alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

MARCO ANTONIO GALLO-RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2012-5136 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in case no. 11-CV-0782, Judge George W. Miller. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION 

__________________________ 

O R D E R 

Marco Antonio Gallo-Rodriguez moves unopposed for 

an extension of time, until December 24, 2012, to file his 

informal reply brief. Gallo-Rodriguez also moves for leave 

to file a corrected page 6 of his informal reply brief. 

In his motion to file a corrected page 6, GalloRodriquez states that he was including a copy of page 6 

showing the excerpt which should be stricken as well as a 

Case: 12-5136 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 01/17/2013
MARCO GALLO-RODRIGUEZ V. US 2

copy of page 6 with the text which should replace that 

stricken. It appears, however, that Gallo-Rodriguez failed 

to attach the revised page 6. 

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

1) The motion for an extension of time is granted. 

Gallo-Rodriguez’s informal reply brief submitted on 

December 17, 2012 is accepted for filing. 

2) The motion to file a corrected informal reply brief 

filed on December 19, 2012 is denied without prejudice to 

refiling. Gallo-Rodriguez may file a corrected informal 

reply brief within 30 days of the date of this order. Any 

corrected informal reply brief filed must include all pages. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk 

s25 

Case: 12-5136 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 01/17/2013
---

EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Cory Gelmon, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual
  report on Form 10-K of Banyan Corporation (the "Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this
annual report does 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the
financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual
report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this annual report;

4. The Registrant's other
certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and
15d-14) for the Registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure
controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the
Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of
the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days
prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5. The Registrant's other
certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to
the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies
in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the
Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the Registrant's internal controls; and

6. The Registrant's other
certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not
there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: April 14, 2008

| | /s/ Cory Gelmon                           
| | ------------------------------------------
| | Cory Gelmon, President and Chief Financial
| | Officer                                   

---
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards .

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

COpy

:3 0APR 1992

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide Nonattainment Areas

FROM: G.T. Helms, Chief

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch (MD-15)

TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide clarification

of an issue related to maintenance plans for ozone and carbon

monoxide. This issue concerns the maintenance demonstration and,

in particular, the projection of emissions. In order to make the

review of the demonstration easier for both EPA Regions and

Headquarters, State submittals should clearly show the procedure

used to project future emissions. There has been some concern

that if the procedure is not clear, it is very difficult to

evaluate the demonstration. The procedure used should be

consistent with the guidance contained in the EPA document

"Procedures for Preparing Emission Inventory Projections" (EPA450/4-91-019). According to this document, projected emissions

should reflect the allowable emission rate and the expected

actual production or activity level.

If you have any further questions concerning this subject,

please contact Laurel Schultz at (919) 541-5511.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Maureen D. Howley, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Managing Owner,
Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing Owner), of Futures Strategic Trust (the Trust), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Trusts Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly
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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Maureen D. Howley                            
|Maureen D. Howley                                
|Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
|May 15, 2006
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

I, Christian L. Oberbeck, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Saratoga Investment Corp.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:



5.     The
company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company's
auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
June 28, 2011

/s/ Christian L. Oberbeck Christian L. Oberbeck
Chief Executive Officer and President


---



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII
901 NORTH 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101

September 23, 2011

Valentin O Iniestra

4755 South 18 Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68107

RE: SAID: 48975

4755 South 18 Street
Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment

Dear Owner/Resident:

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performed on your property by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior surface of structures, where deteriorating paint conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist that might increase lead concentrations in the yard above acceptable levels.

Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 4755 South 18 Street. The EPA has developed paint stabilization eligibility criteria that involve measuring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a structure and calculating the concentration of lead in soils around the home that would result if all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fall to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessment, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint observed on structure surfaces was estimated and the lead content in the deteriorated paint was measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument.

