alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 34.1**

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Board of Directors

Protective Life Insurance Company:

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying “Management’s Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria” that Protective Life Insurance Company complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Protective Life Secured Trust Notes (the Platform), as of December 31, 2012 and for the year then ended, excluding (i) the criteria which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by them with respect to the Platform and (ii) the servicing activities that are applicable to the Platform but are excluded from the scope of management’s assertion and are not reported on herein, as indicated in Appendix A of Management’s Assertion on Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria.  Appendix B to management’s assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform.  Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.  Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, Alabama

March 26, 2013

 

----
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Juan J. Román, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Triple-S Management Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.        Date:      November 14, 2007 By:  /s/ Juan J. Román    Juan J. Román    *Vice President of Financeand Chief Financial Officer*   
38
No. 85-1732.

#### Takahashi *v.*Board of Trustees of Livingston Union School District et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1




Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)




In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”) of BDCA Venture, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Timothy J. Keating, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of 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, 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 Registrant.







/s/ Timothy J. KeatingName:
Timothy J. KeatingDate:
April 29, 2015
|EXHIBIT 32.2
|------------



|CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned hereby certifies in her capacity as Chief Financial Officer of Belrose Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on her knowledge:

|(a) | the Quarterly Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                            
|   



|Date: November 9, 2006
|----------------------



| | /s/ Michelle A. Green
Michelle A. Green
Chief Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Nos. 51013-4-I; 52477-1-I.

Division One.

May 10, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jonathan Bisson, *Appellant.*

Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 02-1-01342-9, Brian D. Gain, J., entered August 2, 2002. *Remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
**Exhibit 31.1**
Certification of Principal Executive Officer
I, Peter A. Edison, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Bakers Footwear Group, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod 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 ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) [reserved]
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     June 14, 2005 /s/ Peter A. Edison       Peter A. Edison   Chairman of the Board and   Chief Executive Officer   Bakers Footwear Group, Inc.   (Principal Executive Officer)
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6723** 

TROY RENALDO JONES , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. JOHN S. WOLFE; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Catherine C. Blake , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 00091

- CCB )

Submitted : September 16, 2014 Decided: September 25, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Troy Renaldo Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Troy Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this s tandard 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 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argum ent because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
2 

sr: :"4:04-Sit 

canine "sniff." The district court denied Roberts' claim that counsel was 

ineffective for failing to move to suppress the evidence on this ground 

because it concluded that the drug dog's sniff did not constitute a search. 

We agree. Roberts' luggage was sniffed in a public place, which does not 

"constitute a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment" 

because the intrusion is minimal and does not violate a reasonable 

expectation of privacy. See United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707 

(1983); United States v. Beale, 736 F.2d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1984); cf 

Florida v. Jardines, U.S. , 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1417 (2013) 

(distinguishing dogs' sniffs in public places from those within the curtilage 

of one's home). Because the Fourth Amendment was not implicated, see 

Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 468-69 (1985), police officers required 

no suspicion before allowing the dog to sniff his luggage. We conclude that 

the district court did not err by denying Roberts' claim, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Douglas Saitta 

cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge 

Sally S. deSoto 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 7, 2017

t0227

Order 

Clerk

March 7, 2017

153691 (54)

KELLI SHINN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153691

COA: 324227

Wayne CC: 13-008123-NF

STATE OF MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF

STATE ASSIGNED CLAIMS FACILITY,

Defendant,

and

AMERICAN COUNTRY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 

23, 2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.
CHARLESTON.

#### White *v.*Wilkinson *et al.*

Submitted January 15, 1902.

Decided March 15, 1902.

1. Delinquent *Land*— Auditor’s *Certificate*— Sale.

If the auditor through mistake or otherwise certify for sale, a *197tract of land delinquent, for non-payment of taxes, due thereon to the sheriff of the county, in which such land is not situated, at the date of such certification, a sale thereof made hy such sheriff is illegal and void, and a deed made in pursuance thereof hy the clerk of the county court is likewise void and vests no title in the purchaser, (p. 197).

Error to Circuit Court, Mingo County.

Action by Reuben White against J. B. Wilkinson and others. . Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff brings error.

