alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-33.13
logo) WestLake
SETTLEMENT SERVICES

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

The Tax Outsourcing Service Agreement dated as of October 1, 2006 (together with
all amendments thereto, the "Agreement"), between Aurora Loan Services and
WestLake Settlement Services, LLC.

I, Debra D. Lewis, Director of WestLake Settlement Services, certify to Aurora
Loan Services, LLC ("Aurora"), with the knowledge and intent that it will rely
upon this certification, that:

(1) As of and for the year ended December 31, 2008, WestLake Settlement
Services, LLC has complied with the applicable servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB applicable to WestLake (the "Applicable Servicing
Criteria"):

        1122(d)(4)(xi) Payments made on behalf of an obligor (such as tax or
        insurance payments) are made on or before the related penalty or
        expiration dates, as indicated on the appropriate bills or notices for
        such payments, provided that such support has been received by the
        servicer at least 30 calendar days prior to these dates, or such other
        number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

        1122(d)(4)(xii) Any late payment penalties in connection with any
        payment to be made on behalf of an obligor are paid from the servicer's
        funds and not charged to the obligor, unless the late payment was due
        to the obligor's error or omission.

(2) The transactions covered by this report include all loans in which WestLake
performs activities related to the Regulation AB criteria on behalf of Aurora.

(3) WestLake has complied, in all material respects, with the applicable
servicing criteria as of December 31, 2008 and for the Reporting Period with
respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

(4) Virchow, Krause & Company LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report on Aurora's assessment of compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria for the Reporting Period.

WESTLAKE SETTLEMENT SERVICES, LLC

/s/ Debra D. Lewis
Debra D. Lewis, Officer

Director of Operations
Title

March 20, 2009

1 First American Way, Westlake, TX, 76262
Mail Stop 6-4-100
From: crickadoodle@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:50:23 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rhonda Melancon

Thibodaux, LA 70301
From: linglingcatz@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:52:51 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jan Garman

Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Collins & Aikman Floorcoverings, Inc. (the Corporation) for the
quarterly period ended October 26, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certifies that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Corporation.
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  |  |                                                               
| |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |  |  |  | /S/     DARREL V. MCCAYDarrel V. McCay Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (i)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: December 4, 2009
    /s/ GARY H. SCHOENFELDGary H. SchoenfeldChief Executive Officer
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: December 4, 2009
    /s/ MICHAEL L. HENRYMichael L. HenryChief Financial Officer
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 26, 2011

y0919 

# Order

September 26, 2011

143168 & (29)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143168 COA: 302076 Wayne CC: 09-031292-FC JEREMY ALAN CRAIG, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 19, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented sh ould be reviewed by this C ourt. The motion for bond is

DENIED.
From: savedbythetruth1@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:01:59 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Samita Sigala

Shawnee, OK 74804
From: Sherdena Cofield

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: <no subject>

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:47:07 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to 

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of 

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for 

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new law 

and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access 

to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive 

services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some 

groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so 

hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, 

even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger 

exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they 

work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s 

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Thank you.

Sherdena Dorsey Cofield

Sherdena D. Cofield, M.S.W., Ed.D.

Assistant Dean for Academic Programs and Diversity

Simmons School of Social Work

300 The Fenway

Boston, MA 02115-5898

sherdena.cofield@simmons.edu

T 617-521-3924

F 617-521-3057

www.simmons.edu/ssw
N 

FILED 

MAY 04 2010 

Darrell Lee Wilber, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, u.s. District ana 

Bankruptcy Courts 

Plaintiff, 

v. Civil Action No. 

United States Government, 

It ~r70n 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Plaintiff Darrell Lee Wilber has filed an application to proceed without prepayment of 

fees and a pro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed. 

The Court appreciates that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 

(1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon 

which the court's jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks to obtain. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the 

defendants ofthe claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an 

adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. 

Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977). 

Having reviewed plaintiff s complaint, the Court cannot decipher what claims the 

plaintiff intends to pursue against the sole defendant, the United States. The United States, 

3 
however, is immune from suit except where Congress has waived sovereign immunity. Lane v. 

Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996); United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206,212 (1983); FDIC v. 

Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-85 (1994). As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with the 

requirements of Rule 8(a) and the Court cannot discern that it has subject matter jurisdiction over 

this complaint. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. 

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. 

Date: ~1 :l 3

1 

)..L) I D
From: robnjoan@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:48:44 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Robert Lucas

Forest, VA 24551
From: karenstotts@MSN.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:46:24 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Karen Stotts

Little Rock, AR 72223
No. 61528.

#### The Best Foods, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 301910-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

Plaintiff having raised no objection, the motion was granted on the ground that the protest was prematurely filed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 392 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 392

Urging Americans and people of all nationalities to visit the American 
                   Cemeteries, Memorials and Markers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2007

 Mr. Lamborn submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Urging Americans and people of all nationalities to visit the American 
                   Cemeteries, Memorials and Markers.

Whereas the United States has fought in wars outside of its borders to restore 
        freedom and human dignity;
Whereas the United States has spent its national treasure and shed its blood in 
        fighting those wars;
Whereas many of those who died on the battlefield were laid to rest exactly 
        where they fell;
Whereas those plots of ground are now known as American Cemeteries, Memorials 
        and Markers, and they exist in 10 foreign countries on four continents;
Whereas these cemeteries exist as the final resting place for American 
        servicemembers who fought valiantly in battles across the globe, 
        including Ardennes and Flanders, Belgium; Manila, the Philippines; North 
        Africa, Tunisia; Florence, Italy; and Normandy, France;
Whereas each year millions of American and foreign citizens visit the American 
        Cemeteries, Memorials and Markers;
Whereas these overseas sites annually recognize Memorial Day with speeches, a 
        reading of the Memorial Day Proclamation, wreath laying ceremonies, 
        military bands and units, and the decoration of each grave site with the 
        flag of the United States and that of the host country; and
Whereas the splendid commemorative sites inspire patriotism, evoke gratitude, 
        and teach history: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That House of Representatives strongly urges Americans 
and people of all nationalities to visit the American Cemeteries, 
Memorials and Markers abroad, where the spirit of American generosity, 
sacrifice, and courage are displayed and commemorated.
                                 <all>
```
| 1.     | Such Annual Report of Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2011, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2011, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Zhong Sen International Tea Company. |

| Date: August 26, 2011          |
|-------------------------------------|
|                                |
| Zhong Sen International Tea Company |
|                                |
| By: /s/ Nie Pin                     |
| Nie PinChief Executive Officer      |