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

Ex

|   | 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 result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      January15,      2010 | By:    | /s/      Robert Kite                                                                                                    |
|---------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            |   | Robert      Kite                                                                                                        |
|                            |   | Chairman,      President and Chief Executive Officer(Principle      Executive Officer and Principal Financial  Officer) |

----
February 28, 2008




Re:   Supplemental Servicer Compliance Statement

Attention: CitiBank, NA
Deal Name: see Schedule A

Dear Sir and/or Madame:

This statement of compliance is being provided in accordance with Item
1123 of Regulation AB.  The Undersigned hereby states that:

    1.  I am an authorized officer of PHH Mortgage Corporation (the
"Servicer");

    2.  A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from
January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") and
its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreements related to
the series noted in schedule A, as attached, has been made under my
supervision; and

    3.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master
Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting
Period.



By:/s/Marc J. Hinkle
   -----------------------------
Name: Marc J. Hinkle
Title: Vice President











                         Schedule A

       PHH Mortgage Capital LLC, PHHMC Series    2007-1
       PHH Mortgage Capital LLC, PHHMC Series    2007-2
       PHH Mortgage Capital LLC, PHHMC Series    2007-3
       PHH Mortgage Capital LLC, PHHMC Series    2007-4
       PHH Mortgage Capital LLC, PHHMC Series    2007-5
       PHH Mortgage Capital LLC, PHHMC Series    2007-6
#### Matilda R. Watrous, Appellant, v. Ellen E. Low and Others, Respondents.

— Motion to dismiss appeal denied upon condition that the appellant duly serve her case on appeal and argue said appeal at the term of this court for the second Monday of September, 1895, otherwise said motion is granted.
%$.(5

	

+267(7/(5//3

$77251(<6$7/$:

/26

$1*(/(6

(;+,%,7*

75$160,77$//(77(5

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4733-9 Filed: 11/14/19 Entered: 11/14/19 15:47:34 Page 1

of 2
&HFLO\$'XPDV

GLUHFWGLDO

FGXPDV#EDNHUODZFRP

 

%DWWHU\6WUHHW

6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$

1RYHPEHU

0V.DUHQ/RFNKDUW

&KDLU2IILFLDO&RPPLWWHHRI7RUW&ODLPDQWVIRU

3DFLILF*DVDQG(OHFWULF&RDQG3*	(&RUS

.PORFNKDUW#JPDLOFRP

Re: In re: PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company – Case No. 19-30088

'HDU.DUHQ

(QFORVHGSOHDVHILQGRXUILUP¶VVHFRQGLQWHULPIHHDSSOLFDWLRQLQWKHDERYHFDSWLRQHGFDVHVDORQJ

ZLWK LWV H[KLELWV DQG VXSSRUWLQJ FHUWLILFDWLRQ  7KH %DQNUXSWF\ &RXUW¶V Guidelines for 

Compensation and Expense Reimbursement of Professionals and TrusteesSURYLGHWKDWDGHEWRU

LQSRVVHVVLRQDWUXVWHHRUDQRIILFLDOFRPPLWWHHPXVWH[HUFLVHUHDVRQDEOHEXVLQHVVMXGJPHQWLQ

PRQLWRULQJWKHIHHVDQGH[SHQVHVRIWKHHVWDWHV¶SURIHVVLRQDOV,LQYLWH\RXWRGLVFXVVZLWKPHDQ\

REMHFWLRQVFRQFHUQVRUTXHVWLRQVWKDW\RXPD\KDYHZLWKWKHILUP¶VIHHUHTXHVW7KH2IILFHRIWKH

8QLWHG 6WDWHV 7UXVWHH ZLOO DOVR DFFHSW \RXU FRPPHQWV  7KH &RXUW ZLOO FRQVLGHU WLPHO\ILOHG

REMHFWLRQVE\DQ\SDUW\LQLQWHUHVWDWWKHWLPHRIKHDULQJZKLFKZLOOWDNHSODFHDWDWLPHWREH

DQQRXQFHGVKRUWO\

6LQFHUHO\

s/ Cecily A. Dumas

&HFLO\$'XPDV

3DUWQHU

(QFORVXUHV

(Q

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4733-9 Filed: 11/14/19 Entered: 11/14/19 15:47:34 Page 2

of 2
#### Edward Pitts, Respondent, v. John McKesson and Others, Appellants.

— Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. . No opinion.

