alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------


                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWMBS, INC.
                     CHL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH TRUST 2006-18
               MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-18


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.



/s/ Craig Baingo                             Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
#### In the Matter of David G. Pollock, Appellant, against Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, Respondent.

Argued October 11, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*721
      *Louis Susman*and *Harry H. Oshrin*for appellant.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney General (John C. Crary, Jr., Orrin G. Judd, Wendell P. Brown*and *Ruth K. Toch*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
----

|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (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      as of and for the period covered by theReport. |

|                | /s/      Gerard P. Cuddy                   |
|---------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                | Gerard      P. Cuddy                       |
|                | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|                |                                       |
|                | /s/      Joseph F. Conners                 |
|                | Joseph      F. Conners                     |
|                | Executive      Vice President and Chief    |
|                | Financial      Officer                     |
|                |                                       |
| March      25, 2009 |                                       |
[LETTERHEAD OF GRANT THORNTON LLP]


             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


Board of Directors and Shareholders
LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc.

We have examined management's assertion,  included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance  with Regulation AB Servicing  Criteria  ("Management's
Report"), that LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc. (the "Company") complied
with the  servicing  criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the U.S.  Securities
and Exchange  Commission's  Regulation AB for the  residential  mortgage  backed
securities  for which the Company  served as  third-party  property  tax payment
provider on the underlying  collateral  (the  "Platform") as of and for the year
ended    December   31,    2006,    excluding    criteria    1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv),
1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii),       1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv),       1122(d)(4)(i)-(x)       and
1122(d)(4)(xiii)-(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform.  Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's  assertion about the
Company's  compliance  with the applicable  servicing  criteria for the Platform
based on our examination.

Our  examination  was conducted in  accordance  with the 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  for the  Platform  and  performing  such  other
procedures  as we considered  necessary in the  circumstances.  Our  examination
included testing selected asset-backed  transactions and securities constituting
the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed  servicing  activities
related to those  transactions  and securities in compliance with the applicable
servicing  criteria  for the period  covered by this  report.  Accordingly,  our
testing may not have included servicing  activities related to each asset-backed
transaction or security constituting the Platform.  Further, our examination was
not designed to detect  material  noncompliance  that may have occurred prior to
the period  covered  by this  report and that may have  affected  the  Company's
servicing  activities  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
applicable servicing criteria.

In our opinion,  management's assertion that LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services,
Inc. complied with the  aforementioned  applicable  servicing criteria as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2006 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Irvine, CA
February 20, 2007
Served: September 24, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

JOINT APPLICATION FOR A PENDENTE LITE EXEMPTION 

AND MOTION FOR A SHORTENED ANSWER PERIOD

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0224

NOTICE SHORTENING ANSWER PERIOD

On September 2, 2010 Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. (“ASA”) and ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., 

(“ExpressJet”) (collectively, the “Joint Applicants”) filed a joint application requesting that the 

Department grant them a pendente lite exemption from section 41105 of Title 49 of the United 

States Code (the Statute) to enable ExpressJet to continue to operate certain international 

authority under common ownership with ASA. 

On September 22, 2010, the Joint Applicants amended the application to formally include 

SkyWest Airlines, Inc. (“SkyWest”), as an applicant to the transfer of ExpressJet’s international 

route authority. SkyWest, Inc., the corporate parent of ASA, is also the parent of SkyWest, and 

thus has common ownership of both ASA and SkyWest thereby making SkyWest a relevant 

party to the transaction. Concurrently, the Joint Applications filed a motion requesting that the 

Department shorten the answer period in this case to September 29, 2010,

1 to facilitate their 

request for expedited action in this matter and to enable the Joint Applicants to proceed with 

their commercial transaction. 

On September 24, 2010, the Joint Applicants orally advised the Department that there were no 

objections to shortening the answer period.

2

 Under these circumstances, we have decided to 

grant the Joint Applicants’ request for a shortened answer period in this case. Therefore, acting 

under authority assigned in 14 CFR 385.12, answers to the Joint Applicants’ request for a 

pendente lite exemption will now be due no later than September 29, 2010. 

