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

                                                                    Exhibit 33.1

                            MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTION ON

                     COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB CRITERIA

     American Honda Finance Corporation (the "Asserting Party") is responsible
for assessing compliance as of March 31, 2006 and for the period from March 28,
2006 (date of issuance of the Honda Auto Receivables 2006-1 Owner Trust) through
March 31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in
Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the "CFR"),
except for the criteria set forth in Sections 229.1122(d)(1)(iii)-(iv),
229.1122(d)(2)(vi), 229.1122(d)(4)(ix)-(xi), 229.1122(d)(4)(xiii) and
229.1122(d)(4)(xv) in the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded are not
applicable to the servicing of the Honda Auto Receivables 2006-1 Owner Trust
asset-backed securitization transaction backed by auto receivables and serviced
by the Asserting Party (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). The sole
asset-backed securitization transaction covered by this report was the Honda
Auto Receivables 2006-1 Owner Trust.

     The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has identified two material
instances of noncompliance with servicing criteria set forth in Sections
229.1122(d)(1)(i) and 229.1122(d)(1)(ii), respectively, of the CFR.
Specifically, as of and for the four-day period ended March 31, 2006, the
Asserting Party had not instituted policies and procedures to monitor any
performance or other triggers and events of defaults in accordance with the
transaction agreements or to monitor third party performance and compliance with
servicing activities. The Asserting Party has furthermore concluded that, with
the exception of the aforementioned material instance of noncompliance, the
Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria for the Honda Auto Receivables 2006-1 Owner Trust
asset-backed securitization transaction backed by auto receivables serviced by
the Asserting Party.

     KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an
attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

American Honda Finance Corporation

/s/ Paul C. Honda
------------------------------------------
Paul C. Honda
Assistant Vice President,
Assistant Secretary and Compliance Officer

