alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 35.2
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
             RFMSI SERIES 2006-S12 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  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:     Executive Vice President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Trayone Maurice BURTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6915

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

Trayone Maurice Burton, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, John David Ro-well, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Trayone Maurice Burton appeals the district court’s orders granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2), and review de nóvo a district court’s conclusion as to the scope of its legal authority under that provision. *See United States v. Muldrow,*844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016). We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. *See United States v. Burton,*No. 3:07-cr-00773-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Apr. 25, 2017; June 30, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit 10.83




Letter agreement effective January 1, 2011 between Jim Caulfield and Move, Inc. regarding paid time off




MOVE 910 East Hamilton Ave., 6th Floor
Campbell, CA 95008




November 17, 2010




Dear Jim,




Effective January 1, 2011, you and other senior executives reporting directly to the CEO (the “Leadership Team”) will no longer be subject to, or accrue or accumulate paid time off under the vacation, floating holiday and/or paid sick leave policies set forth in the Move Inc. Employee Handbook or in your offer letter or any other documentation with the Company.




Rather, members of the Leadership Team will be permitted to take paid time off for vacation and personal matters, subject to business needs, with the approval of the CEO. The primary limitations on permitting the taking of vacation or time off for personal matters will be those dictated by your job responsibilities. Accordingly, there will be no prescribed limits on the amount of vacation or personal time, if any, that you may request or be permitted to take in a given year notwithstanding any reference thereto in any offer letter or any other documentation with the Company.




In addition, paid time off for occasional, short illnesses will be permitted on an as-needed basis, subject to medical verification if requested by the CEO. Leadership Team members who qualify for and are granted a leave of absence under Move Inc.’s Disability Leave of Absence or Family and Medical Leave of Absence policies will be paid for up to a maximum of ninety (90) days of any such leave taken in any twelve (12)-month rolling period, less any income received from any income replacement benefits or insurance provided pursuant to any applicable law or Company-sponsored insurance or benefit program.




Members of the Leadership Team will retain all vacation accrued on or before December 31, 2010. Paid time off taken on or after January 1, 2011 will reduce any such accrued vacation balance. If upon separation from employment, a Leadership Team member has a balance of unused vacation, he or she will be paid out in accordance with the Company’s policies and practices and applicable law.




Please indicate you acceptance of these terms by signing below and returning this letter to me.




Very truly yours,




/s/ Steve BerkowitzSteve BerkowitzChief Executive Officercc
Carol Brummer, VP, Human ResourcesName
/s/ James S. Caulfield
Date
11/17/10Jim Caulfield


---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

EDWIN PETER BLAS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-10078 

D.C. No. 1:99-cr-00021-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands

Ramona V. Manglona, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Edwin Peter Blas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

the 18-month sentence imposed upon his fifth revocation of supervised release. 

We have jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Blas first contends that the district court procedurally erred and violated his 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-10078 

due process rights by basing his sentence on hearsay statements contained in a 

police report. This claim fails because, to the extent the court considered the 

statements in assessing Blas’s breach of the court’s trust, Blas has not shown that 

the statements lacked the requisite indicia of reliability. See United States v. 

Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2009) (information is unreliable 

“if it lacks some minimal indicium of reliability beyond mere allegation” (internal 

quotations omitted)). 

Blas also argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it 

does not serve a rehabilitative purpose and because it was based on the district 

court’s unfounded belief that he poses a threat to the community. The district court 

did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Blas’s 

repeated breaches of the court’s trust and his disregard for the terms of his 

supervised release. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Moreover, contrary to Blas’s 

contention, the district court thoroughly explained its reasons for imposing the 

sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05284]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; PAR19-202 High Impact, 
Interdisciplinary Science in NIDDK Research Areas: Hematology (RC2).
    Date: April 5, 2022.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: NIDDK, NIH, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 
(Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Ann A. Jerkins, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
Room 7119, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 301-
594-2242, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c6aca3b4adafa8b5a786a8afa2a2ade8a8afaee8a1a9b0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="03696671686a6d7062436d6a6767682d6d6a6b2d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 8, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-05284 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Kunta K. REDD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric WILSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7266

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 21, 2017

Kunta K, Redd, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kunta K. Redd, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Redd has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention. *See Rice v. Rivera,*617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010); *United States v. Poole,*531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). The district court lacked jurisdiction over Redd’s petition, *Rice,*617 F.3d at 807, and we therefore grant leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, modify the district court’s order, *Redd v. Wilson,*No. 3:17-cv-00393-JAG-RCY (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2017), to reflect a dismissal without prejudice, and affirm the dismissal as modified, 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012). We deny Redd’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED*
**EXHIBIT 35.2**

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE** 

            I, Barbara Campbell, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (the “Administrative Agent”), dohereby certify to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”) and Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Administrative Agent Agreement dated as of February 1, 2005 (the“Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Servicer, and the Administrative Agent the following with respect to Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WMALT Series 2006-AR10 Trustfor the 2006 fiscal year (the “Relevant Year”):

1.                  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has beenmade under my supervision.

