alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Deloitte****Deloitte & Touche LLP**JPMorgan  Chase  Tower 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 1600 D a l l a s ,   TX  75201-6778  USA Tel: +1 214 840 7000 www.deloitte.com  **REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**Board of Directors and Shareholders EMC Mortgage Corporation We have examined management's assertions, included in paragraphs 1 through 4 in the accompanying Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that EMC Mortgage Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of The Bear Steams Companies Inc.) (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Company acted as servicer involving first and second lien, prime and sub-prime residential mortgage loans, that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and that were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(3)(i)C, (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), (d)(4)(xiii), and (d)(4)(xv) which  management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to 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 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 the Platform is fairly stated in all material respects. /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP March 14, 2008
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Jeffrey F. O'Donnell, certify that:

(1)

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PhotoMedex, Inc.;

(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(s) 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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(s) 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.

Dated: November 9, 2004

By: /s/ Jeffrey F. O'Donnell

Jeffrey F. O'Donnell

Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Case No. 3:13-CR-99 RLM

)

NORA GUARDIOLA )

ORDER

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

recommendation upon a plea of guilty issued on September 12, 2013 [Doc. No. 7].

Accordingly, the court now ADOPTS those findings and the recommendation,

ACCEPTS defendant Nora Guardiola’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant

guilty of Count 1 of the Information, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: October 2, 2013 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2411

___________________________ Robert Newbern; Patricia Newbern lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants

v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau

____________ Submitted: May 24, 2021 Filed: May 27, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Robert and Patricia Newbern appeal following the district court’s 1 adverse

grant of summary judgment in their diversity action. After careful de novo review of the record, the parties’ submissions on appeal, and the issues properly before us, see Beaulieu v. Ludeman , 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review), we find no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Abbie Crites-Leoni, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2-
Franesiour KEMACHE-WEBSTER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9451.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-3

)

DASHAWN D. JONES )

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 February 26, 2013, 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 charge 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 the offense charged in the single-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 26th day of February, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
---

Exhibit 99.11

CONSENT OF EXPERT To:
        United States Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, D.C. 20549Alberta Securities CommissionBritish Columbia Securities CommissionManitoba Securities CommissionOntario Securities CommissionAutorité des marchés financiersNew Brunswick Securities CommissionNorthwest Territories Registrar of SecuritiesNova Scotia Securities CommissionNunavut Registrar of SecuritiesPrince Edward Island Securities OfficeSaskatchewan Financial Services CommissionSecurities Commission of Newfoundland and LabradorYukon Registrar of Securitie Rio Alto Mining Limited
 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Technical report entitled “La Arena Project, Peru”, effective December 31st, 2014 (the “Report” prepared for Rio Alto Mining Limited (the “Company") I, Enrique Garay, do hereby confirm that I am a qualified person under National Instrument 43-101 and a co-author of the Report. The undersigned, for himself, pursuant to Section 8.3 of National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects confirms thatthis letter is being filed as the consent to the use of extracts from, or summaries of, the Report in the Company's Annual Information Form for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the "AIF") and to being named in the AIF. The undersigned further acknowledges that the AIF will be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the Company's Annual Report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the "Form 40-F"), and consents to being named in the Form 40-F and authorizes the use of the information represented therein relating to the Report. DATED the 13rdday of March 2015 By:
        /s/ Enrique GarayName: Enrique Garay,FAus IMM M Sc. P. Geo. (MAIG)Company: Rio Alto Mining LimitedTitle: VP Geology


---
Kenneth Eugene HOGAN, petitioner, v. Anita TRAMMELL, Warden.

No. 13-6356.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1423

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Ricardo Perales, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 31, 2007

Filed: June 8, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo Perales appeals the 121-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Over Perales’s objection and in reliance on the

government’s evidence at sentencing, the district court calculated a Category II

criminal history based on 3 points: 1 point for a 2004 California drug-possession

conviction upon Perales’s guilty plea, for which he received an 18-month deferred

entry of judgment involving several conditions; plus 2 points for committing the
-2-

instant offense (in March 2005) while under that criminal justice sentence, see

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d). On appeal, Perales’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contesting the section 4A1.1(d) assessment.

We hold that the district court correctly determined that Perales committed the

instant offense while he was under a criminal justice sentence. See United States v.

Blanton, 281 F.3d 771, 775 (8th Cir. 2002) (district court’s interpretation and

application of Guidelines reviewed de novo). The deferred entry of judgment--in

effect at the time of the instant offense, and requiring Perales to complete certain

conditions in order to be discharged from further liability in the case--was a countable

sentence having the necessary “supervisory component” to constitute a “criminal

justice sentence.” See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1, comment. (n.4) (defining “criminal justice

sentence”); U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(1), (a)(3) (defining “prior sentence”; providing that

conviction for which imposition of sentence “was totally suspended or stayed shall be

counted as a prior sentence under § 4A1.1(c)”); cf. United States v. Norman, 129 F.3d

1393, 1401-02 (10th Cir. 1997) (where state court imposed “probation-like”

conditions that provided judgment would be entered and sentence imposed if

conditions were breached, deferred judgment constituted criminal justice sentence

within “broad reading” of § 4A1.1(d), and district court properly added criminal

history points).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), and finding no nonfrivolous issues, we affirm the judgment of the district

court, and we grant counsel’s request to withdraw. We direct counsel to inform

Perales about the procedures for filing a petition for rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________
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 on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Walter E. Skowronski, President of the Company, certify, 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|              |                                |                         
|------------- | ------------------------------ | ------------------------
|July 23, 2008 |                                | /s/ WALTER E. SKOWRONSKI
|              | Walter E. Skowronski President



23
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26864-26865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12333]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Agency Form Under Review by the Office of Management and Budget

    DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
clearance the following proposal for collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Fishing Capacity Reduction Demonstration Program.
    Agency Form Number(s): None Assigned.
    OMB Approval Number: None.
    Type of Request: New Collection.
    Burden: 1,210 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 1,050.
    Avg. Hours Per Response: Ranges between 1 and 16 hours depending on 
the information requirement.
    Needs and Uses: The Fishing Capacity Reduction Demonstration 
Program is a $2 million demonstration program which seeks to reduce 
permanently the fishing capacity within the northeast groundfish 
fishery through the removal of full-time vessels and permits from the 
multispeciies fishery. Applicants must provide information on vesssel 
[[Page 26865]] ownership, catch history, financial information, and a 
bid for the amount for which Federal fishing permits will be 
surrendered. NOAA will use the information to select the vessels to be 
removed. A vessel selected to participate must be scrapped by the 
owner.
    Affected Public: Individuals, businesses or other for-profit 
organizations.
    Frequency: One time.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
    OMB Desk Officer: Don Arbuckle, (202) 482-7340.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Gerald Tache, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, (202) 
482-3271, Department of Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Don Arbuckle, OMB Desk Officer, Room 
10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.

    Dated: May 15, 1995
Gerald Tache,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 95-12333 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-CW-F
CERTIFICATIONS



I, Marc G Blythe, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 20-F/A of Tarsis Resources Ltd.;



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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The Company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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company 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 Company, 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)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals;



c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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



d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Company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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting.





Date:  February 3, 2015





/s/  Marc G. Blythe

Marc G. Blythe

President and CEO
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Noble Roman's, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul W. Mobley,
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; 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/ Paul W. Mobley
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Paul W. Mobley
                                  Chief Financial Officer of Noble Roman's, Inc.

                                   May 6, 2003