alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this 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 Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2006-038
     (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 in order 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.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
     fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
     respects;

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 Rule 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 certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

            JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents

Date:  August 29, 2006


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum


Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
#### Elijah Jerome WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew SAVAGE; David McCann, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-7299.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 14, 2002.

Elijah Jerome White, Appellant Pro Se.

*642Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Elijah Jerome White appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See White v. Savage,*No. CA-02-2013-2-23 (D.S.C. filed July 30, 2002; entered July 31, 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.*
February 19, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CARLOS ROMERO , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00049

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____ ____________________________ This cause was heard on the motion of the appellant to withdraw notice of appeal. Having considered the motion , the Court orders the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We furth er order the mandate be issued immediately.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### GEDDES & MOSS UNDERTAKING & EMBALMING COMPANY, LIMITED, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ernest DUGAS et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. 16650.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 17, 1937.

Ja-s. E. Courtin, of New Orleans, in pro. per.

Jno. T. Charbonnet, of New Orleans, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Being advised by counsel that it has been agreed that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, and finding in the record nothing which would suggest a contrary disposition, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and it is affirmed at the cost of appellant.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

Nos. 17-3752, 18-1253, 19-1129, 19-1189

_____________

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY

v.

PRESIDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SECRETARY UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; SECRETARY UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

TREASURY; SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home 

(Intervenor in D.C.),

Appellant in 17-3752, 19-1129

President United States of America, Secretary United 

States of Department of Health and Human Services, 

United States Department of Health and Human 

Services, Secretary United States Department of 

Treasury, United States Department of Treasury, 

Secretary United States Department of Labor, United 

States Department of Labor, 

 Appellants in 18-1253,

19-1189 (Except President United States of America)

______________________

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

______________________

It has come to the attention of the Court that the last name of counsel for Appellee 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Aimee D. Thomson was misspelled. At the direction of 

the Court, the opinion filed on July 12, 2019 is amended to reflect the correct spelling of 

counsel’s name. As this amendment is clerical in nature, it does not alter the filing date of 

the opinion.
For the Court,

s/ Patricia S. Dodszuweit

Clerk

Date: July 19, 2019

cc: All Counsel of Record
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 pa ne l una ni 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 a r 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 UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. R AN DA L L AL L E N B R OWN, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 30239 D. C. No . 3 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 2 7 9 - ALH ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nc e rL . H a gge rty , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an d B E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R andal l A l l en B row n app ea l s f rom the 46 -m on th sent ence i m po se d f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on f ortw o c ount s of

ba nk r obbe ry , i n vi ol a t i on of 1 8 U . S. C. § 2 1 1 3 ( a ) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED OC T 28 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 30239 2 B r ow n c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtpr oc e dur a l l ye rr e d a ts e nt e nc i ng by pr e s um i ng tha tthe G ui de l i ne s r a nge w a s r e a s onabl e a nd by f a i l i ng t o e xpl a i n w hy i tw as re j ec t i ng hi s argum ent s f

or a l ow erse nt ence . B row n further c on t ends that the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d i s s ubs t a nt i ve l yunr e a s onabl e . T he r e c or d r e f l e c t s tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u rt m a d e a n in d iv id u a liz e d d e te rm in a tio n b a s e d o n th e f a c ts , a d e q u a te ly e x p la in e d th e s e n te n c e , a n d d id n o t o th e rw is e p r o c e d u r a llye rr . See U ni ted Stat es v . Ca r ty , 5 2 0 F .3 d 9 8 4 , 9 9 1 - 9 3 , 9 9 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( e n b a n c ) . A d d itio n a lly , in l i ghtof the t ot a l i tyof

the c i r c um s t a nc e s , the s e nt e nc e a tthe bott om of the G u id e lin e s r a n g e is s u b s ta n tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . Se e id . a t993- 94. AF F I RME D.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHNNY MACON PLEASANTS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-96-21, CA-98-153-5-F)

Submitted: June 3, 2003 Decided: June 30, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Macon Pleasants, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Macon Pleasants seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Pleasants has not made a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. ,

123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003). Accordingly, we deny 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. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

