alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A96A1086.

#### THE STATE v. PETERS.

(474 SE2d 623)

Johnson, Judge.

Joseph D. Peters was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol when he failed field sobriety tests after having been stopped for speeding. The trial court granted Peters’ “Motion to Suppress and Motion In Limine,” excluding the test results on the ground that Officer Clayton had placed Peters under arrest but not informed him of his *Miranda*rights before administering the tests. The state appeals. We reverse.

“Factual and credibility determinations made by a trial judge after a suppression hearing or a motion in limine hearing to exclude evidence are accepted by appellate courts unless clearly erroneous.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) *State v. Leviner,*213 Ga. App. 99 (1) (443 SE2d 688) (1994). However, “where the evidence is uncontroverted and no question regarding the credibility of witnesses is presented, the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review.” (Citations omitted.) *Vansant v. State,*264 Ga. 319, 320 (1) (443 SE2d 474) (1994).

We accept as true the trial court’s findings that, before he administered the field sobriety tests, Officer Clayton had taken Peters’ driver’s license and stated that Peters was not free to leave. However, we do not accept the trial court’s reasoning that *Miranda*warnings were required because “a person is under arrest whenever his liberty to come and go as he pleases is restrained, no matter how slight such restraint may be.” A police officer may briefly detain a motorist and administer field sobriety tests that are not of a “testimonial or communicative nature” without advising the motorist of his or her rights against self-incrimination. *Smith v. State,*202 Ga. App. 701, 702 (1) (415 SE2d 495) (1992). This is because “[treatment of this sort cannot fairly be characterized as the functional equivalent of formal arrest.” *Lankford v. State,*204 Ga. App. 405, 407 (2) (419 SE2d 498) (1992). The trial court erred in suppressing the test results.

*Judgment reversed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur.*

*485Decided July 9, 1996

Reconsideration denied August 14, 1996.

*Ralph T. Bowden, Jr., Solicitor, Charles C. Flinn, Assistant Solicitor,*for appellant.

*Peters, Roberts, Borsuk & Taylor, R. Stephen Roberts, J. M. Raffauf,*for appellee.
A96A0761.

#### WALKER v. THE STATE.

(474 SE2d 695)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant Walker appeals his conviction of the offense of aggravated assault. The sole enumeration of error complains of the denial of a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the confession of another to the crime of which defendant was convicted. *Held:*

The granting of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is not favored and six well established requirements must be satisfied before a new trial will be granted. “On motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, it is incumbent that the movant satisfy the court (1) that the evidence has come to his knowledge since the trial; (2) that it was not owing to the want of due diligence that he did not acquire it sooner; (3) that it is so material that it would probably produce a different verdict; (4) that it is not cumulative only; (5) that the affidavit of the witness is attached to the motion or its absence is accounted for; and (6) that the new evidence does not operate solely to impeach the credibility of a witness. All six requirements must be satisfied before a new trial will be granted. Failure to show one requirement is sufficient to deny a motion for new trial. *Timberlake v. State,*246 Ga. 488, 491 (271 SE2d 792) (1980); *Offutt v. State,*238 Ga. 454, 455 (233 SE2d 191) (1977).” *Humphrey v. State,*252 Ga. 525, 527 (3), 528 (314 SE2d 436). Since defendant has failed to satisfy at least two of these criteria, affirmance of the denial of defendant’s motion for new trial is required.

Defendant was indicted and tried along with co-defendant Hawkins. On the evening in question, these men became involved in a dispute concerning the right of way while cruising the parking area of a shopping center. This dispute with the victim of the aggravated assault and a companion was resolved only after police intervened. Several hours later and at a location in the same shopping center, the victim was suddenly approached and shot by two or three assail*492ants. The victim testified that defendant Walker, whom he knew and had worked with, was one of the assailants.

Decided August 15, 1996.

*Betty S. Frazer,*for appellant.

*Britt R. Priddy, District Attorney, Max G. Factor, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

The newly discovered evidence relied upon by defendant is a confession by the brother of co-defendant Hawkins, against whom other felony charges were pending, and who states that he was solely responsible for the assault on the victim. The confession is thus cumulative in that it addresses an issue upon which evidence was presented at trial, that is, the identity of the perpetrators. Further, the confession only serves to impeach the credibility of the witnesses at trial, particularly the testimony of the victim identifying his assailants. *Van Scoik v. State,*142 Ga. App. 341 (235 SE2d 765).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Senior Appellate Judge Harold R. Banke concurs. Ruffin, J., concurs in the judgment only.*
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 107 (Friday, June 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31799-31800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13413]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the

[[Page 31800]]

provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel; Fellowships and Dissertations.
    Date: July 13, 2010.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Serena P. Chu, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental 
Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6154, 
MSC 9609, Bethesda, MD 20892-9609, 301-443-0004, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c9baacaaa1bc89a4a8a0a5e7a7a0a1e7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e6d7b7d766b5e737f77723070777630797168">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 27, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-13413 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------


                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWABS, INC.
                  CWABS ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES TRUST 2006-26
                    ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-26


      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
3.17 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, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, David C. Trachtenberg, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Glowpoint, 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 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 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 data; 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 15, 2004


/s/ David C. Trachtenberg
-------------------------
David C. Trachtenberg
Chief Executive Officer


                                       20
#### JULIUS KAMINSKY v. D. C. WADDELL, JR.

(Filed 10 April, 1935.)

Negligence A o — Evidence held insufficient to show negligence of defendant in condition and use of building.

Evidence that plaintiff, the purchaser of bankrupt stock stored in the building of the defendant, went to defendant’s warehouse Sunday night to inspect the stock before the time for its delivery the following morning, and left defendant’s warehouse by the back door and fell from a loading platform at the rear of the building to his injury *is held,*insufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of negligence on the contention that defendant owed plaintiff the duty, in common with all persons entering the building, to maintain a guard rail around the platform and to maintain a light over the platform, since a rail around the loading platform would interfere with the very use for which the platform was maintained, and since the failure to maintain a light over the platform at 9 :30 Sunday night cannot be held negligent.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of the evidence by *Cowper, Special Judge,*at December Term, 1934, of Catawba.

Affirmed.

*Self, Bagby, Aiken & Patrick and Theodore F. Cummings for plaintiff, appellant.*

*J. T. Jordan, Jr., for defendant, appellee.*

Pee Cueiam.

This is an action for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff bought a bankrupt stock of goods stored in the building owned by the defendant, and on Sunday night went to the storehouse to arrange the goods to be removed the following Monday morning, and about 9 :30 p.m. left by *174the rear door of said building and walked off of the loading platform in the rear thereof and fell about 8 feet to his injury. While the plaintiff does not contend that the defendant breached any special duty he owed to him, he does contend that the defendant breached the duty he owed to all persons entering the building, including himself, to keep said building in a reasonably safe condition, and that the defendant breached this duty in failing to construct and maintain a guard rail or banister around the rear platform of the storehouse, and in failing to maintain a light over said platform.

Both the allegations and the evidence are to the effect that the platform was constructed and used for the purpose of loading and unloading merchandise coming into and going out of the building. We do not agree'with the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant owed the duty to the plaintiff in common with others who entered the building to maintain a rail or banister around a loading platform. Such a barricade would interfere with the very use for which the platform was maintained, namely, loading and unloading merchandise. Nor can we hold that an owner of a building rented for mercantile purposes owes the duty to those entering the building to keep a light burning over a loading platform in the rear thereof at 9 :30 o’clock Sunday night.

Affirmed.
1 

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

Exhibit J 

Summary of Jenner & Block LLP Blended Hourly Rates 

(Customary and Comparable Compensation Disclosures) 

Timekeeper Category 

Blended Hourly Rate 

Worked and Billed 

January 2018 – 

December 2018 

(Excluding Bankruptcy 

Matters)

Billed in this Fee 

Application 

Partners & Special Counsel $769 $788.63 

20+ years since admission $820 $900.65 

13-19 years since admission $726 $771.78 

 0-12 years since admission $700 $698.57 

Associates & Law Clerks $529 $496.50 

6+ years since admission $620 $664.50 

 4-5 years since admission $588 $581.40 

0-3 years since admission $506 $443.80 

Paraprofessionals $284 $298.24 

Blended Rate for All Attorneys $594 $594.29 

Blended Rate for All Timekeepers $567 $580.33 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3465-10 Filed: 08/08/19 Entered: 08/08/19 12:10:33 Page 1

of 1
Unassociated Document







Exhibit 10.4





FORM OF WAIVER





In consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s participation in the United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States or any state or territory thereof or my employer or any of its directors, officers, employees
and agents for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required in order to comply with Section 111 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, as amended (“EESA”), and rules, regulations, guidance or other requirements issued thereunder (collectively, the “EESA Restrictions”).





