alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Alan H. Lund, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of International Lease FinanceCorporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 13, 2006                                               /s/ Alan H. Lund   ALAN H. LUND   Vice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

January 18, 2013

t0116

Order 

January 18, 2013

145205 & (42)

TIMOTHY E. BAXTER and NOAH T. BAXTER,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

Cross-Appellees,

v SC: 145205

COA: 301748

Kent CC: 10-007132-AV

DENNIS GEURINK, a/k/a DENNIS GEURINK

d/b/a OUTDOOR ADVENTURES,

Defendant-Appellee

Cross-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 24, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The application 

for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals. Michigan generally follows the “raise or waive” rule of appellate review. 

Walters v Nadell, 481 Mich 377, 387 (2008). Failure to timely raise an issue waives 

review of that issue on appeal. Id., citing Napier v Jacobs, 429 Mich 222, 227 (1987). 

Because the plaintiffs did not challenge the hourly rate or the amount of time expended 

before the trial court, the issue regarding actual costs was not preserved for appellate 

review. Therefore, there is no need for an evidentiary hearing. We REMAND this case 

to the 61st District Court for entry of an order granting the defendant the entire amount of 

attorney fees and costs requested.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

HATHAWAY, J., not participating.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50841

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RENE LEMUS-VASQUEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:08-CR-93-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rene Lemus-Vasquez appeals his 27-month sentence following his

conviction, upon a plea of guilty, for illegal reentry after deportation. He argues

that his non-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than

necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Vasquez avers

that the district court erred in justifying the upward variance on its conclusion

that the eight-level aggravated-felony increase under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C)

was not sufficient to capture the seriousness of the prior offense. He essentially

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 28, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50841

See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). 1

See United States v. Brantley, 537 F. 3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2008); United 2

States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 810-11 (5th Cir. 2008). 

See, e.g., Brantley, 537 F.3d at 348-50; 3 United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d

298, 311-13 (5th Cir. 2005).

2

argues that the fact of the prior offense was already accounted for by the

Guidelines by the application of the eight-level increase and could not serve as

the basis for the district court’s decision to vary upward, and that the court

failed to take into account his personal circumstances. 

As Vasquez has not argued that procedural error exists, this court

considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under the abuse-ofdiscretion standard. The district court properly used the unchallenged 1

guidelines range as the starting point and initial benchmark. The district court

then properly considered the sentencing factors of § 3553(a), including Vasquez’s

personal history and characteristics. The district court was not precluded from

imposing a departure or variance based on factors that the Guidelines had

already taken into account. Moreover, the extent of the variance is consistent 2

with other sentences that this court has affirmed.3

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-cr-00052-TLS-SLC

)

DENEZ L. ROGERS )

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 Susan Collins, on

November 17, 2015, 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 the offense charged in Count 2 of the three-count Indictment, and

have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Findings 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 17th day of November 2015.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

2
EX-34.6
(logo) ERNST&YOUNG

Ernst & Young LLP
220 South Sixth Street, Ste 1400
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4509

Phone: (612) 343-1000
www.ey.com



Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
U.S. Bank National Association

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report
on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the
Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
SEC's Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform
(the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, except for
servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii),
1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(iv)-(xv), which the Company has determined
are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the
servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with those 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 and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions
and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the
servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the
Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. 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 servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota


February 12, 2008


A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DERRICK BAKER, )

)

Petitioner, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-532

v. )

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Derrick Baker, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. (DE # 6.) In CIF #12-05-0046, Baker was

found guilty of murdering another inmate. Among other sanctions, he lost 365 days of

earned-time credits and received a credit-class demotion. After he filed this petition, the

Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”) final reviewing authority decided to vacate

the guilty finding and remand the case for a new hearing. (DE # 15-1.) 

Based on the IDOC’s action, the respondent moves to dismiss the petition as

moot. (DE # 15.) As the respondent points out, because the guilty finding has been

vacated and the case remanded for a new hearing, there is at present nothing for this

court to review. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (prisoner can

challenge prison disciplinary proceeding in a habeas petition only when it lengthened

the duration of his confinement); see also Brown v. Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Corp., 442

F.3d 588, 596 (7th Cir. 2006) (“For a case to be justiciable, a live controversy must
continue to exist at all stages of review, not simply on the date the action was

initiated.”). 

Baker has filed an objection to the motion. (DE # 16.) He argues, in essence, that

the respondent’s “maneuver” is an attempt to deprive him of judicial review. However,

regardless of the respondent’s motives, the applicable law provides that Baker cannot

pursue habeas relief in connection with a prison disciplinary proceeding unless it

lengthened his sentence. See Hadley, 341 F.3d at 664. Accordingly, the petition must be

dismissed. If Baker is dissatisfied with the results of the new hearing, he is free to file a

new habeas petition after exhausting his administrative remedies.

For the reasons set forth above, the petition (DE # 6) is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: April 17, 2014

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
EXHIBIT 32.1
  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 I, Steven B. Solomon, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Citadel Security Software, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Citadel Security Software Inc.
 
 /s/ STEVEN B. SOLOMON
 Steven B. Solomon
 Chief Executive Officer
 
 March 15, 2004
 
 I, Richard Connelly, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Citadel Security Software, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Citadel Security Software Inc.
 
 
 /s/ RICHARD CONNELLY
 Richard Connelly
 Chief Financial Officer
 
 March 15, 2004
<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Thomas E. Jones, as Chief Executive Officer of CHAD Therapeutics, Inc. (the
"Company"), and Earl L. Yager, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that

         (1)      the Company's Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) 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.

Dated: October 31, 2003                /S/ Thomas E. Jones
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Thomas E. Jones
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       Of
                                       CHAD Therapeutics, Inc.

Dated: October 31, 2003                /S/ Earl L. Yager
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Earl L. Yager
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       Of
                                       CHAD Therapeutics, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13169]



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


DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Assessment Governing Board; Meeting

AGENCY: National Assessment Governing Board, Education.

ACTION: Amendment to notice of a teleconference meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This amends the notice of a meeting of the Achievement Levels 
Committee of the National Assessment Governing Board published on May 
23, 1995 in 60 FR 27279. The date and time of the June 12, 1995 
teleconference meeting of the Achievement Levels Committee of the 
National Assessment Governing Board has been changed. The Committee 
will meet on June 15, 1995, between the hours of 12 noon to 2 p.m., 
(et). The meeting location is unchanged.

DATES: June 15, 1995.

TIME: 12 Noon to 2 p.m. (et).

LOCATION: 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Ann Wilmer, Operations Officer, National Assessment Governing 
Board, Suite 825, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC 20002-
4233. Telephone--202-357-6938.

    Dated: May 24, 1995.
Roy Truby,
Executive Director, National Assessment Governing Board.
[FR Doc. 95-13169 Filed 5-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                               
<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>                         
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  unaudited  financial  statements  for the quarter ended March 31,
1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>                        
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
                                     
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Sep-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                  2,720
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        2,720
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          4,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     784
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                              3,241
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            4,025
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          519
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             171
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           348
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       348
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              348
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            9.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                            9.86
        

</TABLE>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00036-CV

Texas Laurel Ridge Hospital, L.P. d/b/a Laurel Ridge Treatment Center

v.

Belinda Mainor and Michael Mainor, Individually and as Next Friends of J.B., a Minor 

Child

On Appeal from the

408th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022CI17725

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 16, 2024