alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 statement ofa 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 and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 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’s boardof 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 28, 2004
----

----

| (1)    | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period      ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of      1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:      November 5, 2009 | /s/ Joseph L. Sullivan             |   |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Joseph      L. Sullivan            |   |
|                        | President      and General Manager |   |
|                        | (principal      executive officer) |   |

----

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4963

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FELIPE AURELIO HERNANDEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief

District Judge. (CR-02-30046)

Submitted: August 30, 2004 Decided: September 17, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederick T. Heblich, Jr., FREDERICK T. HEBLICH, JR., P.C.,

Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United

States Attorney, William F. Gould, Assistant United States

Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Felipe Aurelio Hernandez pled guilty to conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more

of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment.

Hernandez raises two issues on appeal. He argues that the district

court erred: (1) by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea

and (2) in its determination of the amount of drugs for which he

was held responsible at sentencing. For the reasons that follow,

we affirm.

We find that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Hernandez’s motion to withdraw his guilty

plea. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir.

2000). The court properly conducted Hernandez’s plea hearing under

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099

(4th Cir. 1995). In addition, the court carefully and correctly

analyzed the motion, using the relevant factors articulated in this

Court’s opinion in United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th

Cir. 1991). Accordingly, this claim is without merit.

The court did not clearly err in determining the quantity

of drugs attributable to Hernandez for sentencing purposes. United

States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999). The court’s

drug quantity findings were supported by testimony at the

sentencing hearing, United States v. Falesbork, 5 F.3d 715, 722

(4th Cir. 1993), and by amounts listed in the presentence report.
- 3 -

United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 606 (4th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, this claim fails.

Hernandez has moved for leave to file a supplemental

brief addressing the impact of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct.

2531 (2004), on this case. The motion is both granted and deemed

to be the supplemental brief. In light of our recent order in

United States v. Hammoud, No. 03-4253, 2004 WL 1730309 (4th Cir.

Aug. 2, 2004) (order), petition for cert. filed, __U.S.L.W.__,

(U.S. Aug. 6, 2004) (No. 04-193), relief under Blakely is denied.

Accordingly, we affirm Hernandez’s conviction and

sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 11.1

                        DAWSON PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC.
                         EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATIONS


                                                    THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                          1997       1998
                                                        -------    -------
Basic Earnings Per Share
Net Income ............................................. $ 1,876    $ 1,087
                                                         -------    -------
Shares used in earnings per share computattion .........  11,126     11,099
                                                         -------    -------
Earnings per share ..................................... $  0.17    $  0.10
                                                         -------    -------

Diluted Earnings Per Share
Net Income ............................................. $ 1,876    $ 1,087
                                                         -------    -------
Shares used in earnings per share computation ..........  11,245     11,235
                                                         -------    -------
Earnings per share ..................................... $  0.17    $  0.10
                                                         -------    -------


     COMPUTATION OF SHARES USED IN EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    COMPUTATIONS-BASIC

Weighted average outstanding common shares .............  11,126     11,099
                                                         -------    -------

     COMPUTATION OF SHARES USED IN EARNINGS PER SHARE
                   COMPUTATIONS-DILUTED

Weighted average outstanding common shares .............  11,126     11,099
Effect of dilutive securities-stock options ............     119        136
                                                         -------    -------
Shares used in earnings per share computation ..........  11,245     11,235
                                                         -------    -------
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014, by and among  WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.,  as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as General Special Servicer,  NCB, FSB, as NCB Master Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates  Series 2014-C22 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.         A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from September 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 6th day of March 2015.

 

                                                                                                

/s/ Daniel Bober            

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President                         

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

 
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
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 Equicap, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), the undersigned, Peter Wang, President and David Ming He, Chief
Financial Officer, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the
undersigned’s 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Peter WangPeter
      WangPresidentPrincipal
      Executive OfficerNovember
      11, 2009/s/
      David Ming HeDavid
      Ming HeChief
      Financial OfficerPrincipal
      Financial OfficerNovember
      11, 2009




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished with the Company’s Report pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
TheHonorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for th e 1 Eastern District of Arkansas.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4324

___________ Johnnie L. Ruth, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary of the * Army, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 4, 1998 Filed: August 10, 1998

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

___________ PER CURIAM. Johnnie L. Ruth appeals the district court & s adverse grant of summary judgment 1 in this employment dis crimination action. We have carefully reviewed the record and the parties & briefs, and conclude that the district court did not err. Accordingly, w e affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in its opinion. See8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



             STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                (In thousands)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Quarter Ended                            Two Quarters Ended
                                                      --------------------------------------          ----------------------------- 
                                                            July 14,                July 13,               July 14,        July 13,
                                                             1996                    1997                    1996            1997
                                                      --------------          --------------          -------------     -----------
<S>                                                 <C>                      <C>                      <C>               <C> 
Primary earnings per share:                                                                           
Weighted average number of shares outstanding                 18,140                  33,080                 12,309          32,782
Incremental shares pursuant to Staff Accounting                                                       
   Bulletin No. 83...............................              2,230                   1,645                  1,952           2,078
                                                      --------------          --------------          -------------     -----------
Adjusted primary weighted average number of                                                           
   common and equivalent shares outstanding......             20,370                  34,725                 14,261          34,860
                                                      ==============          ==============          =============     ===========
Fully diluted earnings per share:                                                                     
Weighted average number of shares outstanding....             18,140                  33,080                 12,309          32,782
Incremental shares pursuant to Staff Accounting                                                       
   Bulletin No. 83...............................              2,230                   1,645                  1,952           2,078
                                                      --------------          --------------          -------------     -----------
                                                                                                      
Adjusted fully diluted weighted average number                                                        
   of common and equivalent shares outstanding...             20,370                  34,725                 14,261          34,860
                                                      ==============          ==============          =============     ===========
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6222

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL DEMOND OGLESBY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00348-TDS-1)

Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 25, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Demond Oglesby, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael 

Hamilton, Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States

Attorneys, Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Demond Oglesby appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion for reduction in sentence pursuant 

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Oglesby, 

No. 1:06-cr-00348-TDS-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 2016). 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dondell PEA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-30163 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 17, 2018

Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John Broocks Greer, III, Broocks Greer, L.L.C., Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dondell Pea appeals the 240-month mandatory minimum sentence imposed fol*297lowing his guilty plea conviction of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. He argues that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because it is grossly disproportionate to his offense and because the mandatory minimum was enhanced based on a purportedly insignificant prior conviction for a felony drug offense.

Reviewing this preserved issue de novo, we find no constitutional error. *United States v. Mills,*843 F.3d 210, 217 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1601, 197 L.Ed.2d 726 (2017). Pea’s 240-month sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the severity of his controlled substance offense. *See Mills,*843 F.3d at 217; *United States v. Helm,*502 F.3d 366, 368 (5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the 240-month sentence was not unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, regardless of the fact that it was the mandatory minimum sentence. *See Harmelin v. Michigan,*501 U.S. 957, 995, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *297published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# DELTA

**~**

January 25, 2016
U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 400 7th Street SW, Plaza 401 Washington, DC 20590 Re: Exemption No. 10690, (Docket No. FAA-2013-0034) Dear Sir or Madam: Delta Air Lines, Inc. Post Office Box 20706 Atlanta, Georgia 30320-6001

By letter dated December 29, 2015, Airlines forAmerica {A4A)/the National Air Carrier Association, and the Regional Airline Association, on behalf oftheir passenger airline members (See enclosure 1) and similarly-situated air carriers, petition for a limited exemption from 14 CFR §121.803(c)(3) which requires airplanes with seating capacity of more than nine passengers to carry an Emergency Medical Kit (EMK) with contents as specified in Appendix A to Part 121. Specifically, they request that FAA issue a long-term exemption for use during periods oftemporary supply shortages, beyond operator control, affecting availability of injectable drugs Atropine, Dextrose, Lidocaine, or Epinephrine, named in Part 121, Appendix A. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta) requests that the FAA, when granting the requested exemption, specifically include the requested reference "and similarly-situated air carriers" per the petition as membership with A4A, NACA, or RAA should not be a prerequisite for continuing to operate underthe conditions and limitations ofthe requested relief. It would not be in the public interest to omit a carrier who has been operating under the reliefof previous issue exemptions within the conditions and limitations set forward, simply due to not being a member of one ofthese groups. This would not set a precedent as many other exemptions are granted other similarly situated Part 121 certificate holders e.g. Exemptions 3585, 4298, 4416, and 5533. Ifyou have any questions or require any additional information please contact Casey Seabright, Manager-Compliance & Incident Management at (404) 715-1536, or Chuck Schramek, DirectorQuality Assurance & Compliance at (404) 715-11 12. Respectfully,

Charles M. Schramek Director- Quality Assurance & Compliance Flight Operations CMS: cws
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Corporate Trust ServicesMAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel:  410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

 

RBS Commercial Funding Inc. 

600 Washington Boulevard

Stamford, Connecticut 06901

 

 

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for RBS Commercial Funding Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, 

Series 2014-C25

 

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

March 3, 2015

 

/s/ Brian Smith 

BRIAN SMITH 

Vice President

 

 

 
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  |
|------------------------|--|