I acknowledge that the EESA Restrictions may require modification of the employment, compensation, bonus, incentive, severance, retention and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements (including so-called “golden parachute” agreements), whether or not in writing, that I have with my employer or in which I participate
as they relate to the period the United States holds any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital Purchase Program and I hereby consent to all such modifications.  I further acknowledge and agree that if my employer notifies me in writing that I have received payments in violation of the EESA Restrictions, I shall repay the aggregate amount of such payments to my employer no later than fifteen business days following my receipt of such notice.





This waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any other jurisdiction related to the requirements imposed by the EESA Restrictions (including without limitation, any claim for any compensation or other payments or benefits I would otherwise receive absent the EESA Restrictions, any challenge to the process
by which the EESA Restrictions were adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of the foregoing on my employment relationship) and I hereby agree that I will not at any time initiate, or cause or permit to be initiated on my behalf, any such claim against the United States, my employer or its directors, officers, employees or agents in or before any local, state, federal or other agency, court or body.

















(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)







  



  







  





In witness whereof, I execute this waiver on my own behalf, thereby communicating my acceptance and acknowledgement to the provisions herein.










	  	
Respectfully,

	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	
[NAME]

	  	
[TITLE]

	  	
July 17, 2009
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not pre cedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 T H
C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30310

GREGORY SLANG, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CAMILLE VICKNAIR, Sgt.; ET AL., Defendants,

BRONSON MOSS, EMT; NEWMAN DUPAS, Sgt., Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(96-CV-271)

January 8, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This matter is before the court on appeal of the denial of certain defendants’

summary judgment r equest for dismissal on the grounds of qualified immunity.

Having considered the record and briefs, and substantially for the reasons and

authorities contained in the report of the magistrate judge which was adopted as the2

opinion of the district court, we AFFIRM.
#### In the Matter of Kimmarie Salvati, Appellant, v John J. Salvati, Respondent.

Submitted February 13, 1996;

decided February 15, 1996

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte,*upon the ground that the two-Justice dissent is not on a question of law (CPLR 5601 [a]).
AURORA LOAN SERVICES *A Lehman Brothers Company*Depositor: Structured Asset Securities Corporation 745 Seventh Avenue 8th Floor New York, NY 10019 Trustee:   U.S. Bank National Association  One Federal Street 3rd Floor  Boston, MA 02110 Securities Administrator: Subject: Annual Officer's Certification Fiscal Year:    2007 Securitization:  LXS 2007-2N I, E. Todd Whittemore, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora Loan Services LLC (the "Master Servicer"), do certify the following for the Calendar Year 2007: 1.A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period beginning on the cut-off date and ending on December 31, 2007 (the "reporting period") and of its performance under the Agreement for such period has been made under my supervision. 2.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 aspects throughout such reporting period. Certified by: A U R O R A   L O A N   S E R V I C E S   L L C  By: /s/ E. Todd Whittemore N a m e :  E .   T o d d   W h i t t e m o r e  Title: Executive Vice President
#### Joseph William Bastide, Respondent, v. E. R. Holden & Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.
**Exhibit32.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of New England Realty Associates Limited Partnership(the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Harold Brown, the Treasurer and a Director of the Partnership’sGeneral Partner, NewReal, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the bestof my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.

 

 
|   | /s/  HAROLD  BROWN                                                                                                        |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                                                                                |
|   | Harold Brown  Principal Financial Officer  (Treasurer and Director of  the Partnership’s General Partner,  NewReal, Inc.) |
|   | November 14,  2003                                                                                                             |

 

1

----
#### Eliza Moyer, Plaintiff, v. Augustus Urtel and James C. Shad, Defendants.

Judgment ordered for the plaintiff on the verdict. Opinion by

Haight, J.