alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1




CERTIFICATION




I, William Threadgill, 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 STRATS(SM) Trust For Allstate Corporation Securities, Series 2006-3 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);




2.           Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;




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




4.           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; and




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




In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee.




Dated: March 31, 2014
By: /s/ William ThreadgillWilliam ThreadgillPresident(senior officer of depositor in charge of securitization)
#### VAN HOVEN v. BURK.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

March 12, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1954.

Aronovitz, Aronovitz & Caidin, Miami, for appellant.

Dixon, Dejarnette & Bradford, Miami, for appellee.'

TERRELL, Justice.

Appellant brought this action against ap-pellee to recover damages for personal injuries under the guest statute, Section 320.59, F.S.A. There was an answer to the complaint to which defendant admitted the accident but denied that he was driving the car at .the time it occurred. The case, came on for trial and counsel for the plaintiff made his opening statement to the jury. The defendant moved to'dismiss' on the ground that the’facts set out in the opening statement were not sufficient on which to predicate a verdict for the plaintiff for gross negligence. The Court granted the motion and entered a final judgment for defendant. Thereupon the plaintiff appealed from the judgment.

The point for determination is whether or not the trial court committed error in directing a verdict for the defendant after having heard the opening statement of the plaintiff to the jury.

The court stated in its order that it was directing the verdict for the defendant “aside from the question of assumption of risk or any possible question of contributory negligence and entirely on the ground that the facts of the opening statement, if proved, would not be sufficient for a jury verdict under the guest statute.” In so holding we think the trial court committed error. We do no think the complaint is a model pleading but no question was raised as to that. An opening statement to the jury is no basis on which to grant a directed verdict. It is nothing more than the plaintiff’s theory of the case and what he proposes to prove. He may prove much or he may not prove any of it to the .satisfaction of the jury. The plaintiff may prove matters not embraced in the opening statement.

Since no question was raised as to the sufficiency of the pleadings and the trial court rej ected all questions as to assumption of risk and contributory negligence, we are of the view that the case should have gone *159to the jury on the evidence. The question of ne.gligence, gross negligence, and wilful or wanton misconduct shall in all such cases be solely for the jury.

The judgment is accordingly reversed.

Reversed.

ROBERTS,. C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur. -
<PAGE> 
                                                                     Exhibit 11
                            J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC.
                           and Consolidated Subsidiaries

                    Computation of Net Income Per Common Share 
                    __________________________________________
                (Amounts in millions except per common share data)





                                                  39 Weeks Ended 
                                  ______________________________________________
                                    October 25, 1997           October 26, 1996
                                  ___________________        ___________________
                                   Shares     Income          Shares     Income 
                                  ________    _______        ________   ________

   Primary: 
   ________

   Net income                                 $  342                     $  471
   Dividend on Series B ESOP
     convertible preferred stock
     (after-tax)                                 (30)                       (30)
                                              _______                    _______
   Adjusted net income                           312                        441

   Weighted average number of
     shares outstanding             246.3                      225.5
   Common stock equivalents:
     Stock options and other
     dilutive effect                  2.4                        2.8           
                                    _____                      _____
                                    248.7     $  312           228.3     $  441
                                    =====     ======           =====     ======


   Net income per common share            $ 1.25                     $ 1.93
                                          ======                     ======




   Fully diluted:
   ______________

   Net income                                 $  342                     $  471
   Tax benefit differential on ESOP
     dividend assuming stock is
     fully converted                              (1)                        (2)
   Assumed additional contribution
     to ESOP if preferred stock is
     fully converted                              (1)                        (1)
                                               ______                    _______
   Adjusted net income                           340                        468

   Weighted average number of
     shares outstanding (primary)   248.7                      228.3
   Maximum dilution                   0.5                        0.3
   Convertible preferred stock       18.4                       19.5
                                    _____      ______          _____     ______
                                    267.6        340           248.1     $  468
                                    =====      ======          =====     ======

                                
   Net income per common share            $ 1.25                     $ 1.89
                                          ======                     ======
|   | Exhibit 31.1 |
|--------|--------------|

 

 

**SOX 302 CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Tommy Harris, Senior Vice President of CitiMortgage, Inc., certify that:

 

 

1.            I have reviewed the reports 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 Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc., Series 2006-AR3 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.            Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

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

 

4.            I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the master servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted inpreparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodicreports, the master servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement, in all material respects; and

 

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

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, GMAC Mortgage Corporation, GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., National City Mortgage Co., PHH Mortgage Corporation, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

 

March 30, 2007

 

By: /s/ Tommy Harris 

Name:  Tommy Harris

Title: Senior Vice President of CitiMortgage Inc.
#### DABNEY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.

May 15, 1935.

*381McGeachy & Elliot, of Milton, for plaintiff in error.

Gary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Boy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BUFORD, Justice.

Broomer Dabney was jointly indicted and tried with his mother for the offense of murder in the first degree. The woman was acquitted. Broomer Dabney was convicted of murder in the second degree.