The data obtained during the LBP assessment was used to estimate the increase in soil lead concentration that would result if all of the deteriorating paint identified in the assessment were to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil within six feet of the foundation of the structure. For purposes of this calculation, the deteriorating LBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the ground surface within six feet of the foundation and be uniformly mixed with the top one inch of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the soil potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP provides a measure of the severity of LBP deterioration on individual structures. The EPA uses these criteria to rank properties based on the potential for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint stabilization is being offered at only those households with the most severe LBP problems, particularly where children under the age of seven reside.

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the above criteria indicated that your house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization.If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center at (402) 731-3045.

Sincerely,

Pauletta R. France-Isetts Project Coordinator Environmental Protection Agency

Enclosures

Para información en español, llame al EPA Information Center (402) 731-3045.Omaha Lead Site LBP Assessment
#### SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARDIN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., Hardin Construction Company, LLC, DPR Construction, a General Partnership, DPR Construction, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16969 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 6, 2017)

Gwen Nolan King, Paul E. White, Sug-arman Rogers Barshak Cohen, Boston, MA, Caroline Thomason . Pryor, Sarah Jean Cross, Carr Allison Howard Oliver & Sisson, Daphne, AL, Joseph H. Driver, Carr Allison, Birmingham, AL for Plaintiff-Appellant

Brian P. McCarthy, Anne Laurie McClurkin, McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge, LLC, Mobile, AL, for Defendants-Appellees

Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sears, Roebuck and Co. appeals the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of its breach-of-contract claim against Hardin Construction and Hardin’s successors in interest. Sears alleged in its complaint that in 1996 it contracted Hardin to install elevators and escalators in a Sears store in Alabama; that a fatal accident occurred on an escalator at that store in 2014; and that Hardin, under the tetas of the 1996 contract, is required to defend and indemnify Sears but Hardin has refused to do so. The district court dismissed Sears’s breach-of-contract claim as barred by Alabama’s seven-year statute of repose for construction contracts. *See*Ala. Code § 6-5-221. On appeal, Sears argues that the district court erred because (1) the indemnity provision in the 1996 contract triggers the exception to the statute of repose found in Ala. Code § 6-5-227 and (2) the provision completely waives the statute of repose.

After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s order. Sears’s arguments turn on whether the indemnity provision includes language that either extends indem*638nity beyond the statute of repose or waives the statute of repose. And a plain reading of the provision reveals that it includes no such language. *See Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Hardin Constr. Grp., Inc., No.*16-00272, slip op. at 9-10, 2016 WL 6395906 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 27, 2016).

AFFIRMED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 8, 2015

No. 04-15-00625-CR

EX PARTE Edward HOUSTON

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On October 2, 2015, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court has 

determined that it lacks jurisdiction to consider relator’s petition. Accordingly, relator’s petition 

is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The court’s 

opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on October 8, 2015.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of October, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014CR7827, styled The State of Texas v. Edward Houston, pending in 

the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell presiding.
#### Michelle HAYWOOD, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC, Defendant-Appellee. Michelle Haywood, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ford Motor Credit Company LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-2550, No. 16-1015

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: October 27, 2016

Decided: April 13, 2017

ARGUED: Cory Lev Zajdel, Z LAW, LLC, Timonium, Maryland, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Thomas M. Byrne, SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ON BRIEF: Valerie S. Sanders, SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Precipitating these cross-appeals, the district court granted the motion of defendant Ford Motor Credit Company LLC (“Ford”) to compel arbitration of the claims asserted by plaintiff Michelle Haywood in her class action against Ford. *See Haywood v. Ford Motor Credit Co.,*No. 1:14-cv-01671, 2015 WL 11070089 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2015), ECF No. 50 (the “Arbitration Decision”). Thereafter, rather than staying its proceedings, the court opted to dismiss Haywood’s action so that she could seek immediate appellate review of the Arbitration Decision. *See Haywood v. Ford Motor Credit Co.,*No. 1:14-cv-01671 (D. Md. Dec. 3, 2015), ECF No. 55 (the “Dismissal Ruling”). Haywood challenges the Arbitration Decision in her appeal (No. 15-2550), and Ford contests the Dismissal Ruling in its appeal (No. 16-1015).