2.                  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the ServicingAgreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.

Dated as of February 22, 2007.

|  

/s/ Barbara Campbell________________Name:  Barbara CampbellTitle:    First Vice President |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors t he citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 6/20/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES HILL THOMAS, true name John Westley Dailey,

Defendant - Appellant. No. 95-6403 (D. Ct. No. CR-91-198-T) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This appeal is from an order sentencing defendant to the maximum sentence under the applicable guideline range. Defendant appeals on the ground that the district court failed to state adequate reasons for the sentence at the top of the range. In this case,- 2 -

defendant was sentenced upon resentencing to a 235 month sentence on counts one and two of a four count indictment and a 60 month consecutive sentence on count three, for a total term of 295 months. At the time the district court made the decision to impose the sentence at the top of the guideline range, the court specifically identified a series of factors that it took into consideration in establishing the guideline sentence. The district court is required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) to state a specific reason for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the guideline range. The district court, in articulating the reasons for the guideline sentence, made clear that none of the enhancements that were added to the base sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of the actions by the defendant and the danger that he created by engaging in his criminal behavior. Further, the district court stated specifically additional factual reasons for selecting the particular sentence. We find that the district court complied adequately with the requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) and relied upon the appropriate factors listed on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We therefore affirm the order of the district court. The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge
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
 
 Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley
        Act
        of 2002, I, Daniel W. Finch, Chief Executive Officer of Advanced
        ID Corporation (the “Company"), hereby certify, that to the best
        of
        my knowledge, the Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
        quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with
        the
        requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
        1934
        and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.
 
 Date:
        November 11, 2005
 
 /s/Daniel
        W. Finch
 
 Daniel
        W.
        Finch, Chief Executive Officer
#### Keith Allen DEATON Petitioner-Appellant v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-1925

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 5, 2017

Filed: May 5, 2017

Keith Allen Deaton, Pro Se

Dana Allison Reece, Reece Law Firm, Little Rock, AR, for Petitioner-Appellant

Kelly Hook Fields, Pamela Rumpz, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Respondent-Appellee

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Following a remand in *Deaton v. Hobbs,*561 Fed.Appx. 584 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam), the district court1 conducted an *599evidentiary hearing and afterward concluded that Keith Deaton was unable to meet the demanding actual-innocence standard to toll the expiration of the statute of limitations for his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Accordingly, the district court denied Deaton’s habeas petition as untimely, and he appeals. Because we agree with the district court that Deaton’s evidence was not sufficient to establish that “no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” *see McQuiggin v. Perkins,*— U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1928, 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013), we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
II

Calendar No. 190

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 977

To correct certain references in the Bankruptcy Code.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 28 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary

SEPTEMBER 18 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 5), 1995

Reported by Mr. HATCH, without amendment

A BILL

To correct certain references in the Bankruptcy Code.

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

3 SECTION 1. REFERENCE.

4 Section 1228 of title 11, United States Code, is

5 amended by striking ‘‘section 1222(b)(10)’’ each place it

6 appears and inserting ‘‘section 1222(b)(9)’’.
Calendar No. 190

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 977

A BILL

To correct certain references in the Bankruptcy

Code.

SEPTEMBER 18 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 5), 1995

Reported without amendment
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory MCCORKLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6294

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 30, 2017

Decided: November 13, 2017

Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. James L. Trump, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*271PER CURIAM:

Gregory MeCorkle seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifí-cate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that MeCorkle has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny McCor-kle’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 Annual Report of Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Meg A. Gentle, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





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





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








Date: March 1, 2011





/s/ MEG A. GENTLEMeg A. GentleChief Financial Officer of Sabine Pass LNG-GP, LLCgeneral partner of Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-73-2021]

On November 5, 2021, Avaya, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 262, in Olive Branch, Mississippi.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (86 FR 64182, November 17, 2021). On March 7, 2022, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including section 400.14.                

Dated: March 7, 2022.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-05073 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P