On review here, it is contended that the court below committed reversible error in admitting in evidence oral and written confessions of the defendant Broomer Dabney on the ground that the confessions were not freely and voluntarily made, but were procured by unlawful coercion.

The evidence as to whether or not the confessions were freely and voluntarily made is conflicting, but the trial court after a full and fair examination of the witnesses in this regard, held the confessions admissible, and on authority of the opinion and judgment of this court in the case of Harrison v. State, 110 Fla. 420, 148 So. 882, and authorities there cited, we hold that no reversible error is made to appear.

Aside from this, however, the record shows that the defendant took the stand in his own behalf and while testifying he stated that the confessions which he had made were true; he stated that he did not know what was written down for him to sign, but what he then testified to, which was intended to be written down, was the truth, and it is un-contradicted that the statement was written as he gave it.

 It is further contended that the judgment should be reversed because of the comment of the state’s attorney on the failure of the defendant to testify as to his whereabouts on the night of the homicide. The settled rule is that if a defendant declines to become a witness in his own behalf, then the prosecuting attorney shall not comment on such course being taken by the defendant. In other words, the failure of the defendant *to*testify cannot be taken or considered as any admission against his interest; but, if a defendant voluntarily takes the stand and testifies as a witness in his own behalf, then he becomes subject to cross-examination as any other witness, and the prosecuting officer has the right to comment on his testimony, his manner and demeanor oh the stand, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of his statements, and on the discrepancies which may appear in his testimony to the same extent as would be proper with reference to testimony of any other witness.

For the reasons stated, the judgment should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

ELLIS, P. J., and TERRELL, J., concur.

WHITFIELD, O. J., and DAVIS, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1273

BRIAN DAVISON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. FACEBOOK, INC.; YOUTUBE, LLC; TWITTER, INC.; LOUDOUN COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthony John Trenga , District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv
- 01125

- AJT

- TCB )

Submitted : July 31, 2019 Decided: August 7, 2019

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Brian Davison , Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Winn Allen , Craig Primis , KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP , Washington, D.C.; Thomas G. Hentoff, John Edward Schmidtlein , WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP , Wa shington, D.C.; Ariel Brynne Glickman , John Kuropatkin Roche , PERKINS COIE LLP , Washington, D.C.; Ara Loris Tramblian , BANCROFT, MCGAVIN, HORVATH & JUDKINS PC , Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circu it.2 PER CURIAM:
Brian Davison appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Davison v. Facebook, Inc. , No. 1:18

- cv
- 01125

- AJT

- TCB (E.D. Va. Feb. 26, 2019) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Note: This schedule  contains summary financial  information extracted from
the Form  10-Q for  the Quarter  Ended  March 31, 1999  and is  qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001027574
<NAME>                        Outsourcing Solutions Inc. and Subsidiaries
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                              41,932
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       44,726
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,002
<INVENTORY>                                         33,418
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   131,519
<PP&E>                                              68,582
<DEPRECIATION>                                      28,732
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     622,051
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              125,640
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         13,159
<COMMON>                                                53
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       622,051
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   129,247
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      120,160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        76
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  12,565
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (3,554)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (3,554)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (3,544)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DARRYL (DEWS) WEST,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 124 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DARRYL DEWS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 125 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DARRYL DEWS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 126 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM
[124 EAL 2020, 125 EAL 2020 and 126 EAL 2020] - 2

AND NOW, this 26th day of August, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [OR-130-1020-AL; GP8-0193]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below.

# DATES:

Thursday, September 18, 2008, at the Institute for Extended Learning, South Elm Street, Colville, WA 99114.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will start at 9:30 a.m. and end at approximately 3:30 p.m. It will be open to the public and there will be an opportunity for public comments at 2:30 p.m. Discussion will focus on the status of projects of interest on BLM lands, and identification of topics of concern on the Colville National Forest.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Pavey or Sandie Gourdin, BLM, Spokane District, 1103 N. Fancher Rd., Spokane Valley, WA 99212, or call (509) 536-1200.

Dated: August 22, 2008.

Sally Sovey,

Acting District Manager.

[FR Doc. E8-19956 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector VELAZQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6230.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 2, 2002.

Decided Nov. 20, 2002.

Noell Peter Tin, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Hector Velazquez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Velazquez has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See United States v. Velazquez,*Nos. CR-97-297-V; CA-00-187-S (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 30, 2001, entered Dec. 3, 2001). Accordingly, we deny a *657certificate 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.*
EXHIBIT 35.3

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC

                RALI SERIES 2006-QS4 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  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 26th
day of March 2007.

By:    /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
       Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
       Title: Managing Director
906 CERTIFICATION

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 Annual Report of ESCO, INC. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William T. Foley,
President and Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 2, 2007

ESCO, Inc.


By: /s/ William T. Foley
    ------------------------------------
Name: William T. Foley
Title: President