alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Washington Banking Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John L. Wagner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.





This certification is being furnished solely to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any of the Company’s filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise be deemed to be filed as part of the Report or under such Acts.






/s/ John L. WagnerChief Executive OfficerMay 10, 2011
#### PENELOPE OVERTON, ALEXANDER BADHAM, PAULINE B. TURNER and all other heirs at law of HANNIBAL BADHAM, SR., deceased v. LONNIE BOYCE.

(Filed 24 February, 1960.)

1. Judgments §§ 8, 35—

A judgment of nonsuit entered with, tlie approval of the attorney for defendant upon plaintiffs’ statement that all matters in controversy had ¡been settled between the parties and that plaintiffs disclaim any further interest in the controversy, is a judgment in *retraxit*amounting to a decision on the merits, and such judgment is a bar to a subsequent action between parties to the former action upon the identical subject matter.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *McLean, J.,*September Term, 1959, of CHOWAN.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs on 2 April 1959 to quiet title to the real property described in the complaint filed in this action.

On 26 October 1944 the plaintiffs in the present action, and others, as heirs at law of Hannibal Badham, instituted a suit against Lonnie Boyce, the defendant in the present action, to quiet title to the land described in the complaint in said action. It is admitted that the tract of land involved in the 1944 action and in the present action is the same. In the former action, on 13 July 1945, the plaintiffs caused a judgment to be entered with the approval of their attorney and *64the attorney for the defendant, which recites: *“** * * that all matters in controversy have been fully settled between the parties and that there does not exist any further dispute between said parties relative to the ownership of the property described in complaint and that plaintiffs disclaim any further interest in said controversy and that said plaintiffs desire that this action be nonsuited * * Whereupon, judgment as of nonsuit was accordingly entered.

When the present action came on for hearing on the defendant’s plea of *res judicata,*the court held that the former judgment was a consent judgment and constituted a bar to the present action.

The court below found as a fact that the plaintiffs and the defendant herein were parties to the former action; that the subject matter was identical in both actions, and that the parties are bound by the judgment entered 13 July 1945. Judgment to that effect was entered.

Plaintiffs appeal, assigning error.

*R. Conrad Boddie, Samuel S. Mitchell; Chance & Mitchell of New York City, for plaintiffs appellant.*

*Weldon A. Hollowell, Pritchett ■& Cooke for defendant, appellee.*

Pee Cueiam.

This Court said in the case of *Steele v. Beaty,*215 N.C. 680, 2 S.E. 2d 854, “A judgment in *retraxit*is usually based upon and follows a settlement out of court. Where the parties to an action have settled their dispute and agreed to a dismissal, such dismissal is a *retraxit*and amounts to a decision upon the merits. (Citations omitted) The rule seems to be universal that a judgment of dismissal entered by agreement of the parties pursuant to a compromise and settlement of the controversy is a judgment on the merits barring any other action for the same cause.”

We concur in the ruling of the court below, and no prejudicial error has been made to appear on this appeal.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Apr-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  Oct-31-1997
<CASH>                                             33,532
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,137,412
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (85,673)
<INVENTORY>                                       189,155
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,347,567
<PP&E>                                          4,799,117
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,124,572)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  3,101,343
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,525,338
<BONDS>                                           333,344
<COMMON>                                        4,112,947
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,870,286)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    3,101,343
<SALES>                                         2,611,045
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2,611,045
<CGS>                                           1,654,859
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,654,859
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 46,467
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (120,662)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (120,662)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (120,662)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.05)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5

<CAPTION>



<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                             95,000
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   95,000
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    692,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           6,280,000
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                     3,067,000
<COMMON>                       22,505,000
<OTHER-SE>                    (31,160,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      692,000
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  873,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 32,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (904,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (904,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (904,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                       (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.01)





</TABLE>
EX-35.2
(logo) Homecomings Financial
A GMAC Company


SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

Homecomings Financial, LLC

Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2007-RFC1 (the "Issuing Entity")


The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Homecomings Financial, LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under
the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in
all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 17th
day of March 2008.


By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name: Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Managing Director
# U n i te d S t a te s C o u r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 22-5292 September Term, 2022 1: 22-c v -022 36-UNA Filed O n: March 20 , 20 23 Mike W ebb , Major, d oing bu siness a s Friends for Mike W ebb , also kno w n a s Major Mike W ebb for Con gress,

App ellant
v . Depa rtme nt o f

the Arm y , etal., App ellees
ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: W ilkins and Rao, Circuit Jud ges, an d S ent elle, S enio r Circuit Judge J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l w as co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the brief f iled b y ap pellan t. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). It is ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s Oct obe r 7, 2 022 orde r be af f irmed . A ppe llant h as n ot sh own thatthe district co urt a buse d its d iscretion in dism issing the co mp laint a nd case w ithou t prejudice for failure t o co mp ly w ith th e plea ding stan dard of

Fed eral Rule of

Civ il Proced ure 8 (a), w hich re quires “a sho rt an d plain state me nt o f

the of the claim sho w ing thatthe plea der is e ntitled to relief .” Fed . R. Civ . P. 8(a); se e Ciralskyv. CIA, 35 5 F.3 d 6 61, 66 8-71 (D.C. Cir. 200 4). Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam

# U n i te d S t a te s C o u r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 22-5292 September Term, 2022

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2
**EXHIBIT 10.3**

**AMENDMENT TO**

**AMENDED AND RESTATED**

**SAVVIS, INC.**

**2003 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN**

The Amended and Restated SAVVIS, Inc. 2003 Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as set forth below, effective as of thedate of adoption (the “Adoption Date”) of this amendment (the “Amendment”) by the Board of Directors of SAVVIS, Inc. (the “Corporation”): 