   <ARTICLE> 5
   <LEGEND>
   Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
   the Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in
   its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
   </LEGEND>
   <CIK>  0001029309
   <NAME>  Perimeter Credit LP
          
   <S>                             <C>
   <PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
   <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
   <PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
   <PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
   <CASH>                                          28,124
   <SECURITIES>                                         0
   <RECEIVABLES>                                   23,789
   <ALLOWANCES>                                       850
   <INVENTORY>                                     47,913
   <CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,328
   <PP&E>                                          81,845
   <DEPRECIATION>                                  54,545
   <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 358,234
   <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,981
   <BONDS>                                              0
   <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
   <PREFERRED>                                     11,699
   <COMMON>                                            53
   <OTHER-SE>                                           0
   <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   358,234
   <SALES>                                              0
   <TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,663
   <CGS>                                                0
   <TOTAL-COSTS>                                  206,958
   <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
   <LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
   <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,950
   <INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,245)
   <INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,626)
   <INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,619)
   <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
   <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
   <CHANGES>                                            0
   <NET-INCOME>                                  (20,619)
   <EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
   <EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
           
<PAGE>

   
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Intelligent Buying, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:


The annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: March 23, 2011





/s/ Eugene MalobrodskyEugene MalobrodskyPrincipal Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC. and will be retained by INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Thomas J. BROWN, Appellant.

No. 01-3066.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Nov. 4, 2002.

Before GINSBURG, Chief Judge, HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments of the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the appellant’s conviction be affirmed. We doubt, but need not decide, whether the district court’s evidentiary rulings were erroneous because we conclude that even if they were, they “did not have [a] ‘substantial and injurious effect in determining the jury’s verdict.’” *United States v. King,*254 F.3d 1098, 1101 (D.C.Cir.2001) (quoting *Kotteakos v. United States,*328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)).

Although *Old Chief v. United States,*519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997), recognizes the potential for prejudice arising from evidence of similar bad acts, the case does not announce a rule that such evidence “has an automatic unfair and substantial prejudicial effect on the jury.” *United States v. Cassell,*292 F.3d 788, 796 (D.C.Cir.2002). In this case it is unlikely that the jury drew any inference of propensity, or indeed was even conscious that evidence of any other gun possession was introduced at all. "Whatever inculpatory inferences the jury may have drawn from the challenged testimony could only have been minimal. Meanwhile, with regard to the only contested issue in the case (knowing possession), the Government’s evidence was overwhelming: three officers testified that the gun was found in Brown’s waistband. The two defense witnesses to the arrest both testified merely that they never saw any gun at the scene, not that they saw officers produce the gun from the van.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
| (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 results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  November 4, 2010 | /s/Ronald N. Tutor                   |
|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                              | Ronald N. Tutor                      |
|                              | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
**Exhibit 35.2**

** **

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

            I, Barbara Campbell, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (the “AdministrativeAgent”), do hereby certify to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”) and Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), pursuant to the Administrative Agent Agreement dated as of April 1, 2006 (the “ServicingAgreement”) by and between the Servicer and the Administrative Agent the following with respect to Washington Mutual Asset-Backed Certificates Series 2006-HE2 Trust for the 2006 fiscal year (the “Relevant Year”):

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the ServicingAgreement 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 theServicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.

 

Dated as of March 1, 2007.

 
|  

__/s/ Barbara Campbell________________

Name:  Barbara Campbell

Title:    First Vice President |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Mamdouh M. HUSSEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vanessa MEADE, Peter Ward, in his personal capacity and official capacity as Business Manager and all successors in interest, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Union Local 6, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-7116.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Oct. 31, 2002.

*474Mamdouh M. Hussein, Jersey City, New Jersey, for Appellant, pro se.

Barry N. Saltzman, Herrick Feinstein LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees.

PRESENT: Hon. VAN GRAAFEILAND, Hon. JACOBS, and Hon. CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 31st day of October, two thousand and two.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Mamdouh Hussein, *pro se*and *in forma pauperis,*appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Scheindlin, J.) dismissing his claims brought pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.,*and the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 401*et seq.*Hussein alleges that, by disciplining him for an incident at a roll call meeting, defendant Hotel Restaurant Union, Local 6 unlawfully discriminated against his Muslim religious beliefs and unlawfully retaliated against him for previous lawsuits and complaints against the union.

