alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George Ebbit v. Edward F. Milliken.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
EXHIBIT 35.2

     Servicer Compliance Statement for Avelo Mortgage, L.L.C., as Servicer


                                 AVELO MORTGAGE


Avelo Mortgage, LLC
600 E. Las Colinas Blvd. Suite 620
Irving, TX 75039
P: 972.910.7000
F: 972.910.7099

Annual Compliance Statement

1. A review has been  completed of Avelo  Mortgage,  LLC's  ("Avelo")  servicing
activities and its performance  under the servicing  agreement during the period
from  February 24, 2006 through  December  31, 2006.  This review was  completed
under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Avelo has fulfilled all of
its  obligations  under  the  agreement  in all  material  respects,  except  as
described in the item below:

For a period  of time in 2006,  bank  accounts  were not  reconciled  in  strict
compliance with Section 1122(d)(2)(vii) of Reg AB which provides as follows:

Reconciliations are prepared on a monthly basis for all asset-backed securities,
related bank accounts,  including  custodial  accounts and related bank clearing
accounts.  These reconciliations are (A) mathematically  accurate;  (B) prepared
within 30 calendar  days after the bank  statement  cutoff  date,  or such other
number  of days  specified  in the  transaction  agreements;  (C)  reviewed  and
approved by someone other than the person who prepared the  reconciliation;  and
(D) contain  explanations for reconciling  items.  These  reconciling  items are
resolved within 90 calendar days of their original identification, or such other
number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

The bank account  reconciliations  were current as of December 31, 2006,  and no
issues were found or arose from the delay in reconciling the bank accounts.

I certify this information to be true and correct to the best of my ability.

                                       /s/ James Weston Moffett
                                       ------------------------
                                Name:  James Weston Moffett
                                Title: President and CEO
                                Date:  February 28, 2007
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO 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 Paradise, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Melvin S. Gordon, as Chief Executive Officer of Paradise, Inc., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 Paradise, Inc.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     |  |  |  |                        
|------------------------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Melvin S. Gordon                 |  |  |  | Date: November 12, 2010
|Melvin S. Gordon                     |  |  |  |                        
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman |  |  |  |
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

PARENT
------

First Missouri Bancshares, Inc.

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                         STATE OR OTHER
                                         JURISDICTION OF            PERCENTAGE
SUBSIDIARY (1)                           INCORPORATION              OWNERSHIP
--------------                           ---------------            ---------
<S>                                      <C>                           <C> 
First Missouri National Bank             United States                 100%
</TABLE> 
---------------
(1) The assets, liabilities, and operations of the subsidiary are included in
    the consolidated financial statements contained in the Annual Report to
    Stockholders attached hereto as Exhibit 13.

                                      113
183 La. 453

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lavert YOUNG et al., Appellants.

No. 33431.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1935.

Pegues & Pegues, of Mansfield, for appellants.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., Jas. O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., A. B. Cava-naugh, Dist. Atty., of Leesville, and Less-ley P. Gardiner, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRUNOT, Justice.

The defendants, Lavert Young and Henderson Green, were charged, in a bill of information, in count 1, with having for use and consumption liquor on which proper stamps were not attached; and, in count 2, -with unlawfully manufacturing for use and consumption intoxicating liquor without a permit from the supervisor of public accounts.

*244The defendants were arraigned, tried, convicted on both counts, and each of said defendants was sentenced to pay a fine of $301 and costs of the prosecution, or, in default of the payment of the fine and costs, to confinement in the parish jail, subject to work on the public roads of the parish, for five months, for manufacturing intoxicating liquor without a permit from the supervisor of public accounts, and to payment of a fine of $100 and costs of the prosecution, or, in default of the payment of the fine and costs, to confinement in the parish jail, subject to work on the public roads of the parish, for sixty days, for possessing untaxed liquor; both sentences to run concurrently-

Both defendants appealed, and they rely, for a reversal of the verdict, upon motions for a continuance and a new trial, identical, in every detail, with bills Nos. 1 and 3, which this court has disposed of in its opinion this day handed down in State of Louisiana v. Marshall Brown, 164 So. 241.

For the reasons assigned in disposing of bills Nos. 1 and 3 in said case, the conviction and sentence of each defendant is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**P & F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Joseph A. Molino, Jr., certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of P & F Industries, Inc.

2.             Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b)            Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

c)             Disclosed in this quarterly 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 the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)             All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting that are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; 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.

 
| May 17, 2004 |   | /s/ Joseph A. Molino, Jr.   |   |
|--------------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
| Date         |   | Joseph A. Molino, Jr.       |   |
|         |   | Principal Financial Officer |   |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson Eddy WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-6845.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 22, 2003.

