing desired)
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 0-1
NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

Page 2p130679.eng

Page 6
# Senate Floor Activity - Monday, January 13, 2014

**

----

## The Journal

## Certain Procedures Dispensed With

## Transaction of Morning Business

## Legislative Business (Monday, January 13)

S. 1845

 S.Amdt. 2631

 S.Amdt. 2632

 S.Amdt. 2633

 S.Amdt. 2634

 S.Amdt. 2635

S. 1846

S.Res. 331

S.Res. 332

## Executive Business (Monday, January 13)

PN529

 7

## Adjournment

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Floor Activity Summaries 

View previous floor activity files.Stream live Senate floor proceedings while a meeting is in progress.View past floor proceedings on CSPAN

### Additional Information 

Use this site's search or visit the Senate Index to find pages by topic.

To learn about the history of the Senate visit the About the Senate section of Senate.gov.

### Contact Your Senators 

Follow this guide on how to contact your senators by phone, postal mail, or on the web.
§ 111.12-9 Generator cables. ( a ) The current-carrying capacity of generator cables must not be: ( 1 ) Less than 115 percent of the continuous generator rating; or
( 2 ) Less than 115 percent of the overload for a machine with a 2 hour or greater overload rating.
( b ) Generator cables must not be in the bilges.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/24

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 24 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.44 N 77.04 W Meters AGL
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 16-5194 September Term, 2017

 FILED ON: NOVEMBER 28, 2017

LAURA HOLMES AND PAUL JOST,

APPELLANTS

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

APPELLEE

On Certification of a Constitutional Question

from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:14-cv-01243)

Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON, ROGERS, TATEL, BROWN*, GRIFFITH,

 KAVANAUGH, SRINIVASAN, MILLETT, PILLARD, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This cause came on to be heard on the certification of a constitutional question from the

United States District Court for the District of Columbia and was argued by counsel. On

consideration thereof, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the per-election structure of 52 U.S.C.

§ 30116(a)(1)(A)’s limits on contributions by individuals to federal candidates does not violate the

First Amendment, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Ken Meadows

Deputy Clerk

Date: November 28, 2017

Opinion for the En Banc court filed by Circuit Judge Srinivasan.

* Circuit Judge Brown was a member of the en banc count but retired before issuance of the

opinion.

USCA Case #16-5194 Document #1706236 Filed: 11/28/2017 Page 1 of 1
Certification pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Michael R. Kallet, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Eric E. Stickels,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Oneida Financial Corp.
(the "Company"), each certify in his capacity as an officer of the Company that
he has reviewed the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2006 and that to the best of his/her knowledge:

(6)   the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(7)   the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


    August 14, 2006                      /s/ Michael R. Kallet
------------------------------           --------------------------------------
Date                                     President and Chief Executive Officer


    August 14, 2006                      /s/ Eric E. Stickels
------------------------------           --------------------------------------
Date                                     Executive Vice President and
                                         Chief Financial Officer

                                  Exhibit 32.1
2:14-cv-12720-GAD-APP Doc # 32 Filed 04/29/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 307
2:14-cv-12720-GAD-APP Doc # 32 Filed 04/29/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 308
2:14-cv-12720-GAD-APP Doc # 32 Filed 04/29/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 309
2:14-cv-12720-GAD-APP Doc # 32 Filed 04/29/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 310
§ 75.304 Bonds. The HHS awarding agency may include a provision on bonding, insurance, or both in the following circumstances: ( a ) Where the Federal Government guarantees or insures the repayment of money borrowed by the recipient, the HHS awarding agency, at its discretion, may require adequate bonding and insurance if the bonding and insurance requirements of the non-Federal entity are not deemed adequate to protect the interest of the Federal Government.
( b ) The HHS awarding agency may require adequate fidelity bond coverage where the non-Federal entity lacks sufficient coverage to protect the Federal Government's interest.
( c ) Where bonds are required in the situations described above, the bonds must be obtained from companies holding certificates of authority as acceptable sureties, as prescribed in 31 CFR part 223.