alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
** **

**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Section 302 Certification**

 

I, Judy Wilson, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Protective Life Secured Trust 2008-20 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.              Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.              Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.              All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. 

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:   The Bank of New York Mellon and its officers and agents.

 

 
| Date:   March 22,   2011 |
|----------------------------------------------|
|                                         |
|                                         |
| By:                                          | /s/  JUDY   WILSON |   |
|                                         | Name:   Judy Wilson |   |
|                                         | Title:   Senior Vice President of Protective Life Insurance Company (as depositor) |   |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
33-30602, 33-30603, 33-36161, 33-41924, 33-41926, 33-95724, 33-95726,
333-37027,333-37029, 333-37031, 333-92637, 333-70372 and 333-70362 on Form S-8
and in Registration Statements Nos. 333-29757 and 333-64877 on Form S-3 of Bay
View Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries of our report dated March 12, 2004,
relating to the 2003 and 2002 consolidated financial statements of Bay View
Capital Corporation and (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes explanatory paragraphs relating to (i) changes in the basis of
accounting on September 30, 2002 and on October 1, 2003, (ii) the adoption of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, and (iii) the application
of procedures relating to certain disclosures of financial statement amounts
related to the 2001 consolidated financial statements that were audited by other
auditors who have ceased operations and for which we have expressed no opinion
or other form of assurance other than with respect to such disclosures)
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bay View Capital Corporation and
Subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-------------------------
San Francisco, California
March 12, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4570

ROBERT D. ZINNAMON, a/k/a Robert

Gerald,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.

Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.

(CR-91-387)

Submitted: February 15, 2002

Decided: March 1, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Mary Lou Newberger, Acting Federal Public Defender, Edward H.

Weis, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Miller

A. Bushong, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Robert D. Zinnamon appeals his sentence, upon revocation of his

supervised release, to seven months incarceration followed by twentynine months supervised release. Zinnamon’s attorney filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating

there are no meritorious issues for appeal. On Zinnamon’s behalf,

counsel contends 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (1988 & Supp. V) (current

version at 18 U.S.C. § 3538(e)(3) (1994)), required the district court

to give Zinnamon credit for time served on supervised release when

it sentenced him to a second term of supervised release. Although

advised of his right to do so, Zinnamon has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. 

We have reviewed the entire record in this case in accordance with

the requirements of Anders and find no error in Zinnamon’s sentence

and no meritorious issues for appeal. See 18 U.S.C § 3583(e)(3) (1988

& Supp. V); Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 703-13 (2000).

We therefore affirm Zinnamon’s sentence. 

We require that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If Zinnamon requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that

such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this

court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion

must state that a copy thereof was served on Zinnamon. 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

2 UNITED STATES v. ZINNAMON
Exhibit 31.1
 
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
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(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control 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 materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (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 and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: May 16, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Nigel JamesNigel JamesPresident and Principal Executive Officer E-2
Exhibit
32.1



Section
1350 Certification



In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Accelera Innovations, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John F. Wallin, Chief Executive
Officer and 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, 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.



|Date:
    April 15, 2015 | /s/
    John     F. Wallin                                                                                                        
|------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         | John
    F. Wallin                                                                                                                
|                         | Chief
    Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



This
certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically
incorporates it by reference.
Marc S. HERMELIN, Appellant, v. Jean M. BELLIN et al., Respondents.

No. ED 105657

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: June 26, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 31, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied October 30, 2018

Jonathan T. Sternberg, 2323 Grand Blvd, Suite 1100, Kansas City, MO. 64108, Mitchell A. Margo (Co-Counsel), Edward J. Sluys (Co-Counsel), 130 S. Bemiston, Suite 200, Clayton, MO. 63105, for appellant.

Kenneth C. Brostron, Scott A. Pummell (Co-Counsel), 714 Locust Street, Saint Louis, Mo. 63101, Andrew Rothschild, Patrick J. Thornton (Co-Counsel), 600 Washington Ave, Suite 2500, Saint Louis, MO. 63101, Teresa D. Pupillo, 120 S. Central Ave, Suite 1500, St. Louis, Mo. 63105, Kurtis B. Reeg, Paul L. Knobbe (Co-Counsel), 8000 Maryland Ave, Suite 640, Saint Louis, MO. 63105 for respondent.

Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Angela T. Quigless, J., Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

*77Marc S. Hermelin appeals from the circuit court's grant of summary judgment denying his claims for tortious interference with a contract and civil conspiracy against Respondents, who were eight employees of K-V Pharmaceutical Co., including six members of the Board of Directors and two corporate executives. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 84.16(b) (2018).
In the Matter of: 

Ricky Ziv 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FAA Docket 

HEA 

Respondent FAA Case No. 2014WA910001 

HON. Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 

ANSWER 

Comes Now, Respondent Ricky Ziv and files his answer as follows: 

I. 

Having received service of the FAA Complaint in this matter Mr. Ziv answers as follows. 

II. 

1. Admit. 

2. Admit. 

3. Admit. 

4. Deny. 

5. Admit. 

III. 

Denied to the extent that this paragraph asserts factual conclusions. Admit to the extent 

that counsel has represented the content of 14 C.F.R. §120.33(b) accurately and correctly. 
IV. 