1. Section 2.19 is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 

“2.19 “Fair Market Value” means the value of a share of Stock, determined as follows: if on the Grant Date or other determination date the Stock is listed on an established national or regional stock exchange, is admitted toquotation on The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. or is publicly traded on an established securities market, the Fair Market Value of a share of Stock shall be the closing price of the Stock on such exchange or in such market (if there is more than onesuch exchange or market the Board shall determine the appropriate exchange or market) on the Grant Date or such other determination date (or if there is no such reported closing price, the Fair Market Value shall be the mean between the highest bidand lowest asked prices or between the high and low sale prices on such trading day) or, if no sale of Stock is reported for such trading day, on the next subsequent day on which any sale shall have been reported. If the Stock is not listed on suchan exchange, quoted on such system or traded on such a market, Fair Market Value shall be the value of the Stock as determined by the Board in good faith.” 

2. The Plan shall be unchanged in all other respects. 

Adopted this 25th day of July, 2007. 

 

39
#### Joseph Bissicks, Plaintiff, v. Isaac N. Hebbard, Defendant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, to abide event of accounting. Opinion by

Brady, J.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J UA N C AR L OS R I VE R A- R I VE R A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71076 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 793- 446 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 29, 2010 ** B e f o r e : A L A R C Ó N , L E A V Y , an dG R A B E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . Juan C ar l os R i ve r a - R i ve r a , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of E lS a l va dor , pe t i t i ons f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ors pe c i a l rul e c anc e l l a t i on of r e m ova l unde rthe N i c ar a guan A dj us tm e ntand C e ntr a lA m e r i c an R e l i e f A c tof 

# FI LED JU L 12 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 71076 2 1997 ( “N A C A R A ” ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. R e vi e w i ng de n o v o q u e s tio n s o f

law , C er ez o v. Mukasey , 51 2 F . 3d 11 63 , 11 66 (9th C i r. 20 08 ), we d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. R i v era-R i v era’s co n t en t i o n i s fo recl o sedb y B arri os v. H older , 581 F . 3d 849, 85 8 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( ho l di ng thata m i no r w ho se eks r el i ef as a der i vat i ve un der N A C A R A m ustpers on al l y s at i sf y the se ven-ye arcont i nu ou s physi ca l pres ence re qu i re m ent ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14561

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cr-00463-EAK-TGW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RODNEY MALCOLM LARISCY, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(July 25, 2013)

Before HULL, PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Craig L. Crawford, appointed counsel for Rodney Malcolm Lariscy in this 

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

Case: 12-14561 Date Filed: 07/25/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals 

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Lariscy’s conviction and 

sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-14561 Date Filed: 07/25/2013 Page: 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 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 material, 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:*                         Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Initial Review Group Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Grants Review Committee.                    

*Date:*                         February 25-26, 2016.                    

*Time:*                         7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Rd. NW, Washington, DC 20015.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Helen Lin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer,  NIH/NIAMS/RB, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 800, Plaza One, Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-594-4952,                         *linh1@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

      ( print page 6028)    
Dated: January 29, 2016.

Sylvia Neal,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2016-02049 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 15, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00500

- CV

Mary Ann JOHNSON

, Appellant

v.

Chandler Elizabeth JOHNSON and Mary M. Johnson,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PC0180

Honorable Veronica Vasquez, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On September 13 , 2019, appellant Mary Ann Johnson filed Plaintiff’s Request for Taking

of Judicial Notice. In light of our disposition of this appeal, we DENY appellant’s motion as

moot

.

Entered on this 15 th day of January , 20 20.



### PER C URIAM

ATTESTED TO:

________________________ ___ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 23.1



              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Engle Homes, Inc.


      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-74358 and 333-39223) of Engle Homes, Inc.
(the "Company"), of our report dated November 10, 1997, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of the Company, appearing in the Company's 
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended October 31, 1997.




                                        /s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
                                        --------------------
                                        BDO SEIDMAN, LLP


Miami, Florida
December 22, 1997
#### THE PILOT COMPANY v. CHESTER MOTSINGER.

(Filed 26 November, 1930.)

Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of *St-ach, J.,*at September Term, 1930, of Eoesyth.

Affirmed.

This action to recover of defendant the sum of $850, the amount of a note executed by him, dated 15 November, 1922, and due one year after date, was begun in the Forsyth County Court, on 19 February, 1930. At the trial in said court the issue submitted to the jury, to wit, “What amount, if any, is the defendant indebted to the plaintiffs?” was answered, “Nothing.”

From judgment that plaintiff recover nothing of the defendant in this action, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of Forsyth County, assigning errors based on exceptions to the admission of evidence, and to instructions to the jury in the charge of the court to the jury.

From the judgment of the Superior Court, overruling its assignments of error, and affirming the judgment of the Forsyth County Court, plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Ratcliffe, Hudson & Ferrell for plaintiff.*

*Archie Elledge for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

We find no error in the judgment of the Superior Court, overruling plaintiff’s assignments of error on its appeal to that court, and affirming the judgment of the Forsyth County Court. The judgment is, therefore,

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 6260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02234]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice of Termination; 4556 Meritor Savings Bank; Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 
4556 Meritor Savings Bank, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Receiver) has 
been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the 
receivership estate of Meritor Savings Bank (Receivership Estate). The 
Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-
Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all 
documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which 
FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but 
not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, 
assignments and deeds.
    Effective February 01, 2016 the Receivership Estate has been 
terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has 
ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: February 2, 2016.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02234 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P