alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31

 

SEMT 2012-5

 

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

 

I, Garnet W. Kanouse, 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 Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-5 (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.Based on my knowledge and 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 in all material respects; 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: CoreLogic Solutions, LLC (“CoreLogic”), American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, “Assurant”), Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, PHH Mortgage Corporation as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent.

 

Date: March 27, 2020

 

 

/S/  Garnet W. Kanouse

Signature 

 

President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Dolan Chemical Laboratory 4001 Bixby Road Groveport, OH 43125 T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221 F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168 http://aepenv/labs 

## Water Analysis
Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 3/23/2012 Sample Number: 121220-001 Date Collected:03/14/2012 08:00 Date Received:3/14/2012 

### 1st Stage Feed Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 316 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 03/22/2012 15:15 

### Sample Number: 121220-002 Date Collected:03/14/2012 08:00 Date Received:3/14/2012 

## 2nd Stage Feed Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 6.8 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 03/22/2012 15:19 

### Sample Number: 121220-003 Date Collected:03/14/2012 08:00 Date Received:3/14/2012 

## Bioreactor Effluent Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 1.3 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 03/22/2012 15:24

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224 Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 121220 Page 1 of 1
1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1519

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Ronald C. Vaughn, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 7, 2006

Filed: March 10, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Vaughn appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to firearm offenses. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that Vaughn

received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. In a pro se supplemental

brief, Vaughn argues that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) violated his

Sixth Amendment rights under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).
-2-

We decline to consider the ineffective-assistance claim in this appeal. See

United States v. Halter, 411 F.3d 949, 951 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

Because the district court in sentencing Vaughn did not view the Guidelines

as mandatory, there was no error under Blakely. See United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220, 233-37, 245, 258-59 (2005) (Sixth Amendment problem resulting from

mandatory nature of Guidelines remedied by making Guidelines advisory). To the

extent Vaughn challenges the reasonableness of his sentence, see id. at 261 (appellate

court reviews sentence for unreasonableness), we reject this challenge. The record

does not indicate that the district court failed to consider a relevant sentencing factor,

or considered an improper or irrelevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in

weighing the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Long Soldier,

431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-04

(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005). 

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2164

MICHAEL LEE HALL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00715-RJC-DSC)

Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: December 27, 2017

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lee Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Meredith Anne Pinson, Bruce Steen, 

MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lee Hall appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation to grant Bank of America Corporation’s motion to dismiss Hall’s civil 

claims, including his discriminatory failure-to-promote claim brought pursuant to Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & 

Supp. 2017). Limiting our review to the issues raised in Hall’s informal brief, see 4th 

Cir. Rule 34(b), we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment. See Hall v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 3:16-cv-00715-RJC-DSC 

(W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF


TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)




In connection with the Annual Report of NutraCea (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, W. John Short., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jerry Dale Belt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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




Dated:  February 24, 2011





By:
/s/ W. John ShortW. John Short

Chief Executive Officer


By:
/s/ Dale BeltJerry Dale Belt

Chief Financial Officer
ex10x9.htm


Exhibit 10.9


 


 


 




 



	 
ORDERED BY:


 


  


 FYA FIELD SERVICES LLC

	
     PURCHASE 


     ORDER


	 400 W SYCAMORE	        Purchse Order No. 1003
	 INDEPENDENCE, KS  67301	        Date Issued:  7/23/14
	
 


 



 Voice:


 Fax:



	
 


 


Drop Shipment







 




 



	 To:	 	 	 Ship to:	 
	
 


 ALLIED RECYCYLING CORP


 1200 G ST NW STE 800


 WASHINGTON, DC  20005

	 	 	
 


 FYA FIELD SERVICES LLC


 400 W SYCAMORE


 INDEPENDENCE, KS 67301

	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 Good Thru	 Ship via	 Account No.	 Terms
	 8/3/15	 Best Way	 	 PAYABLE 14 DAYS
	 	 	 	 	 
	 Quantity	 Item	 Description	 Unit Cost	 Amount
	 	 	 	 	 
	
 


 70.00

	 	
 MINIMUM 70 BARRELS PER WEEK


 


 TO A MAXIMUM OF 105 BARRELS PER 


 WEEK


 OF OIL/WATER SEPARATION CHEMICAL 


 TO BE SOLD AS KRUUDKLEEN


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

	
 


1,000.00  

	
 


70,000,00    


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 TOTAL	 $70,000.00    
	 	 	 	 per week	 





 


 


Authorized Signature       //signed//
#### Anderson, Respondent, vs. Ludwig and another, Appellants.

