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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 406 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 406

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 
               Shawn Musgrave v. J. Thomas Manger, et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 2021

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 
               Shawn Musgrave v. J. Thomas Manger, et al.

Whereas, in the case of Shawn Musgrave v. J. Thomas Manger, et al., Civil Action 
        No. 1:21-cv-02199, pending in the United States District Court for the 
        District of Columbia, plaintiff has named Secretary of the Senate 
        Sonceria Ann Berry and the Office of the Secretary of the Senate as 
        defendants;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to defend officers of the Senate in civil actions 
        relating to their official responsibilities: Now therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Secretary of the Senate Sonceria Ann Berry and the Office of the 
Secretary of the Senate in the case of Shawn Musgrave v. J. Thomas 
Manger, et al.
                                 <all>
```
Charles DEVITO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D19-108

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Alexander NICKELL, DOC #Y63768, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-69

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A1 70 6 . CARLI NE J OSEPH v . BANK OF AMERI CA

Th e ap p eal in t h i s cas e was d o ck et ed o n M ay 1 3 , 2 01 6

. Ap pel l an t ’ s b ri ef an d

en u m e r a t i o n o f erro rs were o ri g i n al l y d u e o n J u n e 2 , 2 0 1 6

. On J un e 3 , 2 01 6 , t h i s Co u rt o rd ered t h e Ap p el l an t t o fi l e h er en u m erat i on of erro rs an d b ri ef n o l at er t h an J u n e 1 3 , 2 0 1 6

. Th i s Co u rt gran t ed an ad di t i o n al ex t en si o n u n t i l Au g u s t 1 , 2 0 1 6

. As

o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s o rd er, t h e Ap p el l an t has n ot fi led h er en u m erat i o n s o f erro r an d b ri ef. Acco rd i ng l y , Ap p el l ee’ s M o t i o n To Di sm i s s t hi s ap p eal is h ereb y GRANTED

an d t h e ap p eal i s d i sm i s s ed as ab an d o n ed . See Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 2 3 (a); Rees e v. S t a t e , 2 1 6 Ga. Ap p . 7 7 3 (4 5 6 SE2 d 2 7 1 ) (1 9 9 5 ).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/23/2016 August 23, 2016
**Exhibit 33.1****Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria**     1. SantanderConsumer USA Inc. (the “Company”) is responsible forassessingcompliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it under paragraph (d) ofItem 1122 of Regulation ABas of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Thetransactions covered by thisreport include privately and publicly issued auto loan asset-backed securitiestransactions issued after June1, 2004 for which the Asserting Party acted as servicer involving auto loans (the“Platform”).     2. TheCompany used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122ofRegulation AB to assess the compliance with the applicable servicing criteriaexcept for the followingcriteria which the Asserting Party determined are not applicable to theactivities performed by the AssertingParty with respect to the Platform: 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(ix),1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), and 1122(d)(4)(xiii).     3. TheCompany has complied, in all material respects, with theapplicable servicingcriteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 with respect to thePlatform taken as awhole, except for the following material noncompliance with Item 1122(d)(2)(i) andItem 1122(d)(3)(i)(A).For three months, payments on pool assets were notdeposited into the appropriatecustodial bank accounts within two business days of receipt inaccordance with Item 1122(d)(2)(i). Monthly servicingcertificates were not delivered to the Indenture Trustee in accordance with thetimeframe set forth in thetransaction agreements and in accordance with Item 1122(d)(3)(i)(A).     4. Deloitte & Touche LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued anattestationreport on the Company’s assessment of compliance with the applicableservicing criteria as ofDecember 31, 2007 and for the year then ended.     March 31, 2008
AURORA
LOAN SERVICES
 A
Lehman Brothers Company
 Depositor:
                Structured
      Asset Securities Corporation745
      Seventh Avenue 8th FloorNew
      York, NY  10019Trustee:
                LaSalle
      Bank National Association135
      S. LaSalle Street Suite 1625Chicago,
      IL 60603Attention:
      Global Securities and Trust
Services
 
 Securities
Administrator:
 Subject:
                Annual
      Officer's CertificationFiscal
    Year:
                2007Securitization:
                LXS
      2007-14H
 I, E.
Todd Whittemore, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora Loan
Services LLC (the "Master Servicer"), do certify the following for the Calendar
Year 2007:
 1.       A
review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period beginning on
the cut-off date and
ending on December 31, 2007 (the "reporting period") and of its performance
under the
Agreement for such period has been made under my supervision.
 2.        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 aspects throughout such
reporting period.
 Certified
by:   AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC
  By:
/s/E.
Todd Whittemore
 Name:  E.
Todd Whittemore
 Title:    Executive
Vice President
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael E. Lehman, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Sun Microsystems, Inc.; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
February 11, 2008



/s/ MICHAEL E. LEHMANMichael E. LehmanChief Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Scott G. McNealy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Sun Microsystems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Sun Microsystems, Inc.

| |  |        |  |                         |  | 
| |  | ------ |  | ----------------------- |  | 
| |  | By:    |  | /s/ Scott G. McNealy    |  | 
| |  |        |  |                         |  | 
| |  |        |  |                         |  | 
| |  | Name:  |  | Scott G. McNealy        |  | 
| |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |
Jeffrey Lee HAZELBAKER, DOC #C04914, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1494

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
CCP HARBOUR ISLAND, LLC, Appellant, v. CITY OF TAMPA; CPPM THP LLC and AMP/CPL-THP Property, LLC; and Manor at Harbour Island, LLC, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-2115

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 19, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
AND ORDER

*E-FILED 9/26/05*

Case 5:05-cv-01889-RS Document 25 Filed 09/26/05 Page 1 of 3
Case 5:05-cv-01889-RS Document 25 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 of 3
26

XXXXXXXXXXXX

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/s/ Richard Seeborg

Case 5:05-cv-01889-RS Document 25 Filed 09/26/05 Page 3 of 3
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EVELIO SANDOVA-GRIJALVA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71103

Agency No. A070-946-325

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2011** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Evelio Sandova-Grijalva, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

APR 26 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
08-71103

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542

F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

Even if Sandova-Grijalva’s asylum application was timely, substantial

evidence supports the agency’s finding that his incident with the guerrillas did not

rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th

Cir. 2006) (brief detention, beating and interrogation did not compel a finding of

past persecution). In addition, given the changed country circumstances in

Guatemala, and Sandova-Grijalva’s inability to explain why anyone would be

interested in him now, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that

petitioner has not established a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v.

INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he IJ and the BIA are entitled to

rely on all relevant evidence in the record, including a State Department report, in

considering whether the petitioner has demonstrated there is good reason to fear

future persecution.”). Therefore, his asylum claim fails. 

Because Sandova-Grijalva failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he

necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. 

See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). 
08-71103

Additionally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that SandovaGrijalva failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to

Guatemala. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Accordingly, his CAT claim fails. 

Finally, because Sandova-Grijalva did not exhaust his due process claim,

this court lacks jurisdiction to review it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,

677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (alleged error of lack of opportunity to present case was

procedural in nature and required to be exhausted). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in

part.
J. Gerard LEGAGNEUR, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. M & J FILM PRODUCTION, LLC, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 3D18-2576

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 5, 2019

J. Gerard Legagneur, Jr., for appellants.

PinoNicholson, PLLC, and Laurence J. Pino (Orlando), for appellees.

Before SALTER, SCALES and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee*, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) ("When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues *498so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.").
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KENNETH LEDBETTER, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 17-cr-00041-HSG-1 (VKD) 

ORDER SETTING CONDITIONS OF 

RELEASE PENDING REVOCATION 

HEARING

Mr. Kenneth Ledbetter appeared on a summons before the Court on an amended petition 

for supervised release violations. Dkt. No. 56. Mr. Ledbetter appeared by videoconference, 

having waived his right to personal appearance, and was represented by counsel. The United 

States and the Probation Office asks the Court to order Mr. Ledbetter detained pending a 

revocation hearing before the presiding judge, which is set for August 18, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. 

For the reasons stated on the record during the hearing and as set forth below, the Court 

finds that conditions of release may be set to reasonably assure that Mr. Ledbetter will not pose a 

danger to another person or the community, pending his revocation hearing before the presiding 

judge. The Court orders as follows: 

1. Mr. Ledbetter must reside at 1101 Connecticut Ave, Apt 306, in San Francisco, CA; 

2. Mr. Ledbetter must remain at his residence at all times, except for: (a) seeking or 

maintaining employment, (b) medical, substance abuse, or mental health treatment, (c) 

attorney visits, (d) court appearances, (e) programming approved in advance by the 

probation officer, and (f) family obligations, including childcare, with prior approval 

by the probation officer; 

3. Mr. Ledbetter must submit to location monitoring as directed by the probation officer 

Aug 10 2021

Case 4:17-cr-00041-HSG Document 58 Filed 08/10/21 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

to ensure his compliance with the court-ordered location restrictions described in 

paragraphs 1 and 2; and 

4. Mr. Ledbetter will meet with his probation officer at the residence identified in 

paragraph 1 on August 17, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., and shall comply with the direction of 

the probation officer. 

