alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 35.3
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
             RALI SERIES 2006-QA11 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

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

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

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

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

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------


                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWHEQ, INC.
                  CWHEQ HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-S7
           HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-S7


      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
3.17 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
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 7
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 7
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 7
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 7
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 7
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 7
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 7
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                  FIRST USA PAYMENTECH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
              THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND 1996
                 (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
 
                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED        NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                 MARCH 31,                 MARCH 31,
                                        -------------------------  ------------------------
                                             1997         1996         1997         1996
                                        ------------  -----------  -----------  -----------
<S>                                     <C>           <C>          <C>          <C> 
Primary
------- 
Net income............................  $     7,360   $     3,888  $    12,472  $     8,822
                                        -----------   -----------  -----------  -----------
 
Weighted average common equivalent
 shares outstanding
 Average common shares outstanding....   34,928,763    24,788,005   32,909,868   24,537,445
 Common stock equivalents -- stock
  options.............................      268,681        28,105      343,777        8,646
                                        -----------   -----------  -----------  -----------
 Weighted average common and common
  stock equivalent shares.............   35,197,444    24,816,110   33,253,645   24,546,091
                                        ===========   ===========  ===========  =========== 
 
Net income per share..................  $      0.21   $      0.16  $      0.37  $      0.36
                                        ===========   ===========  ===========  ===========                                         

 
Fully diluted
-------------
Net income............................  $     7,360   $     3,888  $    12,472  $     8,822
                                        -----------   -----------  -----------  ----------- 
 
Weighted average common and common
 equivalent shares outstanding            
   Average common shares outstanding..   34,928,763    24,788,005   32,909,868   24,537,445
   Common stock equivalents -- stock
    options...........................      268,606        28,105      341,962        8,646
                                        -----------   -----------  -----------  ----------- 
   Weighted average common and common
    stock equivalent shares...........   35,197,369    24,816,110   33,251,830   24,546,091
                                        ===========   ===========  ===========  =========== 
 
Net income per share assuming full
 dilution.............................  $      0.21   $      0.16  $      0.37  $      0.36
                                        ===========   ===========  ===========  ===========  
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Thomas J. Edelman, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Patina Oil & Gas Corporation;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof 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 includedin this 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 report; 

 

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

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat 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 report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

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

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: October 30, 2003
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00236-CV

RAMESH KAPUR, DBA AIC MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Appellant

V.

CASSANDRA PLEASANT, Appellee

Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 

1013763).

This is an appeal from a judgment signed December 11, 2013. Appellant, Ramesh 

Kapur, dba AIC Management Company, did not timely file a brief. After being notified 

that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. It is 

therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed 

for want of prosecution.

The Court orders that the appellant, Ramesh Kapur, dba AIC Management 

Company, pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.
Judgment rendered September 29, 2015. Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting 

of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.y
MP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0483

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JAMIE CAL FUSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 60-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and

including May 31, 2022, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 25 2022

03/25/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0483
The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Cour t 1 for the District of Minnesota. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3181

___________ Kenneth S. Benigni, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 7, 1998 Filed: April 10, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Kennet h S. Benigni brought a complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Ac t (FTCA), 28 U .S.C. §§ 2671-80. He alleged the United States Postal Service (USPS) failed to in vestigate a death threat he received in the mail; intentionally withheld hi s mail from h ome delivery on numerous occasions, requiring him to retrieve the mai l fr om the post office; and never delivered to him certain weekly newspapers. Th e district court dismissed most of the complaint with prejudice, but dismissed th e

1 intentional-withholding-of-mail claim without prejudice. Benigni appeals.-2-

As the district cou rt noted, Benigni & s failure-to-investigate claim was barred by the “discretionaryfunction” exception to the FTCA, see 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), and his loss-of-ma ilclaim was barred by the postal exception to the FTCA, see 28 U.S.C
. § 2680(b). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

LEBOLO

- WATTS CONSTRU CTORS 01 JV, LLC, Appellant

v.

SECRETARY OF THE ARM Y, Appellee

______________________

2019

- 1420

______________________

Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in No s . 59738, 59909, Administrative Judge Owen C. Wilson, Administrative Judge Reba Page, Administrative Judge Richard Shackleford.

________ ______________

JUDGMENT

______________________

H ERMAN M ARTIN B RAUDE

, Braude Law Group, P.C., Rockville, MD, argued for appellant.

D ANIEL B. V OLK , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by J OSEPH
H. H UNT

, R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN

, J R

., P ATRICIA M.

M C C ARTH Y

.