*March 11*—

April *12, 1946.*

*466*Charles A. Copp*of Marshfield, for the appellants.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Brazeau & Graves*of Wisconsin Rapids, and oral argument by *Theodore W. Brazeau.*

Wickhem, J.

Defendant’s sole contention is that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter further orders in the action after the order of dismissal of August 18, 1945. Defendants rely upon *Wawrzyniakowski v. Hoffman & Billings Mfg. Co. 137*Wis. 629, 119 N. W. 350, which is asserted to hold that where a stipulation calls only for dismissal of the action proceedings are ended and that subsequent proceedings in the action are “entirely unnecessary and outside of anything contemplated mutually by the parties, if not unwarranted.”

Sec. 269.46 (1), Stats., provides:

> “The court may, upon notice and just terms, at any time within one year after notice thereof, relieve a party from a judgment, order, stipulation or other proceeding against him obtained, through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect and may supply an omission in any proceeding.”

This section quite clearly vests the trial court with control over the stipulation and prior order, and.under it the trial court could set aside the order of dismissal and further proceedings could be had in the cause.

It is conceded by plaintiff that the court was in error in not specifically setting aside its former order of dismissal but this is claimed to be nonprejudicial. Since the court could have set *467the order aside under the provisions of sec. 269.46, Stats., the omission is a technical error, did not affect the substantial rights of the parties, and cannot form the basis of a reversal in view of the mandate of sec. 269.43. The *Wawrzyniakowski Case, supra,*is not an authority for defendants’ position. That case was addressed to the question whether the retainer of counsel survived a termination of the proceedings by an order to dismiss. No claim is made here that defendants’ attorney did not have authority to appear on their behalf.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.

Rectoe, J., took no part.
----

|   |  Exhibit      32.2 |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO |
|--------|--------------------------------|

|   | 18      U.S.C. § 1350 |
|--------|----------------------------|

|   | AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# L_2012205EN.01001901.xml

| 1.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 205/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 205/19

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2012/308/CFSP of 26 April 2012 on the accession of the European Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 154 of 15 June 2012
  )

On page 10, Instrument of Accession to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia by the European Union:

| (a) | second recital: |
| --- | --- |

(a)

second recital:

for:

‘WHEREAS Article 18, paragraph 3, of the aforesaid Treaty as amended by Article 1 of the aforesaid Third Protocol provides that regional organisations whose members are only sovereign States may accede to the Treaty with the consent of all the States in Southeast Asia, namely Brunei Darussalam, the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Republic of Indonesia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Union of Myanmar, the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic of Singapore, the Kingdom of Thailand and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam;’,

read:

‘WHEREAS Article 18, paragraph 3, of the aforesaid Treaty as amended by Article 1 of the aforesaid Third Protocol provides that States outside Southeast Asia and regional organisations whose members are only sovereign States may accede to the Treaty subject to the consent of all the States in Southeast Asia, namely Brunei Darussalam, the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Republic of Indonesia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic of Singapore, the Kingdom of Thailand and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam; and’;

| (b) | the third recital is deleted; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the third recital is deleted;

| (c) | fourth recital: |
| --- | --- |

(c)

fourth recital:

for:

‘WHEREAS the States in Southeast Asia have consented to the accession of the European Union to the Treaty;’,

read:

‘WHEREAS all the States in Southeast Asia have consented to the accession of the European Union to the Treaty,’;

| (d) | operative part: |
| --- | --- |

(d)

operative part:

for:

‘The European Union hereby accedes to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia with effect of the date of deposit of this instrument.’,

read:

‘NOW, therefore, the European Union, having considered the abovementioned Treaty as amended by the Protocols, hereby accedes to the same and undertakes faithfully to perform and carry out all the stipulations therein contained.’;

| (e) | signing formula: |
| --- | --- |

(e)

signing formula:

for:

‘IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Instrument of Accession is signed by the [TITLE].’,

read:

‘IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Instrument of Accession is signed by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.’.