Following oral argument, the Court of Appeals of Maryland issued its decision in *Cain v. Midland Funding, LLC,*No. 45, 2017 WL 1101804 (Md. Mar. 24, 2017). *184Haywood promptly brought the *Cain*decision to our attention as support for her challenge to the Arbitration Decision on the ground that Ford defaulted on its right to demand arbitration. We find it prudent to afford the district court the opportunity to assess in the first instance *Cain’s*impact, if any, on this matter. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.*.

*■VACATED AND REMANDED*

*

 Notably, we need not decide today whether the district court erred in issuing the Dismissal Ruling rather than staying its proceedings. We possess jurisdiction over these appeals because they were taken from “a final decision with respect to an arbitration” under the Federal Arbitration Act. *See*9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3); *see also Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph,*531 U.S. 79, 86-87, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000) (concluding that a district court’s order compelling arbitration and dismissing a party’s underlying claims with prejudice—as the Arbitration Decision and Dismissal Ruling did here— was final and appealable pursuant to § 16(a)(3)). Even if the Dismissal Ruling was improper, that would not deprive us of jurisdiction to review the Arbitration Decision. *See Lloyd v. HOVENSA, LLC,*369 F.3d 263, 271 (3d Cir. 2004).
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWMBS, INC.
                    CHL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH TRUST 2006-17
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-17


      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
EXHIBIT 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual Report on Form 10 KSB for theyear ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
This31st day of March, 2005.              /s/ Monty G. Watson   Monty G. Watson
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590

Mail Code: LR-8J September 14, 2007 Ms. Terri Zick Industrial Services Manager CTI and Associates, Inc. 12482 Emerson Drive Brighton, Michigan 48116 RE: U.S. EPA Comments on Delisting Petition for Owosso Graphic Arts, Owosso, Michigan

Ms. Zick; Here is a list of comments concerning the Owosso Delisting Petition. I suggest these recommendations be addressed and the petition re-submitted for review. I am available to meet with the facility's representative to discuss these issues. 1. Section Two, III, Volume of Petitioned Waste. Please clarify the reported values. Provide a historical list of the quantity of waste generated per month. Indicate what quantity value was used in the DRAS analysis. The values listed in the tables are measured in tons, however, DRAS asks for volume in cubic yards. Please provide an estimate of density or volume generated. 2. Section Three,List and describe products manufactured at the facility. Please describe the brass product line, what waste is produced and how it is handled. 3. Section Four, II.B.1.iiiAnalytical Data. As stated in the report, please submit the results of historical analysis. Please provide all historical analytical from the facility regarding TCE, including waste, water discharge, ambient air, worker safety, etc. Also, clarify if the recent composite sampling results are attached in Appendix B or E. 4. Section 5.5. Please state if there was a sample 36660-2, and if there was, was it analyzed.

15. Section 5.5. Please explain why composite samples (as opposed to grab samples) were

taken for volatile analysis. 6. Please rearrange your laboratory submittals into chronological order. 7. Please explain why some analytical results are reported in dry weight and others are not. 8. Please explain the significance of Oil & Grease analytical results of 5%. Explain these results in light of the decision to not conduct OWEP analysis. 9. Please provide the COC for the July 26, 2004 laboratory submittal. Also, there was no validation report provided for this sample describing the condition of the sample as received by the lab, temperature, holding time, etc. 10. Please provide the results for all normally reported compounds under Method 8260 for all samples. 11. Please provide clear copies of the February 16, 2005 COC and air currier documents. 12. Please provide a table consisting of a list of the constituents analyzed throughout, results, units, detection limits, data qualifiers, sample identification numbers and sample dates. Also clearly delineate the total concentration and estimated TCLP concentration for each result. 13. Please provide a list of DRAS input values including volume of waste, risk objectives, landfill life, etc. 14. Please provide sampling logs or other documentation of the sampling events. If you have any additional questions, please contact me at the address above or at (312) 886- 3583. Please note that our mailing code has changed. Please use the new one for future submissions.

Christopher Lambesis Environmental Scientist RCRA Programs Section

2