Nelson Eddy Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Nelson Eddy Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of a magistrate judge to construe his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying it. The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent *“a*substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322-, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6202

MELVIN CORNNELL DODSON,

Petitioner — Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, DEERFIELD CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondent — Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior 

District Judge. (7:10-cv-00019-jlk-mfu)

Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin Cornnell Dodson, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty 

Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Melvin Cornnell Dodson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on December 13, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on

January 24, 2011. Because Dodson failed to file a timely notice 

of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the appeal. 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
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6042 

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

213 William Hilton Parkway in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, 

as the ‘‘Casear H. Wright Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2021 

Ms. MACE (for herself, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. 

TIMMONS, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. CLYBURN, and Mr. RICE of South Carolina) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 213 William Hilton Parkway in Hilton Head 

Island, South Carolina, as the ‘‘Casear H. Wright Jr. 

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. CASEAR H. WRIGHT JR. POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

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

6 Postal Service located at 213 William Hilton Parkway in 

7 Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, shall be known and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6042 IH

1 designated as the ‘‘Casear H. Wright Jr. Post Office 

2 Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Casear H. Wright 

7 Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Martha P. Johnston, Respondent, v. James A. Noble, Appellant.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with usual leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer and answer upon payment of costs of this appeal and at Special Term. All concurred.
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.                  

###### Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

# Time and Date:

10 a.m. (Eastern Time), August 18, 2008. 

# Place:

4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. 

# Status:

Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the public. 

# Matters to be Considered:

## Parts Open to the Public 

1. Approval of the minutes of the July 21, 2008 Board member meeting 

2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director

a. Monthly Participant Activity Report

b. Legislative Report

c. Investment Performance Report 

3. Report on Potential Risk of Loss to TSP Assets as a result of the Theoretical Insolvency of Barclays Global Investors 

## Parts Closed to the Public 

4. Procurement 

# Contact Person for More Information:

Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640. 

Dated: August 8, 2008. 

Thomas K. Emswiler, 

Secretary, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

 [FR Doc. E8-18682 Filed 8-8-08; 12:00 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.16


ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATION
INTERSTATE POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY


Summary of Compensation and Benefits for
Non-Employee Directors
Effective January 1, 2020


Effective January 1, 2020, the aggregate compensation for non-employee members of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Alliant Energy Corporation, Interstate Power and Light Company and Wisconsin Power and Light Company will be as follows:
Non-employee members of the Board will be entitled to receive the following annual retainers as applicable:
•$245,000 for each non-employee director;
•$25,000 for the Lead Independent Director of the Board;
•$20,000 for the Chairperson of the Audit Committee of the Board;
•$5,000 for each member of the Audit Committee of the Board other than the Chairperson;
		
	•
	$15,000 for the Chairperson of each the Nominating and Governance Committee, the Compensation and Personnel Committee and the Operations Committee of the Board.




Payments of all retainers shall be in cash and shall be paid quarterly in advance.


Each director may, and is encouraged to, voluntarily elect an amount of any of the cash compensation retainers to purchase common stock of Alliant Energy Corporation under the Shareowner Direct Plan or to have an amount be deferred in the Alliant Energy Deferred Compensation Plan Stock Account.


Alliant Energy Corporation maintains a Director’s Charitable Award Program for directors who were elected or appointed to the Board on or prior to January 1, 2005.  Under the Program, when a director dies, Alliant Energy Corporation will donate a total of $500,000 to one qualified charitable organization or divide that amount among a maximum of five qualified charitable organizations selected by the individual director.  All deductions for charitable contributions are taken by Alliant Energy Corporation, and the donations are funded by Alliant Energy Corporation through life insurance policies on the directors.


Directors are eligible to participate in the Alliant Energy Foundation, Inc. (the “Foundation”) matching gift program, which is generally available to all employees and retirees.  Under this program, the Foundation matches 100% of charitable donations over $50 to eligible charities up to a maximum of $3,500 per year for each director.


Directors are reimbursed for travel and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their responsibilities as members of the Board of Directors.
Exhibit 32.1




                 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Peter P. Gombrich, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of
Molecular Diagnostics, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify, to the best of my
knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended June 30, 2003 of the Registrant (the "Report"), that:

      (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 represents, in all
            material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Registrant.

Date:  August 13, 2003

                                                 /s/  Peter P. Gombrich
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                 Peter P. Gombrich


NOTE:  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Molecular Diagnostics, Inc. and will be retained by Molecular
Diagnostics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by law,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
* 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 limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40732 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ELMER DAVID ESPINA-MOSCOSO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-13-ALL

-------------------- Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Elmer David Espina-Moscoso (Espina) pleaded guilty to one count of reentering the United States without permission after having been deported. Because Espina’s prior deportation followed an aggravated-felony conviction, he was subject to the increased-penalty provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Espina contends that the treatment of felonies and aggravated felonies as sentencing factors under § 1326(b)(1) and (2) is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S.No. 05-40732 -2-466 (2000), and that he should be resentenced subject to the twoyear maximum set forth in § 1326(a). Espina’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Espina contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005) . Espina properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.