We will serve this notice by email or facsimile on all parties served with the request. We 

authorize answers to the application to be served by email or facsimile. 

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this notice under the Department’s 

Regulations, 14 CFR 385.30, may file their petitions within 10 days of the service date of this 

order.

 1 Because the Joint Applicants amended their exemption application, answers to the exemption request would be 

due on October 7, 2010 (14 CFR 302.307). 2 By letter dated September 24, 2010, the Joint Applicants confirmed these polling results.
2

This notice is effective immediately and the filing of a petition for reconsideration shall not alter 

its effectiveness. 

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:

http://www.regulations.gov
EXHIBIT 11.01


                              THE INDUS GROUP, INC.

                      STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA

                              NET INCOME PER SHARE

                      (In thousands, except share amounts)

                                   (Unaudited)


                                                            Three Months Ended
                                                                March 31,
                                                           ---------------------
                                                            1997          1996
                                                           -------       -------

Pro forma net income ...............................       $ 2,813       $ 1,803
                                                           =======       =======
Shares used in per share computation:
     Weighted average outstanding ..................        18,629        15,984
     Equivalent shares assumed to be
        outstanding had options granted
        prior to 1995 been exercised and
        used to repurchase shares
        at their then fair value ...................           980         1,702
                                                           -------       -------
                                                            19,609        17,686
                                                           =======       =======
Pro forma net income per share .....................       $  0.14       $  0.10
                                                           =======       =======
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Executive Officer,

As Adopted
Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.

I, Gerald L. Storch, Chief Executive Officer of Toys R Us, Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended May 5, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

June 19, 2007



|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                   
|/S/    GERALD L.
STORCH                                                            
|Gerald L. Storch Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Winthrop Taylor, Respondent and Appellant, *v.*Smithtown Country, Outing and Beach Club, Inc., Appellant and Respondent, Bank of Smithtown, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Argued June 9, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*592
      *Walter R. Kuhn*and *John J. Kuhn*for plaintiff-respondent and appellant.

*Archibald R. Watson*and *Guy O. Walser*for SmithtoAvn Country, Outing and Beach Club, Inc., defendant-appellant and respondent.

Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### Sophia Rachelle WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARICOPA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15870

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 31, 2017

Sophia Rachelle Wilson, Pro Se

*772David Richard Schwartz, Attorney, Udall Shumway PLC, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Sophia Rachelle Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary, judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action alleging discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co.,*518 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Wilson’s sex discrimination claim because § 1981 does not provide a claim for sex discrimination. *See Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1123 (9th Cir. 2008) (“§ 1981 creates a cause of action only for those discriminated against on account of their race or ethnicity.”). Wilson stipulated to the dismissal of her sex discrimination claim under Title VII.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Wilson’s § 1981 racial discrimination claim because Wilson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether her constitutional rights were violated as a result of an official policy, practice, or custom of the Maricopa Community College District. *See Fed’n of African Am. Contractors v. City of Oakland,*96 F.3d 1204, 1215-16 (9th Cir. 1996) (policy and custom requirement set forth in *Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,*436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) applies to § 1981 claims).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Wilson’s § 1981 retaliation claim because Wilson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there was a causal connection between her protected activity and suspension from the college. *See Manatt v. Bank of Am., N.A.,*339 F.3d 792, 800 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of a § 1981 retaliation claim); *see also Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar,*— U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 2533, 186 L.Ed.2d 503 (2013) (“[R]e-taliation claims must be proved according to traditional principles of but-for causation.”).

We reject as without merit Wilson’s contention that the district court erred in denying her request to submit new evidence.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,247,151
<SECURITIES>                                   252,066
<RECEIVABLES>                                  897,887
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (227,876)
<INVENTORY>                                    544,348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,219,836
<PP&E>                                       6,318,429
<DEPRECIATION>                              (2,290,637)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,628,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,030,494
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,642,400
<COMMON>                                        78,857
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,628,293
<SALES>                                      9,150,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,150,595
<CGS>                                        6,504,623
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,041,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               105,057
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             118,749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (441,488)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (441,488)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (996,356)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 554,868
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (441,488)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.07)


</TABLE>
#### Henry Hendrickson, Plaintiff, *v.*Carter & Weekes Stevedoring Company, Appellant, and United Port Service, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.