Present — -Jenks, P. J.,- Hirschberg, Burr, Woodward and Rich, JJ.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4863-1 Filed: 11/25/19 Entered: 11/25/19 16:07:42 Page 1

of 1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 97-40863

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NICHOLAS BURNETT PARSON, also known as Nick,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Texas

(6:96-CR-49-1)

January 20, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Nicholas Burnett Parson appeals his

sentence, following a guilty plea, for conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.

Parson’s contention that the district court was not authorized to-2-

impose a two-level Sentencing Guideline enhancement for obstruction

of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 in addition to a two-level

enhancement for reckless endangerment under § 3C1.2 is without

legal support. See United States v. Somner , 127 F.3d 405, 407-08

(5th Cir. 1997) (affirming sentence that included a two-level

enhancement unde r § 3C1.1 and a two-level enhancement under §

3C1.2); U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2, comment. (n.1); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1,

comment. (n.4); U.S.S.G. App. C, Amendment 347. Furthermore, the

district court did not clearly err in determining that each of the

two-level enhancements was factually supported. S ee United States

v. Lugman
, 130 F.3d 113, 115 (5th Cir. 1 997); U nited States v.

Upton , 91 F.3d 677, 687 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct.

1818 (1997).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5262 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5262

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt student workers 
 for purposes of determining a higher education institution's employer 
                   health care shared responsibility.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2014

   Mr. Meadows (for himself, Mr. Messer, Mr. Murphy of Florida, Mr. 
   Hudson, Mr. McIntyre, Mrs. Ellmers, Mr. Coble, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. 
  Rokita, and Mr. Boustany) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt student workers 
 for purposes of determining a higher education institution's employer 
                   health care shared responsibility.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Student Worker Exemption Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. STUDENT WORKERS EXEMPTED FROM DETERMINATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION 
              INSTITUTION'S EMPLOYER HEALTH CARE SHARED RESPONSIBILITY.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 4980H of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), 
and (7) as paragraphs (6), (7), and (8), respectively, and by inserting 
after paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Exception for student workers.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Services rendered as a student 
                worker to an eligible educational institution (as 
                defined in section 25A(f)(2)) shall not be taken into 
                account under this section as service provided by an 
                employee.
                    ``(B) Student worker.--For purposes of this 
                paragraph, the term `student worker' means, with 
                respect to any eligible educational institution (as so 
                defined), any individual who--
                            ``(i) is employed by such institution, and
                            ``(ii) is a student enrolled at the 
                        institution and is carrying a full-time 
                        academic workload, as determined by the 
                        institution, under a standard applicable to all 
                        students enrolled in a particular educational 
                        program.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

                                SAVWATT USA, INC.
                             A Delaware Corporation
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Annual Report of SavWatt USA, Inc.  ("Company")  on Form
10-K for the year ended  December 31,  2010,  as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Michael Haug,  Chief
Executive  Officer,  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.


Dated: April 15, 2011                        /s/ Michael Haug
                                             -----------------------------------
                                        By:  Michael Haug
                                        Its: Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1
  
 Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s.1350
 
 
 Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. s.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of State Financial Services Corporation (the "Corporation"), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.
 
 
 By /s/ Michael J. Falbo
Michael J. Falbo
President and Chief Executive OfficerBy /s/ Daniel L. Westrope
Daniel L. Westrope
Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer

Date: November 12, 2003
A96A1393.

#### LANDMARK ENGINEERING, INC. v. COOPER et al.

(476 SE2d 63)

Andrews, Judge.

The Coopers sued Landmark Engineering in 1994, claiming its surveyor negligently prepared a plat of their property in 1984. On the plat, the surveyor signed his name and attached his seal showing him to be a legally registered professional. Landmark moved for summary judgment based on the expiration of the four-year statute of limitation for professional negligence, OCGA § 9-3-25. The trial court denied the motion, finding the plat to be an “instrument under seal” governed by a 20-year limitation period under OCGA § 9-3-23. We granted Landmark’s application for interlocutory appeal and reverse.