*Affirmed.*

CaMpbell, Holt & Duncan, for plaintiff in error.

J. B. WiLKiNsoN and L. A. Sampselle, for defendants in error.

Dent, President:

Reuben White complains of a judgment of the circuit court of Mingo County rendered against him on the 18th day of September, 1900, wherein he was plaintiff and J. B. Wilkinson, *et al.*were defendants. The only question involved in the case is the validity of a tax deed for the land in controversy executed to the plaintiff on the 12th day of December, 1896, by the clerk of the county court of Logan County by virtue of a sale of delinquent lands made by the sheriff of said county in the month of December, 1895.

There are two grounds insisted on as sufficient to invalidate such deed. *First,*that the sheriff did not append his affidavit to the delinquent list before posting the same at the front door of the court house instead of awaiting until he presented the same to the county court. Second, that the land at the time it was certified by the auditor to and sold by the sheriff was situated in Mingo' and not in Logan County. The first point being a matter of technicality not at all misleading to the land owner is hardly necessary of consideration in the light of the second question.

It is conceded that the land at the time it was returned delinquent was within the county of Logan. Afterwards to-wit, on the 23d day of January, 1895, the county of Mingo was formed by an Act of the Legislature, and the land was included therein. It thereupon by section 5, chapter 31, Code, became *198tbe duty of the clerk of the county court of Logan, to certify the land to the auditor that he might include it in the list to be delivered to the sheriff of Mingo for sale. For some reason or by mistake the Auditor certiñed the land for sale to the sheriff of the wrong county, and he sold it. Sections 3 and 4, chapter 31, Code, require the Auditor to certify the real estate for sale to the sheriff of the county in which it is situated, and he is without authority to certify it for sale to the sheriff of any other county, and such sheriff is without authority to sell. Hence the sale and deed in pursuance thereof is void.

The court therefore committed no error in dismissing plaintiff’s action of ejectment. The judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28325]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13102-003]


Birch Power Company; Notice of Technical Meeting

    a. Date and Time of Meeting: January 8, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern 
Standard Time (11:00 a.m. Central Standard Time).
    b. Place: Telephone conference.
    c. FERC Contact: Sarah Salazar at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#37445645565f1944565b564d5645775152455419505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e5d4f5c4f46005d4f424f544f5c6e484b5c4d00494158">[email protected]</span></a>, or (202) 
502-6863.
    d. Purpose of Meeting: Commission Staff is hosting a technical 
meeting to discuss: (1) Our regulatory (licensing) process; (2) the 
recommended alternative in the draft environmental assessment issued on 
June 29, 2017 for the proposed Demopolis Lock and Dam Hydroelectric 
Project; and (3) comments on the US Fish and Wildlife Service's draft 
biological opinion for the project.
    e. A summary of the meeting will be prepared and filed in the 
Commission's public file for the project.
    g. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other 
interested parties are invited to participate by phone. Please call 
Sarah Salazar at (202) 502-6863 by January 3, 2018, to RSVP and to 
receive specific instructions on how to participate.

    Dated: December 22, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28325 Filed 1-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk February 6, 2013

h0130 

# Order

February 6, 2013

145536 & (25)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145536

COA: 306864

Oakland CC: 2009

- 227279

- FH

JAMES HENRY NELSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

By order of December 12, 2012, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer

the application for leave to appeal the June 21, 2012 order of the Court of Appeals. On

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is

again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal,

we REMA ND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for the appointment of substitute

appellate counsel. The record shows that initially appointed appellate counsel moved to

withdraw because of a breakdown of the attorney

- client relationship. The record does not

s how that counsel determined or advised the court that there was no non

- frivolous issue

to raise on appeal, and counsel’s motion did not comply with MCR 7.211(C)(5) or AO

2004

- 6, Standard 5. Under the circumstances of this case, the circuit court erred in

granting the motion to withdraw without appointing substitute appellate counsel. On

remand, newly appointed appellate counsel may file an application for leave to appeal to

the Court of Appeals within 12 months of the date of the circuit court’s order app ointing

counsel, as, at the time the defendant was sentenced, he was entitled to file an application

within 12 months of sentencing. See former MCR 7.205(F)(3).