______________________ Case: 19-1420 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 04/20/2020T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, Chief Judge, O’M ALLEY and

T ARANTO

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

April 20, 2020

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court Case: 19-1420 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 04/20/2020
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0272

_________________

COREY ALAN RUBIN and DON HAUTH,

 Plaintiffs and Appellees,

 v.

BRENT E. HUGHES and GRACE HUGHES, 

husband and wife,

 Defendants and Appellants.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Heidi Ulbricht, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 16 2022

02/16/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0272
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50383

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

JESUS OSORIO-ABUNDIO, 

Also Known as Jeremias Bonilla, Also Known as Jesus Osonrio-Abundis,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 1:17-CR-80-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Osorio-Abundio appeals his conviction of illegal reentry into the 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 11, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50383 Document: 00515231598 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2019
No. 19-50383

2

United States. He challenges the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment as invalid, contending that his initial removal order was void for the 

failure of the notice to appear in the initial removal proceedings to specify a 

time and date for his removal hearing. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed 

by United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for 

cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19-6588), but he wishes to preserve it for 

further review. The government moves, unopposed, for summary affirmance, 

agreeing that the issue is foreclosed by Pedroza-Rocha and Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 

930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019).

In Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 496−98 we concluded that the notice to 

appear was not deficient for failure to specify a date and time for the hearing, 

that any such deficiency had not deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction, 

and that the petitioner could not collaterally attack his notice to appear without first exhausting administrative remedies. Osorio-Abundio’s arguments 

are, as he concedes, therefore foreclosed. See id. Because the government’s 

position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial 

question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 

406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, the government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-50383 Document: 00515231598 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2019
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I
Ronald E. Badke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

     (3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (4) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



By: /s/ Ronald E. Badke
    -------------------------
    Ronald E. Badke
    Chief Financial Officer
    November 14, 2003
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Melissa VEATCH, also known as Missy, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11730 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 11, 2017

Sonja Marie Ralston, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Washington, DC, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Taly Haffar, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JONES, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Melissa Veatch appeals the 400-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for one count of conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(B). She contends the court: plainly erred in applying the importation enhancement to her sentence; and abused its discretion by denying her motions to continue her sentencing hearing.

*339Although *post-Booker,*the Guidelines are advisory only, the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 48-51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. *Id.*at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; *United States v. Delgado-Martinez,*564 F.3d 750, 751-53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed *de*novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. *E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,*517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

Nonetheless, as she acknowledges, Veatch withdrew her written objection to the enhancement at sentencing. Accordingly, the plain-error review she relies upon is not applicable. Instead, she waived any challenge to the court’s application of the enhancement to her sentence. *E.g., United States v. Musquiz,*45 F.3d 927, 931 (5th Cir. 1995).

In addition, Veatch fails to show the court abused its discretion in denying her two motions to continue her sentencing hearing. *E.g., United States v. German,*486 F.3d 849, 854 (5th Cir. 2007); *United States v. Peden,*891 F.2d 514, 520 (5th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and fs not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Please be advised that after the 3/25/2016 version of the draft NPRM was sent to OMB, on 4/13/2016 

EPA submitted the attached revised version that contained technical corrections to better reflect EPA’s 

intended meaning for certain passages in the preamble.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

AR/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RENE TORRES FLORES; ELSA

GUILLERMINA TORRES; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73506

Agency Nos. A095-309-347

 A095-309-348

 A095-309-349

 A095-309-350

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Rene Torres Flores, his wife, Elsa Guillermina Torres, and their two minor

children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen

FILED

JAN 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
AR/Research 2 07-73506

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777,

782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Torres Flores’ motion to

reopen because the BIA considered the evidence he submitted and acted within its

broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant

reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA’s

denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or

contrary to law.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 89 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 89

     To amend the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES 
              ACT.

    (a) Opportunities for Students.--Section 32 of the Science and 
Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(c)(1) The Congress finds that Native Hawaiian students, students 
who are Pacific Islanders, and Native American students are 
underrepresented in science, computer science, and engineering. Such 
students face both cultural barriers to the study of science and 
geographical isolation.
    ``(2) The Director is authorized to make awards to institutions of 
higher education, including community colleges, and local educational 
agencies to work in partnership with community organizations to develop 
and implement science, computer science, technology, and mathematics 
curricula that--
            ``(A) are in accord with the traditional cultural values of 
        the students described in paragraph (1);
            ``(B) emphasize the scientific achievements of the native 
        cultures of such students; and
            ``(C) encourage enrollment of such students in higher 
        education.''.
                                 <all>
```