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


                                CERTIFICATIONS
                                --------------

      I, Steve Bailey, 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 Alternative Loan
                    Trust 2007-HY8C (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.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by
                    the servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the
                    compliance review(s) conducted in preparing 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(s) have
                    fulfilled their obligations under the servicing
                    agreement(s) 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: The Bank of New York, as Trustee.

      Date: March 26, 2008

                  /s/ Steve Bailey
                  ------------------------------
                  Steve Bailey
                  Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer Loan
                  Administration
                  (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of
                  Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP)
Anthony L. COLEMAN, petitioner, v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 12-8639.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


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


         In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Textron
Financial Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report), I, Thomas J. Cullen, Executive Vice President 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:

         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 Company.


                               /s/ Thomas J. Cullen
                                -------------------------------------------
                               Thomas J. Cullen
                               Executive Vice President and
                               Chief Financial Officer
                               Date:    August 12, 2002
Linda A. BIRDETTE, petitioner, v. ASHWORTH COLLEGE, et al.

No. 12-9285.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 7
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 7
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370 Filed 05/08/17 Page 4 of 7
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370 Filed 05/08/17 Page 5 of 7
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370 Filed 05/08/17 Page 6 of 7
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370 Filed 05/08/17 Page 7 of 7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BOTH
THE MARCH 31, 1997 BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSES
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000711512
<NAME> AMERICAN REPUBLIC REALTY FUND I
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          56,480
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      16,817,227
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,548,635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,581,599
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      7,018,832
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,892,233)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,581,599
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               599,779
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               464,019
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              61,727
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    83,017
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     7.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                        PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of Arbor  Entech  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Harvey
Houtkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:

(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.

                                           /S/ HARVEY HOUTKIN
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Harvey Houtkin
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           September 13, 2006




                                       14
Sarah ADAMS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-7124.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1434 

To designate the Federal building to be constructed at 799 First Avenue 

in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Ronald H. Brown United States 

Mission to the United Nations Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building to be constructed at 799 

First Avenue in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Ronald 

H. Brown United States Mission to the United Nations 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building to be constructed at 799 First 

5 Avenue in New York, New York, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Ronald H. Brown United States Mission 

7 to the United Nations Building’’. 
2 

•HR 1434 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

5 a reference to the ‘‘Ronald H. Brown United States Mis6 sion to the United Nations Building’’. 

Æ
Clifton Paul MOFFAT, petitioner, v. Willie O. SMITH, Warden.

No. 12-10137.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Franklin L. WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-7990.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PATRICK HAIR,

Appellant,

v.

REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION, and

BROWARD COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, 

Appellees.

No. 4D17-3661 

[June 7, 2018]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Reemployment Assistance Appeals 

Commission; L.T. Case No. 17-02441.

Patrick Hair, Sunrise, pro se. 

Katie E. Sabo, Tallahassee, for Reemployment Assistance Appeals 

Commission. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, TAYLOR, and LEVINE, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Byron STAFFORD, petitioner, v. DELAWARE.

No. 12-9621.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

*2369Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware denied.
Juan Antonio BENITEZ, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10313.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Francisco E. GONZALEZ, petitioner, v. MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 12-7166.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Motion of Committee for Public Counsel Services for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts denied.
Lourdes A. ACASIO, petitioner, v. GUITTARD CHOCOLATE CO., et al.

No. 11-10325.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EX-34.8
(logo) Deloitte

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Suite 3300
1100 Walnut Street
Kansas City, MO 64106-2129
USA

Tel:+1 816 474 6180
www.deloitte.com

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, Inc., (the "Company"), an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for its role in servicing Commercial Mortgage Backed
Securities Transactions (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December
31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)((B), (C) and
(D)), 1122(d)3(ii) through 3(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has
determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with
respect to the Platform. Management's assertion identifies the transactions
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 about the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by 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, including tests on a sample
basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing
criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to
selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered
by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing
activities related to each specific asset-backed transaction included in the
Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance
arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above
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 31,2007, for its role in servicing Commercial Mortgage Backed
Securities Transactions is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Kansas City, MO
February 18, 2008



Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Gregory SCHMITT, petitioner, v. Deirdre MORGAN, Warden.

No. 12-8338.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 30, 2013.

Motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing denied.
Michael Byron ABRAHAMSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-8683.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Alleyne v. United States,* --- U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2151, --- L.Ed. ---- (2013).
Harry Lee BUTLER, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-8393.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

*1727Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      101758 
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             48700 
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  33039 
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      516987 
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        554731 
<LOANS>                                    1538328 
<ALLOWANCE>                                 (28147)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             2339499 
<DEPOSITS>                                 1935406 
<SHORT-TERM>                                166619 
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          17877 
<LONG-TERM>                                  50000 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                   3282 
<COMMON>                                      4619 
<OTHER-SE>                                  161696 
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             2339499 
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              96147 
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            25200 
<INTEREST-OTHER>                              1924 
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            123271 
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           44963 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           54696 
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        68575 
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                 3714 
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              28 
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              58955 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              27157 
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   27157 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 17769 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                19.01 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                19.01 
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                7.80
<LOANS-NON>                                   2473 
<LOANS-PAST>                                  1590 
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              20141 
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             26135 
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                 2941 
<RECOVERIES>                                  1239 
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            28147 
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         28147 
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      11082 
        

</TABLE>
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

D.C., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00719-MEJ 

ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

AND OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 18

When Plaintiffs did not respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Mot., Dkt. No. 15), the 

Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why the case should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute (OSC, Dkt. No. 17). Plaintiffs’ response to the OSC was due July 13, 2017. See OSC. 

Instead of responding to the OSC, Plaintiffs filed a belated Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. 

See Opp’n, Dkt. No. 18.

Plaintiffs’ pro se status does not excuse them from complying with Court rules, orders, and 

deadlines. Plaintiffs have not responded to the OSC and did not obtain leave to file a belated 

Opposition. No later than July 27, 2017, Plaintiffs shall respond to the OSC; each Plaintiff who is 

over the age of 18 also shall file a declaration that he or she has reviewed the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, the Court’s Civil Local Rules, and the Pro Se Handbook that is available on the 

Court’s website.

Defendants need not respond to the Opposition unless and until the Court discharges the 

OSC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2017

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-00719-HSG Document 21 Filed 07/18/17 Page 1 of 1
Harold R. STANLEY, petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 12-1154.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Mark Shefts, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-QSB  of  Arbor  Entech
Corporation;

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;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's  other certifying officer (if any) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      a)  Designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or caused such
disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to
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) 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

      c)  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 that has materially  affected,  or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's  auditors  and the audit  committee  of the  registrant's  board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      a) All significant  deficiencies and material  weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize 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: November 30, 2006                 /S/ MARK SHEFTS
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Mark Shefts, Chief Financial Officer