alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31

                                                           [LOGO] IndymacBank(R)

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Blair Abernathy, 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 IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-FLX6 (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(s) 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. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
      reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company and Newport Management Corporation.

Date: March 26, 2008



/s/ Blair Abernathy
-----------------------
Blair Abernathy
Executive Vice President
(Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor)
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 517 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 517

 To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. Reffitt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 15, 2022

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. Reffitt.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Reffitt, Cr. No. 21-32, pending in the 
        United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the 
        prosecution has requested the production of testimony from Daniel 
        Schwager, a former employee of the Office of the Secretary of the 
        Senate;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent current and former officers and 
        employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request 
        for evidence relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Daniel Schwager, a former employee of the Office of 
the Secretary of the Senate, is authorized to provide relevant 
testimony in the case of United States v. Reffitt, except concerning 
matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Mr. 
Schwager and any current or former officer or employee of his office in 
connection with the production of evidence authorized in section one of 
this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
Keith M. KENNEDY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10100.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
*E-FILED ON 2/28/06*

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 49 Filed 02/28/06 Page 1 of 3
Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 49 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 3
February 28, 2006

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 49 Filed 02/28/06 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 81 (Thursday, April 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 20739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10343]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[NM-950-05-1420-00]


Filing of Plats of Survey; New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The plats of survey described below are scheduled to be 
officially filed in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land 
Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico, on May 15, 1994.

New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico:

T. 16 N., R. 9 E., Accepted November 15, 1994, for Group 826 NM.
    Supplementals:
T. 30 N., R. 14 W., Accepted March 10, 1995
T. 18 N., R. 5 W., Accepted March 10, 1995

    If a protest against a survey, as shown on any of the above plats 
is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be 
stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be 
officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed 
and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
    A person or party who wishes to protest against a survey must file 
with the State Director, Bureau of Land Management, a notice that they 
wish to protest prior to the proposed official filing date given above.
    A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice 
of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be 
filed with the State Director within (30) days after the protest is 
filed.
    The above-listed plats represent dependent resurveys, survey and 
subdivision.
    These plats will be in the open files of the New Mexico State 
Office, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico 
87502-0115. Copies may be obtained from this office upon payment of 
$2.50 per sheet.

    Dated: April 19, 1995.
John P. Bennett,
Team Leader, Branch of Cadastral Survey/Geo Science.
[FR Doc. 95-10343 Filed 4-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. AND CHING-HAN TSAI’S DECLINATION TO PROCEED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CASE NO. 5:17-cv-00561-NC

sf-3746911

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

JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (SBN 161368)

JTaylor@mofo.com 

JOYCE LIOU (SBN 277720)

JLiou@mofo.com

AMANDA D. PHILLIPS (SBN 305614)

APhillips@mofo.com

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street

San Francisco, California 94105-2482

Telephone: (415) 268-7000

Facsimile: (415) 268-7522

Attorneys for Defendants

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. AND 

CHING-HAN TSAI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC., UBIQUITI 

NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, 

CHING-HAN TSAI, and DOES 1-20, 

inclusive

Defendants.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00561-NC

DEFENDANTS UBIQUITI 

NETWORKS, INC. AND 

CHING-HAN TSAI’S DECLINATION 

TO PROCEED BEFORE A 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:17-cv-00561-WHO Document 17 Filed 03/07/17 Page 1 of 2
UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. AND CHING-HAN TSAI’S DECLINATION TO PROCEED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CASE NO. 5:17-cv-00561-NC 1

sf-3746911

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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Defendants Ubiquiti 

Networks, Inc. and Ching-Han Tsai hereby decline to have a United States magistrate judge 

conduct all proceedings in this case, and hereby request that this case be reassigned to a United 

States district judge.

Dated: March 7, 2017 JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR

JOYCE LIOU

AMANDA PHILLIPS

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Jennifer Lee Taylor

JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR

Attorneys for Defendants

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. AND 

CHING-HAN TSAI

Case 3:17-cv-00561-WHO Document 17 Filed 03/07/17 Page 2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 20, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00381

- CV

IN RE J.O.