Without addressing whether this plat is an “instrument” within the meaning of OCGA § 9-3-23,1 it does not qualify as an “instrument under seal.” First, “[n]o instrument shall be considered under seal unless so recited in the body of the instrument.” OCGA § 9-3-23. Although there is a printed paragraph on this plat, it is illegible in every copy of the plat contained in the record. Regardless of what that paragraph contains, the Coopers have not argued that any of this writing shows the surveyor’s intent to bind his signature under seal. *Hudson v. Sadtler,*100 Ga. App. 232 (1) (110 SE2d 706) (1959). Furthermore, the “seal” involved in this case is merely a stamp which shows that the surveyor is properly registered with the state. OCGA § 43-15-22 requires each registered surveyor to affix this stamp, which contains his name and registration number, to every plat, specification, plan, or report he produces. Although this seal ensures the surveyor takes responsibility for his work, nothing in the statute indicates that by requiring the stamp the legislature intended to create a 20-year statute of limitation for any cause of action arising from a stamped plat, survey, plan, or report. See *Consolidated Mgmt.**753*Svcs. v. Halligan,*186 Ga. App. 621, 622 (1) (368 SE2d 148) (1988), holding the four-year limitation period of OCGA § 9-3-25 applicable to actions for professional malpractice.

Decided September 13, 1996.

*Fortson, Bentley & Griffin, Walter W. Hays, Jr., Robert N. Elkins,*for appellant.

*Chambers, Mabry, McClelland & Brooks, Emory S. Mabry III, Robert M. Malcom, Johnson & Freeman, Horace J. Johnson, Jr.,*for appellees.

As the record reveals without question that any applicable statute of limitation passed long before this suit was filed, and nothing in the record raises an issue of tolling, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Landmark’s motion for summary judgment.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Pope, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*

1

 Landmark contends the plat is not a contract or other legal instrument but is, rather, the final product of an oral agreement between the parties to provide a service: preparation of a survey and plat.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5099 

To amend the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to remove 

the National Security Agency from the list of the entities consulted 

during the development of information systems standards and guidelines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2014 

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

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To amend the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to remove the National Security Agency from 

the list of the entities consulted during the development 

of information systems standards and guidelines. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INFORMATION SYSTEMS STANDARDS CON4 SULTATION. 

5 Section 20(c)(1) of the National Institute of Stand6 ards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g–3(c)(1)) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘the National Security Agency,’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Ronald H. Friesen, principal financial officer of Sun Life Assurance Company of
Canada (U.S.) (the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September
30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








/s/ Ronald H.
      FriesenRonald
      H. FriesenSenior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(principal
      financial officer)November
      12, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13673]



=======================================================================

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



DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY




Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request



June 1, 2010.

    The Department of the Treasury will submit the following public 

information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or 

after the date of publication of this notice. Copies of the 

submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 

Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should 

be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department 

Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

    DATES: Written comments should be received on or before July 8, 

2010 to be assured of consideration.



Financial Management Service (FMS)



    OMB Number: 1510-0019.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Title: (Electronic Pre-Printed Information), Claim Against the 

United States for the Proceeds of a Government Check.

    Form: FMS-1133.

    Abstract: The FMS-1133 form is used to collect information needed 

to process an individual's claim for non-receipt of proceeds from a 

government check. Once the information is analyzed, a determination is 

made and a recommendation to the program agency to either settle or 

deny the claim.

    Respondents: Individuals and Households.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 11,278 hours.

    Bureau Clearance Officer: Wesley Powe, Financial Management 

Service, 3700 East West Highway, Room 135, Hyattsville, MD 20782; (202) 

874-7662.

    OMB Reviewer: Shagufta Ahmed, Office of Management and Budget, New 

Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; (202) 395-

7873.



Celina Elphage,

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-13673 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13

- 18 V

Filed: November 26, 2013

Not for P ublication

*************************************

S TEVEN ENGEN and KELLIE ENGEN, *

Legal Representatives of a Minor Child, *

KELLEN ENGEN, *

*

Petitioner s

, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision b ased on

* s tipulation of f

act

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Randall G. Knutson , Mankato, MN , for petitioner s

. Tara J. Kilfoyle

, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On November 2 6 , 2013 , the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case

.

I n accordance with t he General Order #9 r equiremen t, petitione rs assert that they did not

incur any costs in pursuit of their petition.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the special master’ s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ s website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub . L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and

move to redact such information prior to the document = s dis closure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

redact such material from public access.2

Petitioner s submitted their request for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent. During

informal discussions, respondent ra ised objections t o certa in items in petitioner s ’ application

. Based on these objections, petitioner s amend their application for attor ne y s’ fees and costs to

$1 3,555.21

. Respondent does not object to this amount. The undersigned finds this amount to

be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $ 1 3,555.21 , representing reimbursement for

attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a chec k payable jointly to petitioner s

and Farrish Johnson Law Office in the amount of $ 1 3,555.21

.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 26, 2013 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.