alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Rory J. Cowan, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Lionbridge Technologies, 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 thestatements 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 theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor 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 theregistrant and 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 to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover 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 acceptedaccounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented 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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

(a) All significantdeficiencies 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 financialinformation; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: August 9, 2006
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Certification by the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of Northwest AirlinesCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Douglas M. Steenland, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 9, 2006                                        |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                        |
| /s/ Douglas M.  Steenland                                   |   |
| Douglas M. Steenland  President and Chief Executive Officer |

This certificationaccompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by suchAct, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).  Such certification will not be deemed to beincorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, asamended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Companyspecifically incorporates it by reference.

----
EX-33.9
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Wells Fargo Bank, NA
Document Custody
1015 - 10th Avenue SE
Minneapolis, MN 55014


ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA


Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
(the "Company") is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company has determined that the
servicing criteria are applicable in regards to the servicing platform as of
and for the period as follows:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed
securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities issued on or after
January 1, 2006 for which the Company provides document custody services,
excluding any publicly issued transactions issued by any government sponsored
entity (the "Platform").

Applicable Servicing Criteria: The servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii), in regard to the activities
performed by the Company with respect to the Platform (the "Applicable
Servicing Criteria"). Management of the Company has determined that all other
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the
Platform.

Period: As of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2007 (the "Period").

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following
assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

1. The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

2. The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
In performing this assessment, the Company used the criteria set forth by the
Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of
Regulation AB.

3. Based on such assessment, as of and for the Period, the Company has
complied, in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report
with respect to the Company's assessment of compliance as of and for the
Period.


WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
By: /s/ Shari Gillund
Its: Senior Vice President

Dated: February 29, 2008
#### H. H. CASEY v. EAST CAROLINA RAILWAY.

(Filed 5 March, 1930.)

1. Appeal and Error E c — Where appellant has failed to malee a concise statement of the evidence required by rules, api>eal will be dismissed.

Where the appellant has failed to make a concise statement of the evidence according to'the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, but gives the entire evidence in the form of questions to and answers of the witnesses, taken from the stenographer’s notes, the appeal will be dismissed and the judgment affirmed upon motion of the appellee.

2. Appeal and Error J e — Where delay in filing hill of particulars has not prejudiced appellant it will not be held for reversible error.

A delay of a few days beyond the time ordered to file a bill of particulars will not justify the finding of reversible error on appeal when the bill has been filed for a sufficient time before the trial to make the delay unprejudicial or harmless.

Appeal by defendant from *Lyon, Emergency Judge,*at October Special Term, 1929, of G-beeNE.

Civil action to recover damages for alleged breach of contract and for the value of certain crossties delivered under the contract.

Upon denial of liability and issues joined, both on plaintiff’s cause of action and the defendant’s counterclaim, there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*F. E. Wallace, J. Paul Frizzelle and P. B. Hines for plaintiff.*

*John Hill Paylor and L. V. Morrill for defendant.*

Stacy, 0. J.

The principal exceptions, upon which the defendant relies, are, first, the refusal of the court to dismiss the action for failure of plaintiff to file a bill of particulars within the time specified, and, second, for refusal to order a compulsory reference on motion of the defendant. Neither assignment of error, based on these exceptions, can be sustained. While the plaintiff was a few days late in filing his bill *433of particulars, nevertheless it appears that same was filed 21 Eebruary, 1929, and the case was not tried until the October Special Term thereafter, nearly eight months after the date of filing. No harm came to the defendant from this delay.

Nor was there error in overruling the defendant’s motion for a compulsory reference. C. S., 573.

But for another reason the judgment must be affirmed and the appeal dismissed. There appears to have been no attempt to make out a concise statement of the case on appeal as required by the rules. The entire evidence is in the form of questions and answers, transcribed from the stenographer’s notes, and the appellee has lodged a motion to dismiss the appeal under authority of *Brewer v. Mfg. Co.,*161 N. C., 211, 76 S. E., 237; *Skipper v. Lumber Co.,*158 N. C., 322, 74 S. E., 342; *Bucken v. R. R.,*157 N. C., 443, 73 S. E., 137; *Cressler v. Asheville,*138 N. C., 482, 51 S. E., 53. The motion must be allowed.