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- PA

- 01006 Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating a mother’s parental rights to her child

. On August 28, 2019, appellant Wendy Langford , who is an intervenor, filed a motion to stay the trial court’s judgment pending appeal. In its order of termination, the trial

court ordered: “Twenty days after judgement signed, CPS to process adoption in 40

- 90 days, unless appeal is filed.” Appellant argues : “I f adoption is allowed to proceed during the pendency

of th is appeal, the appeal will be moot and irreparable harm will result. ” Appellee the Texas Department of F amily and Protective Services responded in opposition to appellant’s motion on September 9, 2019. Appellee asserts in its response : “The trial court conditioned its order on the filing of an appeal and since the appellant has filed an appeal, the adoption should not proceed at

this time.” A ppellee further asserts: “The Department remains the child’s managing conservator and should maintain the status quo until after this Court reviews the trial court’s decision.” In light of the foregoing , we DENY appell ant ’ s motion.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affi xed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of September, 2019

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

, Clerk of Court
Honorable Stephen L. Haley 

County Attorney 

Gaines County 

Seminole, Texas 

Opinion No. WW-179 

Re: Source of maintenance 

funds for county-owned 

parks. 

Dear Sir: 

You have requested the opinion of thfs department on the question: 

s'Is it necessary to call an election to 

provide funds for the maintenance of a 

county-owned park?" 

The county acquired the park lands under the provisions of 

Article 608le, V.C.S., by the issuance of bonds which have been 

approved as to legality by the Attorney Gerieral. 

There is no provision as to the limit nor the manner of collecting a maintenance tax in that particular statute, 

An alternate method of acquiring county parks is outlined by 

Article 6078, V.C.S. This statute authorizes a county to acquire 

parks and levy a tax not to exceed five cents (.05d) on the one 

hundred dollars ($100) taxable valuation, if such proposition is 

submitted to the people at an election called for that purpose, 

There is no provision therein for the issuance of bonds. Thereunder the commissioners? courts are expressly empowered to levy 

and collect a sufficient tax annually to properly maintain the 

park lands. 

Article 6079b, V.C,S., reads as follows: 

"In counties owning and maintaining county 

arks, 

8 

and having a population of less than 

0,000 inhabitants according to the last 

preceding Federal Census, the Commissioners -Court-Ls~~authorized to~matntain and 

operate said parks; provided that the Commissioners Court shall not expend more than 
Honorable Stephen L. Haley, page 2 (WW-179) 

Five Thousand Dollars ($5,003) in any 

year for the maintenance and operation 

of said parks. Said Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) shall be paid out of the 

General Fund of the county." 

Article 60791, is applicable to Gaines Cou,nty; therefore, you 

are advised that the county can levy and collect an annual 

tax not to exceed $5,000 for the maintenance of the park in 

question without calling an election. 

That sum is the announced limit and the county has no authority 

elsewhere in the applicable statutes to exceed that amount for 

park maintenance purposes. 

SUMMARY_ 

The county in question can spend up to 

$5,000 per year of tax money from the 

General Fund to maintain its parks without the necessity of holding an election. 

Very truly yours, 

GW-s 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

H, Grady Chandler, Chairman 

Mrs. Marietta Payne 

Wagland C. Rivers, Jr. 

Roger I. Daily 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: Gee, P. Blackburn 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

BY
Caring for Others:

Tips for Medicines 

and Devices

Do you help care for a loved one at home 

or check on them out of town? You want to 

help your loved ones stay as healthy as they 

can be. But it can be hard to manage their 

medicines and medical devices. Changes in 

their treatment can also be a challenge. 

Use these four (4) tips for how you, your 

loved one, and their healthcare provider can 

create a plan for using medicines wisely.

1. Get the Facts

2. Follow Directions

3. Stay Organized

4. Be Prepared

FDA OFFICE OF WOMEN’S HEALTH

www.fda.gov/caregivertips
FDA Office of Women’s Health

2018

Tips for Creating a Care Plan

1. GET THE FACTS

You need to know what each medicine is for 

and how it should be taken. You also need to 

know how each device works. When you go 

to the doctor, you or your loved one should 

ask:

What is the name of the medicine?

