alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I, Tommy Harris, certify that:

            1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all
reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by
this report on Form 10-K of HSI Asset Securitization Corporation Trust
2007-OPT1 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

            2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,
taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and
other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

            4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by
the servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the
Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their
obligations under the servicing agreement(s), in all material
respects; and

            5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities
required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of
Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as
an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any
material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
Option One Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
Custodian; FIS Tax Services, as Sub-Contractor for Option One Mortgage
Corporation; ZC Sterling Insurance Agency, Inc., as Sub-Contractor for
Option One Mortgage Corporation; and, ZC Real Estate Tax Solutions Limited, as
Sub-Contractor for Option One Mortgage Corporation.



By: /s/ Tommy Harris
   ------------------------
Name:  Tommy Harris
Title: Senior Vice President
(Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function of the Master Servicer)

Date:     March 28, 2008
#### W. B. ELLIS v. W. B. ELLIS, Jr., Executor.

(Filed 12 November, 1930.)

Appeal and Error E a — The pleadings are a part of the record proper and when they do not appear therein the appeal will be dismissed.

Upon an appeal from the denying of a motion of change of venue only on one issue as to insanity, and the answer of the defendant giving rise to the motion not appearing of record and no brief of plaintiff filed, and it further appearing that the appeal is without merit, it will be dismissed. *Waters v. Waters, ante,*667.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Stack, J.,*at September Term, 1930, of Forsyth.

Civil action to set aside a consent judgment — the same case that was here at the last term, 198 N. C., 767.

The present appeal is from the court’s refusal to transfer the cause to Davie County for trial, “in so far as it involves the m'atter of the sanity of the plaintiff.”

The record discloses that the motion for change of venue, on the issue of plaintiff’s alleged insanity, was originally made and denied in the Superior Court of Forsyth, 1 June, 1928. It was renewed at the December Term, 1928, before MacRae, Special Judge, who first entered an order allowing the motion, but struck it out later in the term, reciting that the order of partial removal “was improvidently issued.” The plaintiff again renewed his motion at the September Term, 1930, before Stack, J., who denied it on two grounds: First, because on a preceding-day of the term, “upon the request of plaintiff and with the consent of counsel for the defendants,” the case had been continued for the term; and, second, because the same motion “had been heard and refused by a former Superior Court.”

Plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*No counsel for plaintiff.*

*Manly, Hendren & Wonible for defendant.*

*709Stacy, C. J.

Tbe answer of the defendant, which gave rise to the motion for change of venue, is not in the record, and no brief has been filed by the plaintiff. Besides, the appeal is without merit. It will be dismissed. *Waters v. Waters, ante,*667.

Appeal dismissed.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5087 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

90 Cornell Street in Kingston, New York, as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Robert 

H. Dietz Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 11, 2014 

Mr. GIBSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 90 Cornell Street in Kingston, New York, 

as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Robert H. Dietz Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT ROBERT H. DIETZ POST OF4 FICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 90 Cornell Street in Kingston, 

7 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Staff 

8 Sergeant Robert H. Dietz Post Office Building’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5087 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Robert 

5 H. Dietz Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Financial
Statements for the six (6) months ended June 30, 1999, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such form 10-QSB for quarterly period ended
June 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1

<S>                                     <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                             46,165
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                         5,613
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  446,911
<PP&E>                                          1,316,757
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (29,822)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,910,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             155,799
<BONDS>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                              860
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      1,054,954
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,910,683
<SALES>                                            85,207
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   88,801
<CGS>                                             125,848
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     125,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  195,237
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 33,408
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (265,692)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (265,692)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (265,692)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.03)



</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 7125

JAQUN ORLANDO COPELAND , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JONATHAN GRAY ADAMS, New Hanover County Sheriff ’ s Department , Defendant

- Appellee , and ED MCMAN, New Hanover County Sheriff , Defendant

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. ( 5:20

- ct

- 03297

- M )

Submitted : February 21, 2023 Decided: February 24, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jaqun Orlando Copeland , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this ci rcuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7125 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Jaqun Orlando Copeland appeals the district court’s order denying Copeland’s motion to appoint counsel and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Copeland v. Adams , No. 5:20

- ct

- 03297

- M (E.D.N.C. Sept. 21, 2022) . We dispense with oral argument bec ause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-7125 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### MRS. OLEEN CONNOR v. DR. SAM SCHENCK.

(Filed 20 October, 1954.)

Limitation of Actions § 5b—

Tbis action to recover for alleged malpractice in the diagnosis and treatment of plaintiff’s broken ankle was instituted some eleven years after the treatment. Plaintiff alleged that defendant concealed his own negligence and prevented plaintiff from securing other medical attention before further complications developed, but plaintiff’s evidence was to the effect that she talked to defendant after the treatment from time to time across the years and complained of the condition of her ankle. *Seld,:*There is no evidence of fraudulent concealment such as to toll the statute of limitations, and judgment of nonsuit upon the plea of the three year statute, properly pleaded, is without error.

.Appeal by plaintiff from *Pless, J.,*March Term, 1954, of Cleveland.

Affirmed.

Action commenced 13 May, 1953, for damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by malpractice of defendant.

Plaintiff’s evidence tends to show that on 17 February, 1942, she fell and broke her ankle; that defendant, a physician, X-rayed the ankle, gave the diagnosis that the main bone was not broken, only the little bone, and defendant’s treatment was by splint and bandages; that this diagnosis and treatment was in 1942, during the three months following her injury; that defendant did not treat her further but that she talked with defendant thereafter from time to time across the years and complained of the condition of her ankle.

