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




I,
      Andrew
      Leszczynski, 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 the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of SACO
      I
      Trust 2006-9 (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 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 be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report
      is
      included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;




4.
      I am
      responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based
      on
      my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing 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 agreements; and




5.
      All of
      the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
      securities 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-18 have 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: EMC Mortgage Corporation, as servicer;
      LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc., as vendor; American Security Insurance
      Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, and Safeco Financial Institution
      Solutions, Inc. (affiliates of Assurant Inc.), each as vendor; GMAC Mortgage,
      LLC, as servicer; GMAC Bank, as vendor; HomeBanc Mortgage Corporation, as
      servicer; ZC Sterling Insurance Agency, Inc., as vendor, ZC Real Estate Tax
      Solutions Limited, as vendor; and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
      custodian.




Date:
      March 29, 2007




LaSalle
      Bank National Association, as Master Servicer




/s/
      Andrew Leszczynski


Andrew
      Leszczynski


First
      Vice President
GAMA Bibliography

Apr/2002 GAMA Directory April 2002

Oct/2002 GAMA Directory October 2002

March/2005
#### § 111.99-5 General.

Fire door release systems, if installed, must meet regulation II-2/9.4.1.1.5.3 of IMO SOLAS 74 (incorporated by reference; see 46 CFR 110.10-1).

[USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65199, Oct. 31, 2008; USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16365, Mar. 16, 2023]
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Certification
of Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Linda M. Siluk, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Party City
Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being
prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting. /s/ LINDA M. SILUKLinda M. SilukChief Financial Officer Date: September 14, 2004
7@oFH201 |

NEWS FROM...

. EDERAL ELECTI
COMMISSION

1325 K Street, N.

RELEASE: ON RECEIPT CONTACT: FRED EILAND
SHARON SNYDER
(202) 523-4065
WASHINGTON - January 30, 1979 - The Federal Election Commission notes that there

was an error in one of the figures listed in the release of January 24, 1979,

entitled "FEC Releases New Interim Summaries of Non-Party Political Committee 1977-78

Financial Activity." e
a

T Page 5 of the release lists the top 10 corporate PACs in 4 categories. In the
N

Wroategory of "Total contributions to candidates (by dollar amount)," Dartpac is listed

: iy; a
as #2, as having contributed $155,650. The correct amount should be $104,300,

relegating Dartpac to #5 in that listing.
N. Y. SUPERIOR COURT.

#### George A. Baker and William W. Baker agt. Henry Wales.

*General Term,*

*March,*1873.

Where the evidence is sufficient to show that *deceit*has been used for the purpose of bringing a person within the jurisdiction of this court, that he may be served with a summons and thus subjected to an action in this court, thé service of the summons will be set aside and vacated.

*Before*Monell, *P. J.,*Freedman *and*Curtis, *JJ.*

Appeal from order vacating and setting aside service of summons.

The following is the opinion delivered at special term :

Sedgwick, J.

The facts seem to be that the plaintiffs kept in their office parcels of summons with places left blank for defendants’ names and amounts to be claimed. The inference is, that if a business interview were not satisfactory, service of summons would follow after the blanks had been filled up.

On January 19th one of the plaintiffs wrote to defendant, who lived in Connecticut, to come to Hew York to settle the claim in dispute, and to answer by return mail whether he would come. He did not answer until the twenty-sixth, and did not come until the thirtieth; then he had an unsuccessful negotiation with plaintiffs’ clerk, who served him with the summons in the case after he had filled in the defendant’s name. This summons was dated 20th January, the day after the plaintiffs’ letter to defendant to come to Hew York.

There would be no doubt in the case if it were not for the plaintiffs’ affidavits that the letter was written and the interview sought for the purpose of settlement solely.

*138Mobbis & Lobd, *for appellants.*

Rog-eb H. Ltou, *for respondent.*

But there is a conclusion consistent with this to 'be drawn from all the facts; that is, that irrespective of a particular interest in this particular case, there was a general purpose to have interviews with business customers, who' went there only for business purposes, and then the clerk having blank summons in reserve, to serve them if the customers did not come to terms ; so the clerk would be instructed.