How much medicine should your loved 

one take and when should they take it?

What are the side effects or special 

warnings?

What can be done if your loved one has 

problems taking or tolerating their medicine?

How do we safely get rid of old or unused 

medicine and devices?

2. FOLLOW DIRECTIONS

Taking too much or too little medicine can 

make your loved one very sick. Use the 

medicines and devices as directed. Before 

you start:

Ask a healthcare 

provider for help.

Use the right tool. 

Give the right amount.

Read the labeling and 

other information.

Read the directions on 

how to clean your device. 

You should not use 

household cleaners on 

some devices.

3. STAY ORGANIZED

Simple steps can help your loved one stay 

safe and stick to their medication routine. 

They can also help make your work easier.

Keep a list

of medicines.

Set

reminders.

Lock 

medicines up 

and away.

Keep track of any changes in your loved 

one’s health. Report problems to their 

healthcare provider. You can report 

problems with medicines to FDA at 

www.fda.gov/MedWatch/Report.

4. BE PREPARED

Don’t be caught off guard. Make a plan for 

emergencies.

Pack a kit with medical supplies and 

batteries. Put the kit in a place that is 

easy for your loved one to access.

Include a copy of your loved one’s 

medicine list and other medical 

information in the kit.

Ask how to handle medicines or devices 

affected by flood water or heat.

Tell the electric company and fire 

department if there is a medical 

device that needs power in your 

loved one’s home.

Learn more at: www.fda.gov/caregivertips
Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 41 Filed 06/29/05 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 41 Filed 06/29/05 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 41 Filed 06/29/05 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 20974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10419]



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



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Investigative 
Hearings

AGENCY: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (a 
Presidentially appointed commission separate from and independent of 
DoD).

ACTION: Notice of a public, deliberative hearing.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Public Law 101-510, as amended, the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission announces a day-long investigative 
hearing to be held in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is 
for the Commission to consider additional and/or alternative bases to 
those recommended for closure and realignment by the Secretary of 
Defense on March 1, 1995.
    The specific date, location, and general topics follow:
May 10 (Location: Hart Senate Office Building, Room 216)
--Chairpersons and representatives from each of the Commission staff's 
five review-and-analysis panels (Army, Navy, Air Force, InterAgency, 
and Joint-CrossService) present information concerning options for 
additional and/or alternative base-closure recommendations.
--Commission formally votes on additional and/or alternative bases as 
options for consideration.

    The May 10 hearing will begin at 9 a.m. The building and room 
number are noted in parentheses following the date of the hearing. 
However, hearing location, date, and time are subject to change based 
upon availability of facilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wade Nelson, Director of 
Communications, at (703) 696-0504.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Changes to the above schedule will be 
published in the Federal Register by the Commission. Please call the 
Commission to confirm dates, times, and locations prior to each event. 
Individuals needing special assistance should contact the Commission in 
advance of each event to facilitate their requirements.

    Dated: April 24, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-10419 Filed 4-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          22,980
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,850
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,125
<PP&E>                                          25,777
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,119,275
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          779,827
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,951
<OTHER-SE>                                     331,497
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,119,275
<SALES>                                         76,437
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,437
<CGS>                                           84,251
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  530,609
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,760
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (303,939)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (303,939)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40199 (Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER BERMEA, a/k/a JAVIER MIRELEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. C-94-CR-144-1)

- - - - - - - - - - July 8, 1996 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Javier Bermea appeals h is sentence from his guilty-plea

conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute

approximately 159 kilograms of marijuana. Bermea argues that the

district court erred by enhancing his base offense level for his

participation as a manager or supervisor in a conspiracy involving

five or more participants and by relying on the Presentence Report2

as basis for its findings. Because Bermea raises these issues for

the first time on appeal, we review for p lain error. S ee United

States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc),

cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995).

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties

and find that the district court did not commit plain error by

increasing Bermea's base offense level for his role in the offense.

United States v. Ayala

, 47 F.3d 688, 690 (5th Cir. 1995); U nited

States v. Elwood , 999 F.2d 814, 817 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
Case 4:17-mj-70235-MRGD Document 7 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 71 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 71 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 2