Affirmed and dismissed.
* 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. 00-20616

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FREDY ALBERTO RAMIREZ-MENESES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-105-1

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

August 22, 2001

Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fredy Alberto Ramirez-Meneses appeals his sentence following

his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting the

importation of heroin and aiding and abetting the possession of

heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 952(a) and 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Ramirez argues that

the district court erred in denying him a two-level reduction in

his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(6). 

Section 2D1.1(b)(6) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides:

“If the defendant meets the criteria set forth in subdivisions
No. 00-20616

-2-

(1)-(5) of § 5C1.2 (Limitation on Applicability of Statutory

Minimum Sentences in Certain Cases) and the offense level

determined above is level 26 or greater, decrease by 2 levels.” 

Because Ramirez was the party seeking an adjustment in the

sentence, he had the burden of proving the facts to support the

adjustment. United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 146 (5th

Cir. 1996).

Ramirez failed to meet his burden of proving his entitlement

to an adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(6). By recanting his

admission that he previously smuggled heroin into the United

States using the same method, Ramirez called into question his

truthfulness. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5); United States v. Edwards,

65 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir. 1995). The Presentence Report (PSR)

and the Government’s response to Ramirez’s objections to the PSR

further supported denial of the adjustment. The district court’s

decision that Ramirez did not qualify for a two-level reduction

under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(6) was not clearly erroneous, as it was

plausible in the light of the record read as a whole. See United

States v. Torres, 114 F.3d 520, 527 (5th Cir. 1997). Although

the district court did not articulate specific reasons for

denying the adjustment, the district court adopted the factual

findings and guideline applications contained in the PSR, except

for the drug-quantity determination, as stated in its judgment. 

This was sufficient for Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 purposes. United

States v. Mora, 994 F.2d 1129, 1141 (5th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.
'. OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEY'GENERALOF **TEXAS** Q-CM&lad
. AUSTIN li--

Eonorable WarrenLIoDoneld CountyAttorney slcith County Tyler8 Taxas Desr Sir;
st, but not e mason of a mmin votes for tes, c;ay be ,deed, or whether election is necese the CountyExecu- ~mi.ttse has providea ination of county ana t officora by a EaJorthe only other candidate for said office printed on the ballot, but C, nhoso nsze was not printed on the ballot, received tvi0votes as a Write inn candidate, is it necesssry for.A an8Dto have a run-off election?" /

. 

# ’- 769

.Ii > I Honorable warrenWXMxald, page 2 ‘,

Youstate in your letter that the CountyRmecutlve Committee, prior to the tirst primary, has provided 

### ror nomination ror county and preolnct orricers by a m’ jorlty vote in accordance with Article 3106, Revised civil .s. Statutes, 1925, which provides that, F. .fm 2,
. ‘The CountyEXeCUtiVeCommittee shall deaide whether the nomination of county CffLcers ’ shall be bymajority or plurality vote, and, .if by a majority vote, the CommStteeshall cell as manyeleotlons a8 maybe necessary to make such nomination . , ,* TheSanAntonio court of civil Appeals In the oaae of P7agner

vs. Yates 119s. w. (2a) 115, in **oonstru** lng this 0tatute deolaredi

AIt is olear that where the. Exeoutfve Commlttce, at the proper time and prior to the rirst primary, provides for the nomtnation of oounty ana precinct officers by majority vote (Art, 1306, R. S. 1925), no person can be declared to be the nominee or hlo party for a county or precinct office unless that person receives e ma

jorfty or the votes in the first primary.” Theoases of Dunaganvs. Jones, 76 S. PJ.(20) 219, and Cunningham

vs. McDeraett, 277 S. Pi..218,very olenrly establish the principle that v{rite-in votes for candidates whosenamesdo not appear on the offioial ballot are of equal

. dignity with votes for candidates whose nameswere printed on the ballot $,nthe first prtiary or general eleotion.

Applying the rules announced in the foregoing. oaees to the faot situation presented in your request, weare 0t the Opinion that it vrill be necessary to hold a run-ofr election to Select the dec;cCratiC nominee for the office of Justice or the Peace, inasmuchas no cendldate for said orfice received a majority at the general primary election.

wevfish t0 express our sincere appreciatLon ror the excellent brief submitt.ed by you nlth your =quOSt, wtdOh

..%onorable WarrenUaDonald, Page 3

has beon of mterlal asr;istanoe to us. Yours very truly ,.--

e.:.