Plaintiff’s action is based on the alleged negligence of defendant in connection with the X-ray, diagnosis and treatment of plaintiff’s ankle in 1942. She alleged further that defendant “persisted in fraudulently concealing his own negligence thereby preventing the Plaintiff from seeking further medical attention and correcting the injury before further complications developed.”

Defendant denied all allegations of negligence and pleaded the three-year statute of limitations. Replying to the latter plea, plaintiff alleged that “the running of the statute of limitations was tolled by the fraudulent concealment of the facts by the Defendant.”

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, the court entered judgment of involuntary nonsuit. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.

*O. B. Cash, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Jones •& Small and Horace Kennedy for defendant, appellee.*

*795Per CueiaM.

Conceding, but not deciding, the plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient for submission to the jury on the issue of defendant’s negligence in 1942, we are confronted by the fact that plaintiff waited some eleven years before commencing this action; and careful consideration of plaintiff’s evidence compels the conclusion that there is no evidence whatever of defendant’s fraudulent concealment such as would constitute a basis *of*liability or such as would *operate to toll the*running *of the*statute of limitations. Hence, plaintiff’s action is barred by the three-year statute; and we need not consider other grounds urged by defendant in support of the judgment of involuntary nonsuit.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOSEPH REAVES,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE,

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 32 EAP 2021

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court entered 

on October 6, 2021 at 

No. 127 MD 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of July, 2022, the order of the Commonwealth Court is 

AFFIRMED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5144 

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require States which 

require individuals to present a photo identification as a condition of 

voting in elections for Federal office to accept a photo identification 

presented by a student which is issued by the school the student attends. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 17, 2014 

Mr. CLEAVER (for himself, Mr. COHEN, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. JACKSON LEE, and 

Mr. POCAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require 

States which require individuals to present a photo identification as a condition of voting in elections for Federal 

office to accept a photo identification presented by a 

student which is issued by the school the student attends. 

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 ‘‘Equal Access to Sup5 port Youth Voting Act’’ or the ‘‘EASY Voting Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5144 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING STATES TO ACCEPT STUDENT IDENTI2 FICATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF MEETING 

3 VOTER IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. 

4 (a) ACCEPTANCE OF STUDENT IDENTIFICATIONS.— 

5 Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 

6 15481 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 303 

7 the following new section: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 303A. REQUIRING ACCEPTANCE OF STUDENT PHOTO 

9 IDENTIFICATION AS CURRENT AND VALID 

10 PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. 

11 ‘‘(a) ACCEPTANCE OF STUDENT IDENTIFICATIONS.— 

12 A State or local election official shall accept a current and 

13 valid student photo identification issued by an institution 

14 of higher education to a student attending such institution 

15 of higher education as a current and valid photo identifica16 tion for purposes of section 303(b)(2) or of any State or 

17 local law which requires an individual to produce a current 

18 and valid photo identification to obtain a ballot or vote 

19 in an election for Federal office. 

20 ‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘institu21 tion of higher education’ has the meaning given such term 

22 in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

23 U.S.C. 1001), except that such term includes a propri24 etary institution of higher education described in section 

25 102(b) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1002(b)).’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5144 IH

1 (b) ENFORCEMENT.—Section 401 of such Act (42 

2 U.S.C. 15511) is amended by striking ‘‘and 303’’ and in3 serting ‘‘303, and 303A’’. 

4 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

5 of such Act is amended by inserting after the item relating 

6 to section 303 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 303A. Requiring acceptance of student photo identification as current 

and valid photo identification.’’. 

7 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall apply with respect to elections occurring 

9 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
January 31, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 135745 (23) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices LAWRENCE EUGENE DELL, #269764

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 135745 CoA: 281475 ST CLAIR CIRC UIT COURT,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $7.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partia l fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $368.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file furth er appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of th is order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.

jm I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
January 31, 2008
Clerk
#### American Acquisition Company, Appellant, v Kodak Electronic Printing Systems, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 16, 1996;

decided April 4, 1996

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the final order of the Appellate Division, dated October 4,1994, was the final appealable paper from which no appeal or motion for leave to appeal was properly taken *(see,*CPLR 5611). Cross motion for the imposition of sanctions denied.
#### Charlotte E. Merritt, Appellant, v. Gardiner S. Lockwood, Respondent, Impleaded.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinión by

Pratt, J.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6245

THOMAS REID DECARLO, Petitioner - Appellant, versusNORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; TILLERY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; J. WILLIAMS, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-97-1139-1) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 6, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Reid DeCarlo, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Reid DeCarlo seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. DeCarlo v. North Carolina Attorney General , No. CA-97-1139-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 8.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|1. | JA Development Co., Ltd. (British Virgin Islands)
|-- | -------------------------------------------------



|2. | JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. (Ningjin, China)
|-- | ---------------------------------------



|3. | Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China)
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------



|4. | JA Solar USA Inc. (California, USA)
|-- | -----------------------------------



|5. | Shanghai JA Solar PV Technology Co,. Ltd. (Shanghai, China)
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------



|6. | JA Solar Technology YangZhou Co., Ltd. (Yangzhou, China)
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------



|7. | JA Solar Hong Kong Limited (Hong Kong)
|-- | --------------------------------------



1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             276
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                       217
<INVENTORY>                                      5,301
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,548
<PP&E>                                           9,154
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,316
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,366
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,313
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,603
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,536
<SALES>                                         21,953
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,953
<CGS>                                           15,295
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,295
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 505
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    740
<INCOME-TAX>                                       192
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                548
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       548
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41



</TABLE>