Under the general system of business it would be only necessary for the plaintiffs to write a letter solely for the purpose of settlement in a particular case, and the clerk would serve the summons under the general itistruetion. Nevertheless, the result would be that a defendant would be deceived, and the deceit would be used for the purpose of effecting a service.

Motion granted with ten dollars costs.

*By the Court,*Fbeedman, J.

The court below found, upon evidence somewhat conflicting, that deceit has been used for the purpose of bringing defendant within the jurisdiction of the coui-t. We have carefully examined the evidence and deem it amply sufficient to sustain such,finding. The service of the summons was therefore properly vacated and set aside *(Carpenter*agt. *Spooner, 2 Sandf.,*716).

The order must be affirmed with costs.

Monell and Oubtis, JJ., concurred.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Theodore A. Boutacoff, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of IRIDEX Corporation on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2005 (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) that information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of IRIDEX Corporation. Date: April 1, 2005 By:
    /s/  THEODORE  A. BOUTACOFFName:
    Theodore A. BoutacoffTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) I, Larry Tannenbaum, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of IRIDEX Corporation on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2005 (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) that information contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of IRIDEX Corporation. Date: April 1, 2005 By:
    /s/ LARRY TANNENBAUMName:
    Larry TannenbaumTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer and Vice President,

Administration

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Cooper v. Turner.

*Services—when son not liable to mother for.*

A widow resided with her son, and kept house for him, without any agreement for wages. *Held,*that the law would not imply an agreement to pay wages.

Appeal by Mary Turner, sister and heir at.law of William Cooper, deceased, from a decree of the surrogate of Erie county, allowing a claim of Betsey Cooper, mother of deceased, against his estate for services, moneys had and received, and rent.

*William C. Johnson,*for appellant.

*Humphrey & Lockwood,*for respondent.

*712Mullin, P. J.

The only portion of the opinion believed to be important for publication‘is the following :

“ It appears by the evidence returned by the surrogate that the intestate was a single man, and his mother who was a widow resided with him and kept house for him, without any agreement for wages. Under the circumstances it seems to me the law will not imply an agreement to pay wages. Had he lived with her and rendered services no agreement for wages would be implied, and I conceive no reason why it should be implied in her favor.”

*Rehearing ordered.*
§ 126.270 Amendment. ( a ) An amended Certificate of Inspection may be issued at any time by any OCMI. The amended Certificate of Inspection replaces the original, but the expiration date remains the same as that of the original. An amended Certificate of Inspection may be issued to authorize and record a change in the dimensions, gross tonnage, owner, operator, manning, offshore workers permitted, route permitted, conditions of operations, equipment, or the like from that specified in the current Certificate of Inspection.
( b ) A request for an amended Certificate of Inspection must be made to the cognizant OCMI by the owner or operator of the vessel at any time there is a change in the character of a vessel or in its route, equipment, ownership, operation, or similar factors specified in its current Certificate of Inspection.
( c ) The cognizant OCMI may require an inspection before issuing an amended Certificate of Inspection.
## Docket No. FAA **- 20**  **12 -**  **0265**
**Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 5/6/10

--- Transport Canada Dave Lotterer 5/6 /10 Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 5/6/10

AT A M. Lopez 5/6/10
- 1849
- 1850
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

NAME                                         JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
----                                         -----------------------------

<S>                                          <C>
AvTel Holdings, Inc.                         California

Best Connections, Inc.                       Texas

Digital Media International, Inc.            Pennsylvania

Hi, Tiger, Inc.                              Utah

Matrix Telecom, Inc                          Texas

Remote Lojix/PCSI, Inc.                      New York

Remote Lojix of Connecticut, Inc.            Connecticut

Remote Lojix Technology Partners, Inc.       New York

Silicon Beach Communications, Inc.           California

Westnet Communications, Inc.                 California

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit No. 99.1

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 barnesandnoble.com inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marie
J. Toulantis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:



| | (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.

|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Marie J. Toulantis 
|    |  |                        
|    |  | Marie J. Toulantis     
|   
|   
|   
|   
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|   
|   
|   
|   
|    |  | barnesandnoble.com inc.
|   
|   
|   
|   
|    |  | August 14, 2002
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT EDWARD GILES ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3148 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed September 27, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Charles E. Roberts, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. KHOUZAM, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 31.4



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER
SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Sanjay Subramanian, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1
to the annual report on Form 10-K of Ocugen, Inc.; and



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.



|Date: | April
        29, 2020 |                                      
|----- | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------
|      |                        |                                      
|      |                        | /s/
        Sanjay Subramanian       
|      |                        | Sanjay
        Subramanian           
|      |                        | Chief
        Financial Officer      
|      |                        | (Principal
        Financial Officer)
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

BOCA STEL 2, LLC , Appellant,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and PABLO MENDEZ, DISCOVER BANK, MARIA MENDEZ a/k/a MARIA VERONICA MENDEZ, UNKNOWN TENANT IN POSSESSION OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY , Appellee s

.

No. 4D 14

- 3869

[October 7, 2015 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fif teenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County ; Judy Biebel , Judge; L.T. Case No.
2012CA018024X XXXMB

.

Bria n M. Becher of Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Gora , P.A.

, Boca
Raton , for appellant.

Wm. David Newman, Jr. of Choice Legal Group, P.A.

, Fort Lauderdale

, for appellee JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., National Association

.

On C onfession of E rror

P ER C URIAM

.

Appellant, Boca Stel 2, LLC, appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion to quash service of process and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Appellee concedes that the affidavit of constructive service of process was deficient and that the summons should be quashed. See Gans v. Heathgate

Sunflower Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. , 593 S o. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

We therefore reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to quash the summons and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and reman ded.2

G ROSS , T

AYLOR , and D AMOORGIAN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 2507.23 Collection and payment of fees. ( a ) AmeriCorps must ordinarily receive all applicable fees before it sends copies of records to a requester. This is payment for work already completed, not an advance payment.
( b ) AmeriCorps may require an advance payment before work begins or is continued on a request when one of the following two circumstances exists. In these cases, AmeriCorps will not consider the FOIA request to have been received and will not conduct further work on the request until it receives the required payment. If the requester does not pay the advance payment within 30 calendar days after the date of AmeriCorps' fee determination, the request will be closed. ( 1 ) If AmeriCorps determines or estimates that a total fee will be greater than $250.00, it may require that the requester pay in advance, up to the amount of the entire anticipated fee, before starting to process the request. AmeriCorps may choose to process the request before it collects fees if it receives a satisfactory assurance of full payment from a requester with a history of prompt payment.
( 2 ) When a requester has previously failed to pay a properly charged FOIA fee to the Agency within 30 calendar days of the billing date, AmeriCorps may require the requester to pay the full amount past due, plus any applicable interest on that prior request, and may also require the requester to pay in advance the full amount of any anticipated fee before it begins to process a new request or continues to process a pending request or any pending appeal. If AmeriCorps has a reasonable basis to believe that a requester has misrepresented their identity in order to avoid paying outstanding fees, it may require the requester to provide proof of identity.
( c ) Requesters must pay fees by check or money order made payable to the Treasury of the United States.
( d ) AmeriCorps is not required to accept payments in installments.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2004 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2004

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 4282 Beach Street in Akron, Michigan, as the ``Akron Veterans Memorial 
                             Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AKRON VETERANS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4282 Beach Street in Akron, Michigan, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Akron Veterans Memorial Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Akron 
Veterans Memorial Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*Michael Auer, *Appellant, v.*Clayton C. Brown, *Respondent*.

So much of the judgment appiealed from as imposes costs and disbursements upon Auer reversed, and , in all‘other respects the judgment affirmed, without costs of this apipeal to either party.
#### § 111.05-1 Purpose.

This subpart contains requirements for the grounding of electric systems, circuits, and equipment.

Note:

Circuits are grounded to limit excessive voltage from lightning, transient surges, and unintentional contact with higher voltage lines, and to limit the voltage to ground during normal operation. Conductive materials enclosing electric conductors and equipment, or forming part of that equipment, are grounded to prevent a voltage above ground on the enclosure materials.

[CGD 74-125A, [47 FR 15236](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/47-FR-15236), Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by CGD 94-108, [61 FR 28276](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-28276), June 4, 1996]

Equipment Ground
#### § 111.10-1 [Reserved]