alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-34.8
(logo) PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
350 S. Grand Ave.
Los Angeles CA 90071
Telephone (213) 356 6000
Facsimile (813) 637 4444
www.pwc.com


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To the Board of Directors
Newport Management Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria, that Newport Management Corporation (the Company) complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(4)(xi) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the pools of loans which Indymac Federal
Bank ("Indymac") acted as the servicer pursuant to the applicable transaction
agreements, underlying publicly and/or privately-issued residential mortgage-
backed securities that were issued on or after January 1, 2006, on which escrow
payments were disbursed in 2008 (the Platform), as of December 31, 2008 and for
the year then ended. The Company has determined that the remainder of the
servicing criteria is not applicable to the activities it performs with respect
to the Platform as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008. Schedule A to
management's assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and
securities defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected
asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether
the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures
were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by
the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not
designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred
prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or
amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this
report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2008 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
February 26, 2009
From: carl@abnerschicken.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:05:53 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,

carl kuluz

Cordova, TN 38016
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




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Green Technology Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Shearer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and




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




Date: August 15, 2011




By:
/s/ John ShearerJohn ShearerChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting

Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6879
LEAMON L. TATUM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusRICHARD LANHAM, Commissioner, Division of Corrections; JOHN SANDSTORM, Division of Corrections' Inmate Citation Adjuster; THOMAS PRICE, Division of Corrections' Inmate Citation Adjuster; LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; WAYNE W.LEASE, Correctional Officer I; G. WIBLE, Correctional Officer II, Defendants - Appellees, and
DIVISION OF CORRECTION; MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA96-3899-S) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 19972 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leamon L. Tatum, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn T. Marrow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Leamon A. Tatum appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994), action and the district court's grant of an extension of time for the Defendant to respond to Tatum's complaint. We affirm. Addressing the Defendant's mo tion for summary judgment, we note that the court twice informed Tatum of the necessity to respond under Roseboro v. Garrison , 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). Despite these warnings, Tatum failed to respond with any evidence meeting the standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Thus, summary judgment was properly entered in favor of the Defendant. Turning to the motion for an extension of time, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's grant of this motion where the request came shortly after the expiration of the response period. Accordingly, we affirm the district court in all respects.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### SERVED: SEPTEMBER 10,2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

.OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

IN THE MATTER OF LEARJET INC. DOCKETNO. FAA 2014-0113 (Civil Penalty Action).



### AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER Learjet, Inc., (hereinafter "Learjet") has requested an extension ofdiscovery deadlines. Realistically, the court does not anticipate reaching this case priorto 2015. Accordingly, paragraphs #2 and #3 ofthe Procedural Order are amended as follows: WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the following procedural schedule: 1. On orbefore January 9, 2015, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, but not limited to, depositions, documentproduction, responses to productionrequests and/or interrogatories. Ifthe parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute they shall submitthe dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a timely manner; 2. The parties shall be prepared to presentthis case at ahearing on or after January 9, 2015, subjectto the availability ofcourtroom facilities. The specific date andtime for the hearing will be forthcoming in a separate Order.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List 

### 1SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1
ONE COPY Mr. RalphAcs, Vice President & General Manager Learjet, Inc., Respondent P.O. Box 7707 Wichita, KS 67277-7707 TEL: NOT PROVIDED FAX: NOTPROVIDED Brenda R. Mesker, Director ofLegal Services

. Learjet, Inc. One Learjet Way Wichita, KS 67209 TEL: NOT PROVIDED FAX: NOT PROVIDED Kenneth P. Quinn, Esquire, Respondent's Counsel Pillsbury Winthrop ShawPittman 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1122 TEL: 202-663-8000 FAX: 202-663-8007 David Kessler, Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration 901 Locust, Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 TEL: 816-329-3763 FAX: 816-329-3771 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0113 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
2The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department**ofTr~msportation** 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

3
No. 65191.

#### F. W. Myers & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 265825-K (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7858

GREGORY CHAPMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97-

1649-AMD)

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 26, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Chapman v. Attorney General, No. CA-97-1649-

AMD (D. Md. Dec. 1, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

Michael Griffin,

 Petitioner,

v.

Bruce F. Miyake, Assistant U.S. Attorney for

the District of Washington,

Respondent,

and 

Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Federal

Correctional Institution, Sheridan, Oregon,

Real Party In Interest.

Case No. C05-5626 RBL

Case No. CR04-0034 RBL

ORDER ON PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Defendant’s “Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus.”