I. Denied to the extent that the assertions herein are conclusory in nature. 

2. Denied to the extent that the assertions herein are conclusory in nature. 

Respectfully Submitted 

J~ w.\ ble 

AFA:~cw A Senior Staff Attorney 

Counsel for Respondent 

Certificate of Service: 

By signature below I hereby certify that on June 13, 2014 

a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sened upon: 

Don Bobertz, Esquire, via U.S. Mail at the Office of the 

Regional Counsel, PO Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

and facsimile transmission at (31 0) 725-6816. 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Ste 2Wl 000 

---------- ~ -~ 

7_~-~~- Ja¥-.w~Vitrmt\e
#### In the Matter of Donte Daise, Petitioner, v Michael Giambruno, as Superintendent of Altona Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 616]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged with, and ultimately found guilty of, violating the disciplinary rules against creating a disturbance, committing arson and damaging State property. The misbehavior report relates that during an investigation, petitioner was identified by two unrelated sources as the one who started a fire on the mattress of his cell mate, James Foye. The misbehavior report also indicated that the property damage was confined only to Foye’s property. Furthermore, petitioner’s recent requests to have Foye relocated (because Foye’s homosexuality was inconsistent with petitioner’s religious beliefs) had been denied. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of guilt.

It is well settled that a prison disciplinary determination may be based upon confidential testimony provided that it is sufficiently detailed to enable the Hearing Officer to make an independent assessment of the informant’s credibility *(see, Matter of Vega v Goord,*274 AD2d 807). Here, based upon our review of the in camera testimony of the correction officer who obtained the confidential information, we conclude that it was not sufficiently detailed or specific to enable the Hearing Officer to independently assess the credibility or reliability of the information. Notably, other than indicating that the informants were “adamant” that petitioner was the perpetrator, there were no details regarding the basis of the informants’ knowledge or whether they witnessed petitioner start the fire. It appears that the Hearing Officer impermissibly relied on the cor*912rection officer’s assessment as to the reliability and truthfulness of the information *(see, Matter of Holmes v Senkowski,*238 AD2d 629). Inasmuch as the misbehavior report was based upon the confidential information, we conclude that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, the determination must be annulled. Moreover, there was no evidence refuting the testimony from various witnesses that petitioner was in the recreation room watching a movie at the time the incident occurred.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, petition granted, and respondent is directed to expunge all references to this matter from petitioner’s institutional record.
109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 562

AN ACT

To authorize the Government of Ukraine to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to 

honor the victims of the manmade famine that occurred 

in Ukraine in 1932–1933.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2

•HR 562 EH 

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MEMORIAL. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Government of Ukraine is 

3 authorized to establish a memorial on Federal land in the 

4 District of Columbia to honor the victims of the Ukrainian 

5 famine-genocide of 1932–1933. 

6 (b) COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR COMMEMO7 RATIVE WORKS.—The establishment of the memorial shall 

8 be in accordance with chapter 89 of title 40, United States 

9 Code (commonly known as the ‘‘Commemorative Works 

10 Act’’), except that sections 8902(a)(1), 8906(b)(1), 

11 8908(b)(2), and 8909(b) shall not apply with respect to 

12 the memorial. 

13 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON PAYMENT OF EXPENSES. 

14 The United States Government shall not pay any ex15 pense for the establishment of the memorial or its mainte16 nance.

Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 

2005. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 562

AN ACT

To authorize the Government of Ukraine to estab1933. made famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932– of Columbia to honor the victims of the man- lish a memorial on Federal land in the District
Exhibit 13.1



Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Ecopetrol S.A. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:



The annual report on Form
20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: April 25, 2014 |     |                        
|--------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                      |     |                        
|                      | By: | /s/ Javier G. Gutiérrez
|                      |     | Name:                  
|                      |     | Title:                 
|                      |     |                        
|Dated: April 25, 2014 |     |                        
|                      |     |                        
|                      | By: | /s/ Magda Manosalva    
|                      |     | Name:                  
|                      |     | Title:
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Sean R. Stover, as Chief Financial Officer of NextMedia Operating, Inc.
(the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



Dated: August 13, 2004



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ SEAN R. STOVER                                   
|Sean R. Stover Chief Financial Officer of the
Company



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN
STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO NEXTMEDIA OPERATING, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY NEXTMEDIA OPERATING, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Ernesto ZAYAS-HERNANDEZ, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 105910

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: September 25, 2018

Karelia S. Rajagopal, 1114 Market Street, Suite 401, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Plaintiff/Respondent.

Edward S. Thompson, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63103, For Defendant/Appellant.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Ernesto Zayas-Hernandez (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of third-degree domestic assault in violation of Section 565.0741 and sentencing *679him to one year in the Medium Security Institution with credit for time served, alleging instructional error. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not err in rejecting Appellant's proposed self-defense instruction. *State v. Bruner*, 541 S.W.3d 529, 534 (Mo.banc 2018). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

1

All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.
Tamra WADE, Respondent, v. Daniel J. WADE, Appellant.

No. ED 105300

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: August 14, 2018

Cherlyn M. Crosby-Herberts, Jenna R. Conley, Conley & Crosby, LLC, St. Charles, MO, for appellant.

Michael C. Todt, Drew L. Williams, Todt, Ryan, Cody & Fuchs, LLC, St. Charles, MO, for respondent.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

*558Daniel Wade ("Husband") appeals the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Tamara Wade ("Wife"). Husband's sole point on appeal is the trial court erred in dividing the parties' marital property because no evidence was presented on the value of Husband's pension. Finding the trial court's judgment supported by substantial evidence and not against the weight of the evidence, we affirm. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Zackary Austin VALENTI, Appellant.

No. ED 105933

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: November 20, 2018

FOR APPELLANTS: Ellen H. Flottman, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, Missouri 65203.

FOR RESPONDENTS: Garrick Aplin, Joshua Hawley, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Zackary Valenti appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions following a jury trial of second-degree assault, armed criminal action, and unlawful use of a weapon, for which offenses he was sentenced to a total of 20 years in prison. Valenti claims that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for continuance made two weeks before trial and renewed on the morning of trial. He contends that he was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense because the court did not grant him sufficient time to review medical records and locate certain witnesses. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25.