---
#### State, Plaintiff in error, vs. Friedrich & Loots Company, Defendant in error.

*June 6*

July *3, 1953.*

For the plaintiff in error there were briefs by the *Attorney General,*and *Stewart G. Honeck,*deputy attorney general, and *William A. Plats,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Honeck*and *Mr. Plats.*

Brown, J.

The case is ruled by *State v. Stang Tank Line, supra.*Remission of all or part of a statutory penalty is bfeyond the trial court’s discretion where no such power has been given it by the legislature. It is immaterial whether the court “remits” or “suspends” the penalty; the sentence is not authorized by law and is void.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with instructions to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for the penalty provided by sec. 85.91 (2b) (b), Stats., conformably to this opinion and for further proceedings according to law.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  |   | May 13, 2011                          |   | /s/ Frederick L. Hickman |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | Frederick L. Hickman                  |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the (a) Registration
Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-66929 and 333-39234) pertaining to the 1998 Key
Employee Stock Option Plan of Prize Energy Corp., (b) the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-39236) pertaining to the Prize Energy Corp. Amended and
Restated Option Plan, and (c) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-66925) pertaining in part to a Business Consultant Agreement, of our reports
dated February 16, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
Prize Energy Corp., and September 3, 1999, with respect to the producing
properties acquired by Prize Energy Corp. from Pioneer Natural Resources USA,
Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2000.


                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Fort Worth, Texas
April 02, 2001
Exhibit 10.1

BILL OF SALE - RENEWAL OF MINING CLAIM

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <MT.Online@gov.bc.ca
Date: Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:04 AM
Subject: BSLI-M (4836508) 2011/FEB/15 11:4:18 Mineral Titles Online, Transaction event, Email confirmation
To: fmc@speebo.com, vvaskevich@gmail.com
This email is to confirm submission of the following Mineral Titles Online event:
Event Number: 4836508
Event Type: Transfer of Ownership (Bill of Sale Initiation)
Tenure Number: 845111
Seller: SPEEBO INC. (206048)
Buyer: VASKEVICH, VLADIMIR (208209)
Registration of a Bill of Sale Completion must be submitted by the BUYER for transfer of ownership to take effect.
Server Name: PRODUCTION

























---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6108

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VALENTINE CHUKWUEMEKA NNANI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge.

(CR-91-10, CA-94-687-5-BR)

Submitted: September 24, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and HALL, Circuit

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Valentine Chukwuemeka Nnani, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edwin

Hamilton, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion on Rehearing
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), as amended by

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. This court affirmed. By order dated July

29, 1996, a panel of this court granted Appellant's petition for

rehearing and vacated the prior panel decision.

On rehearing, we have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Although the record

does not contain a transcript of the evidentiary hearing on this

motion, the district court granted Appellant's request for such

transcript. However, Appellant failed to act to procure such

transcript and failed in this court to state a substantial question

warranting preparation of the transcript at government expense. See

28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994); Maloney v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

396 F.2d 939 (D.C. Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1030 (1970).

Because the record before the court reveals that disposition

of this motion required only a credibility determination, and the

district court apparently resolved that issue against Appellant, we

affirm the district court's order denying Appellant's § 2255 motion. See United States v. Locklear, 829 F.2d 1314, 1317 (4th Cir.

1987) (credibility determinations reviewed for clear error, according substantial deference to district court). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6145

ANTHONY ANDREWS
,
Petitioner

- Appellant
,

v.

WARDEN R. RAMOS
, Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. ( 5:22

- hc

- 02114

- FL )

Submitted : May 23, 2023 Decided: May 26, 2023

Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Anthony Andrews , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6145 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Anthony Andrews , a federal prisoner, appeals the district co urt’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged the execution of his sentence.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court ’s order

. Andrews v. Ramos , No. 5:22

- hc

- 02114

- FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 8, 2023).
We deny the motion to expedite as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process

.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6145 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 2