alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 33.1.3.2

 

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH**

**§1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii)**

**of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA**

**FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD**

**JANUARY 1, 2007 TO DECEMBER 31, 2007**

 

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (formerly “Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.”) (collectively, the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing compliance for the period of January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 (the “Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”) which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs with respect to all mortgage backed securities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “PlatformTransactions”). The Asserting Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

 

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has identified a material instance of noncompliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. Specifically, the Asserting Party did not have, during the Reporting Period, sufficient policies and procedures to capture the information with respect to the Platform Transactions necessary to determine compliance with §1122(d)(4)(xii).

 

The Asserting Party has concluded that, with the exception of the aforementioned material instance of noncompliance, the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions.

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period. 

 

|   | **American Security Insurance Company** |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|

|   | **Standard Guaranty Insurance Company** |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|

|   | **TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.** |
|--------|--------------------------------------|

|   | (formerly, “Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.”) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ John Frobose |
|--------|------------------|

|   | By: John Frobose |
|--------|------------------|

|   | Senior Vice President |
|--------|-----------------------|

 

 

|   | Date: February 19, 2008 |
|--------|-------------------------|
Exhibit 32.1



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 of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E. James Collord, President, Director and Chief Executive 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; 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/ E. James Collord

By  __________________________________

E.  James Collord

President, Director and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  May 15, 2006
Carletha PURIFOY, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 12-8838.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Timothy S. DUNN, Michael A. Vallone, William S. Cover, Robert W. Hopper, and Edward Bartoli, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-1056.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 30, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from ANGELES
INCOME  PROPERTIES,  LTD. II 2000 Second  Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                               0000711642
<NAME>                              ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. II
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000


<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                   536
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            568
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                32,982
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (23,464)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        11,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                               17,669
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                            (7,406)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          11,212
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       3,459
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       3,037
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       686
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         2,176
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                           2,598
<EPS-BASIC>                                            24.92 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1





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











Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), I, Thomas Willis, certify that:





1.
The Annual Report of Great Spirits, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, 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 results of operations of the Company.











Date:           September 28, 2010








/s/ Thomas Willis


Thomas Willis


Chief Executive Officer of


Great Spirits, Inc.








This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Great Spirits, Inc. and will be retained by Great Spirits, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Jose Manuel Avalos BANDERAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9154.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------

                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWMBS, INC.
                     CHL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH TRUST 2007-15
               MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-15


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) 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 respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                     Dated: March 14, 2008
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
Todd James LUH, petitioner, v. MISSOURI.

No. 12-9488.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





Certification
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 by the Chief Financial Officer,


as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of VirtualScopics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Molly
      Henderson ,
      as
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002 to the best of my knowledge, that:





|(3) | The
              Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
              of
              the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|(4) | The
              information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
              respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------









Date: August
      10, 2006




/s/
      Molly Henderson


Molly
      Henderson


Chief
      Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance





This
      Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 VS. 

MIGUEL PEREZ

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CAUSE NO. 3:13-CR-46-RLM

O R D E R 

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations upon a plea of guilty issued on May 28, 2013. Accordingly, 

the court ADOPTS those findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 30), 

ACCEPTS defendant Miguel Perez’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant 

guilty of Count 3 of the Indictment, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b). 

SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: June 24, 2013 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
EXHIBIT 31.1


         I, Michael Scharf, as the Chief Executive Officer of Niagara
Corporation, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 of Niagara Corporation;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of 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 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: August 14, 2003

                                            /s/ Michael Scharf
                                            -------------------
                                            Michael Scharf
                                            Chairman, President & Chief
                                            Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-35

)

JUAN PENA )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on January 28, 2014, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charges against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of Count 1 as charged in the three-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 28th day of January 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
Curtis ODOM, petitioner, v. Robert DOAR, et al.

No. 12-10009.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
## NUMBER 13 -22-00342-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE K .T
.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina Memorandum O pinion by Justice Longoria 1 On July 22, 2022, relator K.T. 2 filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to vacate temporary orders that “ha[d] the effect of .

. . changing the designation[] of the person who has the exclusive right to designate the primary r esidence

1 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

2 Given the highly sensitive nature of the allegations in this original proceeding, we use initials to identify the parties.2 of the child,” and that had “the effect of .

. . changing the geographic area[] within which a conservator must maintain the child’s primary residence.” See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 156.006 (b)

. Relator asserts that real party in interest, K .B. , failed to meet the high statutory burden to show that the temporary orders were in the child’s best interest and the child’s present circumstances would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development

. See id. § 156.006(b) (1)

.

“ Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy requiring the relator to show that (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. ” In re Acad., Ltd. , 625 S.W.3d 19, 25 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); see In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

– 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Because a trial court ’ s temporary orders are not appealable, mandamus is an appropriate vehicle for review. See In re Derzapf , 219 S.W.3d 327, 334

– 35 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Walser , No. 04
- 21
- 00291
- CV, 2021 WL 4296048, at *1, __ S.W.3d __, __ (Tex. App.

— San Anto nio Sept. 22, 2021, orig. proceeding); In re Strickland, 358 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2012, orig. proceeding ) ; In re Ostrofsky , 112 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by K.B. , the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain mandamus relief. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 156.006 ; In re Walser , 2021 WL 4296048, at *2 , __ S.W.3d at __; In re Strickland , 358 S.W.3d 818, 822

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2012, orig. proceeding) ; s ee also In re Suarez , No. 13
-3 21
- 00379
- CV, 2021 WL 6067350, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg Dec. 22, 2021, orig. proceeding [mand. denied] ) (mem. op.) (collecting and discussing cases). W e deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
NORA L. LONGORIA Justice
Delivered and filed on the 9t h day of August, 2022.
Eric FLORES, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 12-9107.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Eighth District, denied.
Eric JACOBS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Charlotte A. IVES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1326

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 05, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Harry F. SMITH, petitioner, v. Francis F. REBSTOCK, et al.

No. 12-9394.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
CHUEN PIU KWONG, aka Phillip Kwong, petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General.

No. 12-150.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 30, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CR-21 RM 

)

KEITH GALASSI )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations upon a plea of guilty issued on February 28, 2013. Accordingly,

the court ADOPTS those findings and recommendations [docket # 10], ACCEPTS

defendant Keith Galassi’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant guilty of Count

1 of the Information, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: March 20, 2013 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana