alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Malcolm Skolnick,
President and Chief Executive Officer certify that:  1. I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CytoGenix, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;  4. The registrants other certifying officers 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly 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 officers 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 officers and I have indicated in
this quarterly 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 4,
2008  /s/ Malcolm
Skolnick Malcolm
SkolnickPresident & CEO
#### Abubakar Hussein AHMED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ADOT agent of Stacey K Stanton; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17136

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 21, 2017

Abubakar Hussein Ahmed, Pro Se

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Abubakar Hussein Ahmed appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other federal statutes for failure to pay the filing fee after denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Escobedo v. Applebees,*787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). We vacate and remand.

The district court abused its discretion in denying Ahmed’s IFP application in light of the $400 filing fee and Ahmed’s declaration showing a monthly income of only $425 and no assets. *See id.*(“An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.”). Ahmed’s filings before this court, however, suggest Ahmed may no longer be indigent. We therefore vacate the district court’s dismissal and remand with instructions for the district court to permit Ahmed to either file another IFP application or to pay the filing fee.

We reject as without merit Ahmed’s contentions that he was denied due process in the district court.

Ahmed’s request for reimbursement of the filing fee on appeal, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
#### Thomas L. Parker, Jr., et al., Respondents, *v.*Martin W. Brett et al., Appellants.

(Argued November 14, 1872;

decided November 19, 1872.)

Decided upon the evidence, and upon questions as to the reception and rejection of evidence.

*WilUam G. Goohe*for the appellants.

*E. G. Benedict*for the respondents.

Peckham, J.,

reads opinion for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
exv10w5



 



Exhibit 10.5



AGREEMENT TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT


     This Amendment to Management Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made as of May
1, 2002, by and between FBR Asset Investment Corporation (the “Company”) and
Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Investment Management, Inc. (the “Manager”).


     WHEREAS, the Company and the Manager are parties to that certain
Management Agreement, dated as of December 17, 1997, and extended and amended
by the Agreement to Extend and Amend Management Agreement, dated as of December
17, 1999, the Agreement to Extend Management Agreement, dated as of December
17, 2000, and the Agreement to Extend Management Agreement, dated as of
December 17, 2001 (the “Management Agreement”); and


     WHEREAS, the parties have determined to amend the Management Agreement to
revise the compensation payable by the Company to the Manager.


     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth
herein, the parties agree as follows:


     SECTION 1.Compensation. Effective as of the date hereof, the parties
hereby agree to amend Section 8(a) of the Management Agreement by deleting
“1/4” in the third line of such section and substituting therefor “1/5”.


     SECTION 2. Other terms. Other than as expressly extended hereby, all
other terms, conditions and provisions of the Management Agreement shall remain
in effect, unless the Management Agreement is amended in writing by the parties
or is sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions thereof.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of
the date first written above.




	 	 	 
	FBR ASSET INVESTMENT

CORPORATION	 	
FRIEDMAN, BILLINGS, RAMSEY

INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC.





	 	 	 
	By: /s/ Eric F. Billings            
	 	
By: /s/ Emanuel J. Friedman            

	
Name:   Eric F. Billings

Tittle: Chairman and Chief

	 	
Name:  Emanuel J. Friedman

Title:  Chairman and Co-Chief


	            Executive Officer	 	           Executive Officer
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 713

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide

that the preemption provisions shall not apply to certain State of Oregon

laws applicable to health plans.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 7 (legislative day, APRIL 5), 1995

Mr. HATFIELD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

of 1974 to provide that the preemption provisions shall

not apply to certain State of Oregon laws applicable

to health plans.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM ERISA PREEMPTION OF

4 CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE LAW OF THE

5 STATE OF OREGON RELATING TO HEALTH

6 PLANS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 514(b) of the Employee

8 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.
2

•S 713 IS

1 1144(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following

2 new paragraph:

3 ‘‘(9)(A) Subsection (a) shall not apply to the

4 following provisions of the law of the State of Or5 egon:

6 ‘‘(i) Chapter 591, Oregon Laws 1987,

7 chapter 381, Oregon Laws 1989, and chapter

8 916, Oregon Laws 1991 (relating to employer9 based health plan coverage reforms).