WRK: etT

., ', : -

,-

L
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5392 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the determination 

of the employer mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act without regard to alien agricultural seasonal workers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2014 

Mrs. ELLMERS (for herself, Mr. MEADOWS, and Mr. HUDSON) 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 provide 

for the determination of the employer mandate under 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act without 

regard to alien agricultural seasonal workers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness for Farmers 

5 Act of 2014’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5392 IH

1 SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF EMPLOYER MANDATE WITH2 OUT REGARD TO ALIEN AGRICULTURAL SEA3 SONAL WORKERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraphs (2)(E) and (4)(A) of 

5 sections 4980H(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

6 are both amended by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘Such calculation shall not include any alien having status 

8 under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and 

9 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)).’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

11 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

12 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
9ppettsteßibísion of tbe s,uprerne @ourt

of tbe åtste of f,eb Porh

f írst luùicisl Depsrtment

7J, $uø¡rnÍ¡r ]&ojuø, ff.terb of tbe Øppettste 7ßibíøion of

tYSe supreme @ourt of tbe 9¡tate of Ðeh Porh, Íírøt luÙicíst

78 epurtment, cert íty tbat

KELLY VICTORKNIGHT

hsø ùutp lícenøeù snù sùmítteù to prsctice ¡rø &n Øttorney snÙ

[,ounøe[[or st VLuß in etl tle murtø of tbe btute of freß Porh on

December 14, 20L5, IrSuø ùutp tshen snÙ gubøcribeÙ tbe oetb of

office preøcribeù bp lsh, bsø been ¿nrolteù in tbe 3&otL ol Øttouteyg

hitb ttse sùminíøtrstíbe offiæ of tbe courtB, snù stcorÙin[ t0 tbe

remrùø of tl)íB court íg ín gooÙ gtsnÙÍnfi flø ttn uttorney snÙ

counøellor st [sh.

7Ín Wítnesß Wbweot, 1Í llube\ercunto øü my

bsnù snù sffixeù tbe gea[, of tllíø court on

@ctoher 2î!,2019

652

[,itth of tbe ff,outt

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4432-1 Filed: 10/23/19 Entered: 10/23/19 13:29:57 Page 1

of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          17,723
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,017
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    351,095
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         308,430
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           300,190
<LOANS>                                        820,785
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,554,440
<DEPOSITS>                                     926,957
<SHORT-TERM>                                   383,288
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             30,670
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           232
<OTHER-SE>                                     213,293
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,554,440
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 14,717
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,044
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   392
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                26,153
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,638
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,414
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,739
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      150
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  45
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,832
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,918
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,969
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,969
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.09
<LOANS-NON>                                     10,739
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,658
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 12,397
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,357
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       89
<RECOVERIES>                                        44
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,762
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,762
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          5,762


</TABLE>
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

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

425 Lexington Ave

New York, NY 10017

Exhibit A

Date 

Statement 

Filed

Period 

Covered

Total Compensation and 

Expenses Incurred for 

Period Covered

Total Amount 

of Fees 

Authorized to 

be Paid 

Pursuant to 

Interim 

Compensation 

Order

Total Amount 

of Expenses 

Authorized to 

be Paid 

Pursuant to 

Interim 

Compensation 

Order

Objected 

Amount

Holdback 

Fees Amount

Fees Expenses Fees w/ No 

Objection (@ 

80%)

Expenses (@ 

100%)

Fees w/ No 

Objection (@ 

20%)

November 

27, 2019

09/01/19 

–

09/30/19

$1,026,439.00 $27,257.27 $517,003.60 $27,257.27 $380,184.50 $129,250.90

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5234-1 Filed: 12/31/19 Entered: 12/31/19 11:19:34 Page 1

of 1
#### Equitable Aid Union, Appellant, v. Frank E. Hill and others, Respondents.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to the plaintiff to amend its complaint upon payment of costs of demurrer and of this appeal within twenty days. Opinion by

Hardin, P. J.;

Follett, J., not acting.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7084

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CRYSTAL RAMONA HICKSON, a/k/a Auntie, a/k/a Crystal A. Hickson,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (2:07-cr-00030-WDK-FBS-3)

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 17, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Crystal Ramona Hickson, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Crystal Ramona Hickson appeals the district court’s

order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction

of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. United States v. Hickson , No.

2:07-cr-00030-WDK-FBS-3 (E.D. Va. May 16, 2008). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED