alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 33.2



ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA



The Bank of New York, The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A. and The Bank of New York
(Delaware) (collectively, the Company) provide this platform-level assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable in regards to
the following servicing platform for the following period:



Platform:
Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) asset-backed securities issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to January 1,
2006) for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, or paying agent services, other than residential mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities. The platform includes like-kind transactions for
which the Company provided trustee, securities administrator, or paying agent services as a result of the Companys acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.s corporate trust business, including
structured finance agency and trust transactions.



Applicable Servicing
Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by the related transaction agreements as to any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122 (d) (1) (ii), (iii), (iv), (2) (iii),
(vi), (4) (vi), (vii), (viii), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii) and (xiv).



Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.



With
respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing Criteria:



| |  |  | The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1



---

Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with
respect to the Companys foregoing assessment of compliance.



|                                         |  |                                         
|---------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|The Bank of New York                     |  | The Bank of New York                    
|The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. |  | The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.
|The Bank of New York (Delaware)          |  |                                         



LOGO



March 1,
2007



2
#### NICE SYSTEMS LTD., NICE Systems Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CLICKFOX INC., Defendant-Appellee

2017-1041

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

October 11, 2017

Gregory H. Lantier, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by Claire Hyungyo Chung; S. Calvin Walden, New York, NY; David A. Loewenstein, Clyde Shuman, Guy Yonay, Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP, New York, NY.

Douglas Salyers, Troutman Sanders LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Puja Patel Lea, Dustin B. Weeks; Anup M. Shah, Charlotte, NC.

(Dyk, Reyna, and Wallach, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### The People *ex rel. J.*B. White, App’lt, v. The Board of Supervisors of Clinton County, Resp’t.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.
#### Robert I. Buchholz, Appellant, *v.*United States Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

Submitted October 4, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

*671
      *David A. Tichtin*for motion to dismiss appeal and in opposition to appellant’s motion.

*Benjamin SMverts*in opposition to motion to dismiss appeal and in support of motion for leave to argue appeal on seven copies of Appellate Division record.

Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion, unless appellant, within ten days, serves and files undertaking on appeal and pays ten dollars costs, in which event the motion is denied; and upon compliance with the aforesaid condition the motion for leave to argue appeal on seven copies of the Appellate Division record is granted.
#### The Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Respondent, *v.*James Carpenter, Appellant.

(Argued April 24, 1872;

decided April 30, 1872.)

Action to recover moneys received by defendant as plaintiff’s agent. Defendant was employed as agent for plaintiff in the city of New York, under a contract, by which he was to receive a certain sum in full ‘for services. The company provided ail office, and the contract contained this clause: “Rent of desk-room equivalent of clerk hire.” Defendant employed a clerk, who abstracted $'939.13. Defendant took a note from him, upon which small amounts were paid. *669Defendant, in July, 1867, being about to retire from the company’s service, rendered an account and credited himself with the balance of the note. In August, 1867, he took a new note in the company’s name and sent it to the company. The latter immediately returned it, and notified defendant to pay the loss. Defendant claimed that the clerk wq,s plaintiff’s servant, and that the July account was ah account stated. *Held,*that the clerk was servant of defepdant, who was responsible for the sum embezzled; that even if the July account was an account stated, it simply imposed upon the plaintiff the onus of proving the charge erroneous, and, this having been done, the right of recovery was established.

*Amos G. Hull*for the appellant.

*John L. Gadwalader*for the respondent.

Grover, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LEBOLO-WATTS CONSTRUCTORS 01 JV, LLC,

Appellant

v.

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,

Appellee

______________________

2019-1420

______________________

Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in Nos. 59738, 59909, Administrative Judge Owen C. 

Wilson, Administrative Judge Reba Page, Administrative 

Judge Richard Shackleford.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

HERMAN MARTIN BRAUDE, Braude Law Group, P.C., 

Rockville, MD, argued for appellant. 

 DANIEL B. VOLK, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by JOSEPH 

H. HUNT, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR., PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________

Case: 19-1420 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 04/20/2020
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, O’MALLEY and 

TARANTO, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

April 20, 2020 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 19-1420 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 04/20/2020
EXHIBIT 35.3
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
             RALI SERIES 2006-QS16 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:  /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
    Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
    Title:    Managing Director


<PAGE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002**





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 filing of Amendment No.
      2 to
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005
      (the
“Report”) by Apex Capital Group, Inc. (the “Registrant”), I, Dempsey K. Mork,
      hereby certify that:





1.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of
      the Registrant.




Dated:
      October 26 ,
      2006


By:
            /s/
              Dempsey K. MorkName:Dempsey
                K. MorkTitle:Chief
                Executive Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection  with  the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  of  Concierge
Technologies,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December
31,  2003  (the  "Report"),  I,  Allen  E.  Kahn, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company,  hereby  certify  that  to  my  knowledge:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m or  78o(d)); 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  16,  2004

                                        /s/  Allen  E.  Kahn
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Allen  E.  Kahn
                                        Chairman  and  Chief  Executive  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-QSB  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.
















                                                                      Exhibit 32
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the “Company”) hereby
      certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)  The
      accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
      ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or Section 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:
May
                12, 2008
              
              
              /s/ Michael
                GlukMichael
                    Gluk
                  Senior
                    Vice President, Finance and
                  Chief
                    Financial Officer


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
      otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
      electronic version of the written statement required by Section 906, has been
      provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare
      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.
Exhibit 99.3




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  I, Peter Breese, Chief Executive Officer of Keegan Resources Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Â§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
 
 (i)  Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2012 (the “Annual Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: January 11, 2013
/s/ Peter Breese

___________________

Peter Breese

Chief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer)
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gregory C. Talbott, the Senior Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer/Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of PFF Bancorp, Inc. (the
Company), in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending December 31, 2007 (the Report), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o (d)) and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                                               
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: April 10, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Gregory C. Talbott                                                                        
|                     |  |  |  | Gregory C. Talbott                                                                            
|                     |  |  |  | Senior Executive Vice President, Chief Operating
Officer/Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|                     |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43756

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

AUSTIN BLAYNEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 671

Filed: September 7, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Elmore County. Hon. Jonathan Medema, District Judge. 

Order suspending sentence, affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. 

Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Austin Blayney pled guilty to an amended charge of rape. 

I.C. § 18-6101(1). The district court sentenced Blayney to a unified term of ten years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of two years. The district court retained jurisdiction and sent 

Blayney to participate in the rider program. Following successful completion of his rider, the 

district court suspended the sentence and placed Blayney on probation. Blayney appeals.

Mindful that Blayney agreed with the State’s recommendation at the time of sentencing 

and that he received that sentence, Blayney asserts that his sentence is excessive. The doctrine of 

invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an error when his or her own conduct induces 
2

the commission of the error. State v. Atkinson, 124 Idaho 816, 819, 864 P.2d 654, 657 (Ct. App. 

1993). One may not complain of errors one has consented to or acquiesced in. State v. Caudill, 

109 Idaho 222, 226, 706 P.2d 456, 460 (1985); State v. Lee, 131 Idaho 600, 605, 961 P.2d 1203, 

1208 (Ct. App. 1998). In short, invited errors are not reversible. State v. Gittins, 129 Idaho 54, 

58, 921 P.2d 754, 758 (Ct. App. 1996). This doctrine applies to sentencing decisions as well as 

rulings made during trial. State v. Griffith, 110 Idaho 613, 614, 716 P.2d 1385, 1386 (Ct. App. 

1986). 

Therefore, because Blayney received the sentence he agreed to, he may not complain that 

the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, the district court’s order suspending Blayney’s 

sentence is affirmed.
ex4-5a.htm


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 amended Annual Report for Rainchief Energy Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned, Paul E. Heney, Chief Executive Officer do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:








	
(1) 

	
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and













	
(2) 

	
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, theFinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.







 


 


May 24, 2012







By:







/s/ Paul E. Heney


Paul E. Heney


Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Eliseo CESPEDES-VARGAS, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-51311 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 17, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

C. Jeffrey Mulliner, Mulliner Law Firm, P.L.L.C., San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Elíseo Cespedes-Vargas appeals his three-year term of supervised release *805(“SR”). He contends that it is substantively unreasonable because the district court did not account for the Sentencing Commission’s recommendation in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) that ordinarily no term of SR ’ should be imposed on deportable aliens. Because Cespedes-Vargas did not object to the imposition of SR, review is limited to plain error. *See United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado,*695 F.3d 324, 328 (5th Cir. 2012).

Under U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1, a “court ordinarily should not impose a term of [SR] in a case in which [SR] is not required by statute and the defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be deported after imprisonment.” § 5Dl.l(c). Section 5D1.1(c) is advisory, and a district court discharges its duties under § 5D1.1(c) by considering the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors of deterrence and protection and by imposing a reasoned and individualized sentence under the circumstances. *United States v. Becerril-Pena,*714 F.3d 347, 350-51 (5th Cir. 2013); *Dominguez-Alvarado,*695 F.3d at 329.

Although the district court did not give specific reasons for imposing SR, it pointed out that Cespedes-Vargas had two prior convictions, including a serious felony conviction and an immigration offense; that he had been deported twice; and that he had returned to the United States shortly after his last deportation in 2014. The court’s statements indicate that it was concerned about deterring Cespedes-Vargas from returning to the United States. Cespedes-Vargas’s “criminal record supported] a finding that the imposition of [SR] would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on the facts and circumstances” of the case. *United States v. Cancino-Trinidad,*710 F.3d 601, 607 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Further, Cespedes-Var-gas has not shown that any error affected his substantial rights. *See id.*at 607-08; *see also United States v. Garcia-Lemus,*509 Fed.Appx. 324, 324 (5th Cir. 2013). Because the district court stated that the sentence was appropriate under the § 3553(a) factors, the imposition of SR was not clear or obvious error. *See Becerril-Pena,*714 F.3d at 349, 351; *Dominguez-Alvarado,*695 F.3d at 329-30; *see also*§ 5D1.1, comment, (n.5).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40550

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT LEE ROBBINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:95-CR-107-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 24, 1997

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Robert

Lee Robbins has filed a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the

brief, Robbins’ response, and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the Federal Public Defender is

excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.