Date:  June 26, 2006

                                       2
```
#### Antonio Taranto, Appellant, *v.*North German Lloyd Steamship Company, Respondent.

Second Department,

October 9, 1908.

See head note in *Taranto*v. *North German Lloyd Steamship■ Go. (ante,*p. 72)

Appeal by the plaintiff, Antonio Taranto, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office, of the cleric of the county of Kings on the 21st day of November, 1906, upon the verdict of a jury dismissing the complaint upon the merits, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 9th day of January, 1906, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, made, upon the minutes.

*Nelson L. Keach [Achille J. Oishei*with him on the brief], for the appellant.

*Joseph*larocque,. *Jr.,*for the respondent.

*77Woodward, J.:

This is an action to recover'for loss of services of the plaintiff’s wife, who was shot, by a passenger on board one of the defendant’s steamships, due, it is claimed, to the wrongful act of one of the defendant’s servants. The action by the ' vife for personal injuries resulted in a verdict for the defendant, and with that judgment sustained on appeal *(Taranto*v. *North German Lloyd Steamship Co.,*128 App. Div. 72), decided herewith, there is an end of the husband’s cause of action.

The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed.

Present—Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
ACC - EX10(f)(i)




FIRST AMENDMENT 
TO 
CAPITAL SUPPORT AGREEMENT




This First Amendment to the Capital Support Agreement, dated as of April 30, 2014 (the “Amendment”), is between Ameriprise Certificate Company (the “Company”) and Ameriprise Financial, Inc. (the “Parent”), and amends the Capital Support Agreement, dated as of March 2, 2009 (the “Agreement”), between the Company and the Parent.


WITNESSETH:


WHEREAS, the Company and the Parent are parties to the Agreement; and


WHEREAS, the Company and the Parent desire to amend the terms of the Agreement as set forth herein.


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:


		
	(1)
	Section 2 of the agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




2. Limitations.  Notwithstanding Section 1 of this Agreement, Parent’s obligation to provide, or cause to be provided, capital under this Agreement is limited to an aggregate amount of no more than $50,000,000 (the “Maximum Capital Amount”).


		
	(2)
	This Amendment may be executed by the parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original but all of which taken together will constitute one and the same instrument.




		
	(3)
	Except to the extent amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.


AMERIPRISE CERTIFICATE COMPANY




By: /s/ Abu M. Arif
Name:  Abu M. Arif
Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer




AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC.




By: /s/ James L. Hamalainen
Name:  James L. Hamalainen
Title:  Senior Vice President and Treasurer
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-12CB
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-12CB


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2007
----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Lee SADLER, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Lee Sadler, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 02-7117, 02-7408.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 14, 2002.

Walter Lee Sadler, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

No. 02-7117 affirmed and No. 02-7408 dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Walter Sadler contests both the denial of several motions he filed following the issuance of a warrant for his arrest for violations of his supervised release and the dismissal without prejudice of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as successive. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s orders in No. 02-7117 and dismiss the appeal in No. 02-7408.

In No. 02-7117, Sadler challenges the denial of his motions requesting appointment of counsel, a bond hearing, and the dismissal of the supervised release violation charge. However, the record indicates there was sufficient probable cause for the district court to find Sadler violated his supervised release, to issue a warrant for his arrest, to have him detained pending a hearing on those charges. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3606 (2000). Further, because the district court had not yet scheduled a hearing, Sadler’s request for appointment of counsel was premature. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying those motions.

In No. 02-7408, Sadler seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his § 2255 motion filed subsequent to his arrest for violating the terms of his supervised release. We have reviewed the rec*631ord and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Sadler has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See United States v. Sadler,*Nos. CR-95-134; CA-02-334-3-V (W.D.N.C. July 10, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

No. *02-7117*— AFFIRMED.

No. *02-7408*— DISMISSED.
#### Caesar Misch, Incorporated, v. Julius E. Mosheim.

Motion denied.
* 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. 98-40685

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NOEL RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-95-CV-26

- - - - - - - - - -

May 21, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Noel Rodriguez, federal prisoner # 52254-079, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 

Rodriguez argues that his attorney was ineffective because he

failed to object to the career-offender enhancement to

Rodriguez’s drug-conspiracy sentence and to the presentence

report’s consideration of a prior misdemeanor offense when

determining Rodriguez’s criminal history category. 

The inapplicability of the 1990 Sentencing Guidelines 
No. 98-40685

-2-

career-offender provision to Rodriguez’s drug-conspiracy

conviction was not addressed by this circuit until 1994, three

years after Rodriguez’s sentence. See United States v.

Bellazerius, 24 F.3d 698, 701-02 (5th Cir. 1994). Rodriguez’s

attorney was not ineffective for failing to anticipate new

developments in the law. See Lucas v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 1069,

1078-79 (5th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, given that his criminal

history category would have been the same regardless of a

successful objection to the consideration of Rodriguez’s prior

misdemeanor offense, Rodriguez cannot show prejudice with

respect to his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on

the presentence report’s consideration of his prior misdemeanor

offense. See United States v. Seyfert, 67 F.3d 544, 548-49 (5th

Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
        THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
        STATEMENTS OF INCOME, CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, AND CONSOLIDATED
        STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS, AND QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
        SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                        PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>            1,410,795
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>             17,717
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                 453,933
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>               21,438
<OTHER-ASSETS>                          36,352
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,940,235
<COMMON>                               287,528
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                    483,871
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>         771,399
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                   527,004
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                         855
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                    0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>               0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                    0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                  0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                             0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>         640,977
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>        1,940,235
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>              809,660
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                    52,189
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>             656,416
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>             708,605
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                101,055
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                       1,771
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>         102,826
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>               20,167
<NET-INCOME>                            82,659
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>           82,659
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                33,009
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>               17,875
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                 103,705
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             2.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                             2.35

        




</TABLE>
#### Michael W. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOWMAN APPLE PRODUCTS COMPANY, INCORPORATED; Bowman Apple Products Profit Sharing Plan and Trust, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-1473.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 23, 2002.

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

Thomas M. Lawson, Ann K. Crenshaw, Lawson & Silek, P.L.C., Winchester, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Ullrich, Dana R. Cormier, Wharton, Aldhizer & Weaver, P.L.C., Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Michael W. Davis appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing Davis’ complaint for declaratory judgment on statute of limitations grounds. In his complaint, Davis alleges a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. We affirm.

This Court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo. *Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,*863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); *Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,*477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. *Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,*477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

With these standards in mind, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Davis v. Bowman Apple Products Co., Inc.,*No. CA-00-33-5, 2002 WL 535068 (W.D.Va. Mar. 29, 2002). 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.*
Exhibit 32

    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 GCI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Duncan,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


Date:  May 3, 2004                     /s/
                                       Ronald A. Duncan
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       GCI, Inc.

                                       1
<PAGE>
    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 GCI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M. Lowber, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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.



Date:  May 3, 2004                     /s/
                                       John M. Lowber
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       GCI, Inc.
UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OFCO LU M BIA

____________________________________) M OHA M M ED AB DU LLA H TA HA ) MATTAN (ISN 684), ) ) P etitioner , ) ) v. ) Ci vilAc ti on N o. 09 -7 45 (R CL ) ) BA RA CK

H. O BA M A, P r e side nt ) of the United S tate s, e t al . , )

) Re spo nde nt s. ) ____________________________________) OR DE R It is hereby ORDERED that the June 15, 2009 deadline for responde nts’ Opposition to petit ioner’s Motion for Expedited J udg ment is STAYED in order to allow the Court to rule upon responde nts’ pendingmotion to s tay petitioner’s c ase ( filed June 10, 2009). SO ORDERED.

Signed by Royce C. L amber

th, Chief J udg e, on June 11, 2009.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1] 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Pacific Gateway Exchange, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2000. 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Pallet Management Systems, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 28, 2002. 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Panaco, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2002. 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Paragon Financial Corp. (n/k/a NewMarket Latin America, Inc.) because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2005. 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Patriot Motorcycle Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2005. 

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies. 

                    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange                           ( print page 49229)                        Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies, including the debt securities of Panaco, Inc., is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on August 18, 2008, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on August 29, 2008.                 

By the Commission. 

J. Lynn Taylor, 

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-19362 Filed 8-18-08; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
## The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

NATHAN P. WILSON 300 DEXTER AVENUE LYNN DEVAUGHN

CLERK MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104

- 3741 ASSISTANT CLERK

TELEPHONE 334

- 229

- 0733

August 23, 2024

CL

- 2023

- 0531

Nicole Ann Norman v. Walter Earl Norman, Jr. (Appeal from Lamar

Circuit Court: DR

- 22

- 10).

ORDER

You are hereby notified that the following action was taken in the

above cause by the Court of Civil Appeals:

Application for Rehearing Overruled. No opinion written on

rehearing.

Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, Fridy, and Lewis, JJ., concur.

Nathan P. Wilson, Clerk
#### Isaac Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael PVO, Deputy USM; Antoine K. Weston, MPD # 2076; John Andrews, MPD # 3959; Jame Brooks, Jr., Deputy USM; Michael Shavne Williams, Deputy USM # 5315, Defendants-Appellees, and Parris N. Glendening, Governor for Maryland; Wayne K., Executive Director; John S. Farrell, Chief Police, Defendants.

No. 02-7012.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

Isaac Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, Jennifer Lilore Huesman, Ariana Wright Arnold, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Isaac Lee Williams appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in Williams’ Bivens* action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Williams v. Pvo,*No. CA-01-1492 (D. Md. June 20, 2002). 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.*

*

*Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).