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:

The “petition” defendant has filed attacks the sentence the Court imposed after the defendant was

convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. As such, the petition is more properly construed as a

motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On May 9, 2005, the defendant filed his first motion pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255 which raised the same issue presented in this motion and which the Court denied on 

June 22, 2005. The motion now before the Court is thus a second or successive motion for which the

defendant has not obtained certification from the Appellate Court to file in this Court. It is therefore

Case 3:05-cv-05626-RBL Document 4 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 1 of 2

Griffin v. Miyake et al Doc. 4

Dockets.Justia.com
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

ORDERED that the motion is STRICKEN because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it absent

certification from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 23rd day of September, 2005.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05626-RBL Document 4 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 

					
		 	MorphoSys AG	 	WKN     [●]
		 	  
 Martinsried/Planegg
	 	  

ISIN      [●]

		 	  
 Global Share Certificate
	 	  
 Serial Number
[●]


 for 

[●] Bearer Shares with No-Par Value 

Shares No. [●] to [●]

 The owner of this Global Share Certificate holds [●] bearer shares and therefore holds an
interest in MorphoSys AG, Martinsried/Planegg, as shareholder, in accordance with the Articles of Association. 
 The number of shares certified and
issued under this Global Share Certificate is shown in the current electronic deposit documentation of Clearstream Banking AG, Frankfurt am Main. 

This Global Share Certificate is exclusively intended for depositing with Clearstream Banking AG, Frankfurt am Main. 

No global dividend warrant has been issued in connection with this Global Share Certificate. 

The bearer shares certified under this Global Certificate are entitled to dividend as of January 1, 2018. 

Martinsried/Planegg, [●], 2018 

MorphoSys AG 
 The Board
of Management
From: rdecker925@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:52:20 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,

Richard Decker

Walnut Creek, CA 94598
#### Kirkland O’HARA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James HALL, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-55490.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 15, 2005.

Decided July 22, 2005.

*551Kirkland O’Hara, Blythe, CA, pro se.

Wayne R. Young, Esq., Santa Monica, CA, Warren P. Robinson, DAG, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

1. Destruction of petitioner’s legal materials, the warden’s delay in verifying that prison officials had destroyed them, the California Supreme Court’s erroneous statement that it had not received any filings from petitioner and its failure to respond to petitioner’s request for clarification constituted “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to justify equitable tolling until petitioner received the warden’s declaration. *See Lott v. Mueller,*304 F.3d 918, 924 (9th Cir.2002); *Corjasso v. Ayers,*278 F.3d 874, 878 (9th Cir.2002). The warden’s declaration confirmed that “the loss of [petitioner’s] original Petition by the searching correctional officers ha[d] hindered his access to the courts.” Petitioner could reasonably have believed that his own declaration would be insufficient to establish the destruction of the documents, and that the warden would be unwilling to provide confirmation once petitioner filed his federal habeas petition. After receiving the warden’s declaration, petitioner filed his federal petition within five weeks, much less than the time he had left under AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations at *552the time his legal materials were destroyed. The petition was therefore timely.

2. We construe the uncertified issue briefed on appeal as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. *See*9th Cir. R. 22-l(e). We conclude that there has been no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, and therefore deny the motion. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>


                                                                    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

     In connection with the Annual Report of Integrated Circuit Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 29, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Justine F. Lien, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Justine F. Lien
----------------------------
Justine F. Lien
Chief Financial Officer
February 11, 2003
[Aurora Loan Services Logo] Depositor:

Structured Asset Securities Corporation



Attention: Contract Finance SARM 2008-2



745 Seventh Avenue 13th Floor



New York, NY 10019
Master Servicer:
Aurora Loan Services LLC



Michele Olds



10350 Park Meadows Drive



Littleton, CO 80124

Trustee:
U.S. Bank, N.A. Attention: Structured Finance / SARM 2008-2 One Federal Street, 3rd Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02110




Subject:

Annual Officer's Certification
Fiscal Year:
2008
Investor Code:
J47
Investor Name:
SARM 2008-2
I, Thomas L. Wind, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora Loan Services LLC (the "Servicer"), do certify the following for the Calendar Year 2008:
1. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on the cut-off date and ending on December 31, 2008 (the reporting period) and of its performance under the Agreement for such period 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 aspects throughout such reporting period.




Certified by:  AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC








By: /s/ Thomas L. Wind








Name:  Thomas L. Wind






Title:    Managing Director