Submitted July 20, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*636
      *Lyman A. Spalding*and *Robert E. Curran*for motion.

*Patrick E. Gibbons*and *E. C. Sherwood*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs, and the dollars costs of motion.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Mario Antonio PINEDA-BOJORQUEZ, Also Known as Angel Bautista, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-41541 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 17, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Mario Antonio Pineda-Bojorquez, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mario Pineda-Bojorquez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Pineda-Bojorquez has not filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and relevant portions of the record. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Exhibit 99.10




TO:Whom it may eoncern
  Re: Keegan Resources Inc. (the "Company")
 Annual Report on Form 40-F
 Retrospective Advice of Expert
   This advice is provided in connection with the Company's Annual Information Form for the Financial Year Ended March 31, 2012 Dated as of June 28, 2012, filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and provided for review in December 2012.
  I, Chris Waller, BAppSc (MAusIMM(CP))., DO HEREBY ADVISE:
 
 ■that my consent was provided for previous reports lodged with SEDAR relating to the Esaase Property
 
 ■that the Annual Information Form provided has been reviewed by myself and that those parts of the report relating to work undertaken by or supervised by myself are in accordance with the content of the earlier reports and truly reflect the investigations and engineering studies undertaken to the date of the Form
 
 ■I consent to the use of my name and the disclosure of my involvement in the preparation of information that forms the basis for all disclosure of a technical and scientific nature related to the Company's Esaase Project contained in the Annual Information Form and Annual Report; however the reader is cautioned that there may or may not be investigations or information that have become available subsequent to the date of the report of which I am not aware that may have since materially affected the reports outcomes and conclusions.
 
 
 Dated the 20th, of December, 2012
  /s/ Chris Waller
  Chris Waller, B AppSc (MAusIMM(CP))
#### Kevin J. KEEN; Tamra E. Keen; Curt Conyers; Kelly E. Conyers, individually; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., a national banking association, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-17188

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted September 13, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed October 24, 2017

William N. McGrane, McGrane LLP, San Francisco, CA, Mark A, Ozzello, Esquire, The Ozzello Practice, PC, Pacific Palisades, CA, Matthew Jeffrey Shier, Shierkatz Rllp, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Leonard Gail, Massey & Gail LLP, Chicago, IL, Jonathan S. Massey, Massey & Gail LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

Kristin Bateman, Nandan M. Joshi, Counsel, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Before: KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ARTERTON,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

1. The Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) protects a concrete interest in receiving accurate credit information. See 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a); Fed. Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 21, 118 S.Ct. 1777, 141 L.Ed.2d 10 (1998); Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 373-74, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982). At the pleading stage, plaintiffs’ allegation that Chase violated TILA by understating a finance charge satisfies the Article III injury-in-fact requirement. See Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., LLC, 847 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir. 2017). So plaintiffs have standing. The case isn’t moot because the availability of statutory damages preserves a live controversy. Ho v. ReconTrust Co., NA, 858 F.3d 568, 571 n.1 (9th Cir. 2016).

2. A district court may dismiss for failure to state a claim “where [a] complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). The note and deed of trust for plaintiffs’ mortgage establish that neither Chase nor a *684subsequent debt holder could charge 365/360 interest. See Fletcher v. Sec. Pac. Nat’l Bank, 23 Cal.3d 442, 153 Cal.Rptr. 28, 591 P.2d 51, 55 (1979); Chern v. Bank of Am., 15 Cal.3d 866, 127 Cal.Rptr. 110, 544 P.2d 1310, 1314 (1976). Because Chase disclosed an accurate finance charge, the district court didn’t err by dismissing this case.

3. We grant the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae and the parties’ unopposed motions to file supplemental briefs in response to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We deny all remaining motions as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.