10 ‘‘(ii) Chapter 815, Oregon Laws 1993 (re11 lating to phasing in of employer coverage and

12 other revisions of the Oregon Health Plan).

13 ‘‘(iii) Any other provision of the law of the

14 State of Oregon, to the extent that such provi15 sion is enacted to achieve or further the objec16 tives of the Oregon Health Plan.

17 ‘‘(B) To the extent any provision of the law of

18 the State of Oregon exempted under subparagraph

19 (A) provides, directly or indirectly, for taxation of

20 employers or group health plans, the exemption

21 under subparagraph (A) shall apply only if under

22 such provision the assessment of the tax is under a

23 uniform schedule, applicable to all employers and

24 group health plans, and does not discriminate on the
3

•S 713 IS

1 basis of the extent to which a group health plan is

2 insured.’’.

3 (b) APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM

4 LEGISLATION.—The State of Oregon shall not be treated

5 as failing to comply with applicable requirements of any

6 Federal health reform law, which is enacted on or after

7 the date of the enactment of this Act and which provides

8 for coverage of individuals under a comprehensive benefit

9 package, before the first day of the first calendar year fol10 lowing the calendar year in which all other States have

11 in effect plans under which individuals are eligible for cov12 erage under a comprehensive benefit package in compli13 ance with such law.

Æ
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-72 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports 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 thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
Lancaster 

County 

P.O. Box 1809 

101 N. Main St. 

Lancaster, SC 29721 

Telephone; 

803-285-1565 

lancastercountysc. net 

ML' IPTOFIRANSPORWiON 

'• 30 

April 20, 2010 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations M-30 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590-0001 

RE: FAA Docket No. FAA-20J 0-0049 and Airspace Docket No. 08-

AWA-1 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Recently Mr. Miroslav Velickovich wrote (letter dated April 16, 

2010) regarding the proposal to extend Class B airspace over the 

Lancaster County, SC Airport - McWhirter Field (KLKR) to serve the 

Charlotte (NC) - Douglas Airport. While our preference remains not to 

have any Class B airspace over our airport, we certainly endorse Mr. 

Velickovich's request to modify the floor of the airspace. 

As Mr. Velickovich notes, he holds an Acrobatic Practice Area 

waiver from the FAA. Our airport is well suited for such practice and it 

enhances public interest in aviation. We consider it a positive benefit 

that his group utilizes our county airport. 

I would like to go on record as asking that every consideration 

be given to granting the request of Mr. Velickovich. 

With kindest regards, I am 

Sincerely yours, 

Steve Willis 

County Administrator 

sw/ 

cc: 

County Council 

Doug Barnes - Chairman, Airport Commission 

Mr. Miroslav Velickovich
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0001005335
<NAME>                         Smith Barney Principal PLUS Futures Fund L.P. II

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                     4,656,109
<SECURITIES>                                              10,648,436
<RECEIVABLES>                                                718,518
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          16,023,063
<PP&E>                                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            16,203,063
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      1,047,135
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                                14,975,928
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              16,023,063
<SALES>                                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            (790,715)
<CGS>                                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             192,007
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             (982,722)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                (982,722)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    (66.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0


</TABLE>
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 685 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to improve upon the definitions provided 

for points and fees in connection with a mortgage transaction. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2015 

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan (for himself, Mr. MEEKS, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. DAVID

SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. JOYCE, Mr. STIVERS, Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE

of Pennsylvania, Mr. MURPHY of Florida, Ms. MCCOLLUM, and Mr. 

FINCHER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to improve upon the 

definitions provided for points and fees in connection 

with a mortgage transaction. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mortgage Choice Act 

5 of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 685 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF POINTS AND FEES. 