Following discovery, the district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that Hussein had failed to show (1) any causal link between his treatment by defendants and any protected activity, or any evidence that he was treated differently from other union members involved in the roll call incident, and (2) the union’s roll call policies to be either unfair or in conflict with any bona fide religious belief. *See Mamdouh Hussein v. Hotel Employees and Restaurant Union, Local 6, et al.,*98 Civ. 9017(SAS), 2002 WL 10441 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2002).

Finding no reversible error, we affirm the dismissal of Hussein’s claims for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion. *See id.*

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.29




LOAN AGREEMENT AND PROMISSORY NOTE
 Effective Date: February 22, 2010
 
 Loan Agreement
 
 Wet Coast Management Corp. (the “Lender”) of #610 – 1100 Melville Street, Vancouver, BC, V6E 4A6 advanced US$50,000 (the “Principal Sum”) to Red Metal Resources Ltd. (the “Borrower”) of 195 Park Avenue, Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7B 1B9 on the Effective Date.
  The Borrower will repay the Principal Sum on demand, together with interest calculated and compounded monthly at the rate of 6% per year from the Effective Date (the “Interest”).  The Borrower is liable for repayment for the Principal Sum and accrued Interest and any costs that the Lender incurs trying to collect the Principal Sum and the Interest.
  The Borrower will evidence the debt and its repayment of the Principal Sum and the Interest with the following promissory note.
  LENDER

BORROWERWet Coast Management Corp.

Red Metal Resources Ltd.Per:

Per:/s/ Rick Jeffs

/s/ John da CostaRick Jeffs

Authorized SignatoryPromissory NotePrincipal Sum:  US$50,000

Effective Date: February 22, 2010
  For value received, the Borrower promises to pay on demand to the order of the Lender the sum of $50,000 lawful money of United States of America (the “Principal Sum”) together with interest on the Principal Sum from the effective date both before and after maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate as defined below.
 
 Interest Rate means 6 per cent per year.  Interest at the Interest Rate must be calculated and compounded monthly not in advance from and including the Effective Date (for an effective annual rate of 6.17%), and is payable together with the Principal Sum when the Principal Sum is repaid.
 
 The Borrower may repay the Principal Sum and the Interest in whole or in part at any time. The Lender will apply any partial payment first to Interest and then to the Principal Sum.
 
 The Borrower waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonour of this promissory note.
  
 BORROWER
 Red Metal Resources Ltd.
 
 Per:
   Authorized signatory
(173 La. 647)

#### In the Matter of the Succession of Mrs. Susan SULLIVAN, Dec’d. Mrs. Belle FRIEDMAN, et al. Opponent, and Plaintiffs in Rule, v. W. P. SULLIVAN, Administrator, Defendant in Rule.

No. 31492.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 30, 1931.

W. A. Benton and Fred G. Benton, both of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Shelby Taylor and A. B. Parker, both of Baton Rouge, for appellees.

On Motion to Dismiss.

ST. PAUL, J.

The administrator herein sequestered certain cattle of the value of $500, claiming that they belonged to the succession and had been ■unlawfully taken possession of by one Mrs. Belle Friedman and her husband.

The defendants in the sequestration proceedings moved to dissolve the writ, but the trial judges ruled against them.

Thereupon the plaintiffs in rule sought and obtained an appeal to this court, which appeal the administrator moves to dismiss.

As the amount involved is only $500, and there is no question of a fund to be distributed, it is clear that this court has no jurisdiction, and the appeal will therefore be transferred to the proper Court of Appeal.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned, it is therefore ■ordered that this appeal be now transferred to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, for the parish of East Baton Rouge, provided that the record, or a duly certified transcript thereof, be filed in said Court of Appeal within twenty days after this decree becomes final; otherwise the appeal to stand dismissed.

It is further ordered that the appellant pay the costs of this court, and that all other costs await the final disposition of the case.