Nothing in this order is intended to modify the conditions of supervised release set by the 

presiding judge, which remain in place. 

The Court will hold a status conference regarding the conditions of release set forth in 

paragraphs 1-4 above on August 24, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. However, if the parties believe that such a 

status conference is unnecessary, they may so advise the Court and may request that the 

conference be vacated or continued. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 10, 2021 

 

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 

United States Magistrate Judge 

VIRGINIA K DEMARCHI

Case 4:17-cr-00041-HSG Document 58 Filed 08/10/21 Page 2 of 2
amn_exhibit44v02.htm


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


        
          Exhibit
4.4

        

      

    


    


     

    January
29, 2009

    


    


     

    Securities
and Exchange Commission

     

    100 F
Street, NE

     

    Washington,
D.C. 20549

     

    
      	
              Re:

            	
              Ameron
      International Corporation Annual Report on 10-K for the fiscal year
      ended

            


    

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              December
      31, 2008 - File No. 001-09102

            


    

    


    Dear
Sirs:

    


    Neither
Ameron International Corporation (the “Company”) nor any of its consolidated
subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument with respect to its long-term debt,
other than those filed as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, under which the total amount of
securities authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of the registrant and its
subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. In accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(iii)
of Item 601 of Regulation S-K (17 CFR Sec. 229.601), the Company hereby agrees
to furnish to the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, a copy of
each instrument that defines the rights of holders of such long term debt not
filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008.

    


    


    Very
truly yours,

    


    


    /s/ James R.
McLaughlin         

    James R.
McLaughlin

    Senior
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer

    


    


    JRM:ly
**EXHIBIT 99.1 TO FORM 10-KSB**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906****OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to hisor her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-KSB filed by Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. (the “Issuer”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and(ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuer and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|                            |   |      |
|---------------------------------|--------|-----------|
| Date:  March 27, 2003 |   | By:  | /s/AYDEN R. LEE,JR. |
|                            |   |      |  |
|                            |   |      | **Ayden R. Lee, Jr.****Chief Executive Officer** |

 

|                            |   |      |
|---------------------------------|--------|-----------|
| Date:  March 27, 2003 |   | By:  | /s/ NANCY S. WISE |
|                            |   |      |  |
|                            |   |      | **Nancy S. Wise****Chief Financial Officer** |
R.S.P., the Father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D18-1325

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 23, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.6



                       AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATIONS
                    OF RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND PRIVILEGES OF
                     SERIES A PARTICIPATING PREFERRED STOCK
                                       OF
                             SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.

Michael E. Lehman and Michael H. Morris, certify that:

        1. They are the Vice President, Corporate Resources and Chief Financial
Officer and Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, respectively, of Sun
Microsystems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation").

        2. Section I. of Item 2. of the Certificate of Designations of Rights,
Preferences and Privileges of Series A Participating Preferred Stock
("Certificate") now reads:

        "Section I. Designation and Amount. The shares of such series shall be
designated as "SERIES A PARTICIPATING PREFERRED STOCK." The Series A
Participating Preferred Stock shall have a par value of $0.001 per share, and
the number of shares constituting such series shall be 3,000,000.

        is amended to read as follows:

        Section I. Designation and Amount. The shares of such series shall be
designated as "SERIES A PARTICIPATING PREFERRED STOCK." The Series A
Participating Preferred Stock shall have a par value of $0.001 per share, and
the number of shares constituting such series shall be 4,000,000."

        3. Pursuant to Section 151 of the Delaware Corporations Code, the
foregoing Amended Certificate has been duly approved by the Board of Directors.

        We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of Delaware that the matters set forth in the foregoing Certificate of Amendment
are true and correct of our own knowledge.

        Executed at Palo Alto, California on November 10, 1999.

                                   /s/ MICHAEL E. LEHMAN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Michael E. Lehman
                                   Vice President, Corporate Resources and
                                   Chief Financial Officer

                                   /s/ MICHAEL H. MORRIS
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Michael H. Morris
                                   Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Opinion issued April 25, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-01104-CV

———————————

SOGO INDUSTRIES LLC AKA AND DBA SOGO INDUSTRIES, Appellant

V.

RAVAGO MATERIALS LLC DBA MUEHLSTEIN, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1111129

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Sogo Industries, has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this 

appeal. No opinion has issued in this appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion and 

dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss any other pending 

motions as moot.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Landau.