2 (a) AMENDMENT TO SECTION 103 OF TILA.—Sec3 tion 103(bb)(4) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 

4 1602(bb)(4)) is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘paragraph (1)(B)’’ and insert6 ing ‘‘paragraph (1)(A) and section 129C’’; 

7 (2) in subparagraph (C)— 

8 (A) by inserting ‘‘and insurance’’ after 

9 ‘‘taxes’’; 

10 (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ‘‘, except as 

11 retained by a creditor or its affiliate as a result 

12 of their participation in an affiliated business 

13 arrangement (as defined in section 2(7) of the 

14 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 

15 (12 U.S.C. 2602(7))’’ after ‘‘compensation’’; 

16 and 

17 (C) by striking clause (iii) and inserting 

18 the following: 

19 ‘‘(iii) the charge is— 

20 ‘‘(I) a bona fide third-party charge 

21 not retained by the mortgage originator, 

22 creditor, or an affiliate of the creditor or 

23 mortgage originator; or 

24 ‘‘(II) a charge set forth in section 

25 106(e)(1);’’; and 

26 (3) in subparagraph (D)— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 685 IH

1 (A) by striking ‘‘accident,’’; and 

2 (B) by striking ‘‘or any payments’’ and in3 serting ‘‘and any payments’’. 

4 (b) AMENDMENT TO SECTION 129C OF TILA.—Sec5 tion 129C of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639c) 

6 is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)(5)(C), by striking ‘‘103’’ 

8 and all that follows through ‘‘or mortgage origi9 nator’’ and inserting ‘‘103(bb)(4)’’; and 

10 (2) in subsection (b)(2)(C)(i), by striking ‘‘103’’ 

11 and all that follows through ‘‘or mortgage origi12 nator)’’ and inserting ‘‘103(bb)(4)’’. 

13 SEC. 3. RULEMAKING. 

14 Not later than the end of the 90-day period beginning 

15 on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Bureau of 

16 Consumer Financial Protection shall issue final regula17 tions to carry out the amendments made by this Act, and 

18 such regulations shall be effective upon issuance. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of CytoGenix, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 1O-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Malcolm H. Skolnick, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:  (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 result of operations of the
Company.   /s/ Malcolm H.
Skolnick Malcolm H.
Skolnick Chief Executive
Officer   April 4, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustavo MENDOZA-ZAZUETA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50157

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 17, 2017

Jarad E. Hodes, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ajay Krishnamurthy, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Gerloni Sharieff Cotton, Assistant Director, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gustavo Mendoza-Zazueta appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mendoza-Zazueta contends that the district court erred in denying his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. He argues that the court failed to compare the degree of his involvement in the criminal enterprise to that of all of the other participants, including the “higher-ups” in the enterprise. He also contends that the court erred by relying on authority from this court that has allegedly been superseded by the 2015 amendment to the Guideline. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. *See United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2016).

The record belies Mendoza-Zazueta’s contention that the district court misapplied the minor role Guideline. The court conducted the requisite comparative analysis, considering the totality of the circumstances and the enumerated factors before concluding that Mendoza-Zazueta was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (G); *Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d at 523. Moreover, the court did not refuse to consider the “higher-ups” in the enterprise, but rather concluded that they were not “average” participants to whom Mendoza-Zazueta should be compared. Finally, Mendoza-Zazueta has not shown that the district court applied this court’s precedent in any way that conflicts with the 2015 amendment to the Guideline.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Thomas GOLA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-15841 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(October 11, 2017)

George L. Beck, Jr., Kevin P. Davidson, John J. Geer, III, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Sandra J. Stewart, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jeffrey Thomas Gola, Pro Se

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Gola appeals the denial of his motion for free transcripts. Gola moved for transcripts of his change of plea hearing and his sentencing hearing, which he has since received. Because “it is impossible for [this] court to grant [Gola] any effectual relief,” *United States v, Serrapio,*754 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting *Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000,*567 U.S. 298, 307, 132 S.Ct. 2277, 183 L.Ed.2d 281 (2012)), we dismiss as moot that part of his appeal challenging the denial of trial transcripts. Gola also moved for a transcript of a hearing about his mental fitness to prepare a collateral challenge to his sentence, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2255, but we cannot say that the denial of Gola’s motion was an abuse of discretion, *see United States v. Quinn,*123 F.3d 1415, 1425 (11th Cir. 1997). Gola “is not entitled to obtain copies of court records at the government’s expense to search for possible defects merely because he is an indigent.” *United States v. Herrera,*474 F.2d 1049, 1049 (5th Cir. 1973). Gola argues that the denial of the transcripts constitutes discrimination based on his mental disability, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, but Gola must present that issue in a civil action, not in a postjudgment motion in a criminal case.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.