alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dated:  3/30/2007                                                                            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:By: /s/  Bruce Kaiserman                                                                  Title:Vice PresidentAsset Backed Securities CorporationI, Bruce Kaiserman, 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 Asset Backed Securities Corporation on behalf of the Home Equity Mortgage Trust 2006-2 (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 statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and5.  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.Bruce Kaiserman**Exhibit 31 : Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications**J.P. Morgan Trust Company, N.A, as CustodianLaSalle Bank National Association, as CustodianOcwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as ServicerPNC Bank, N.A., as ServicerSelect Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Special ServicerThe Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, as Successor in interest to J.P. Morgan Trust Company, as CustodianU.S. Bank National Association, as TrusteeWilshire Credit Corporation, as Servicer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. JAMES BURGER, Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 6197 (D.C. No. 5:18

- CR

- 00260

- SLP

- 48) (W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

_________________________ ________ Before BACHARACH , PHILLIPS , and EID , Circuit Judges.

_________________________________ James Burger pled guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to 192 months in prison, which was below the advisory sentencing guidelines range. Although his plea agreement contained a waiver of his appellate rights, he filed a notice of appeal. The government then filed a motion to enforce the appeal waiver. Counsel filed a response to the motion pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) , stating his belief that any argument against enforcement of the plea agreement is frivolous and that the appeal waiver is enforceable. Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1

. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 3, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 for Mr. Burger. We gave Mr. Burger the opportunity to file a pro se response to show why the appeal waiver should not be enforced. His response was due on April 13, 2021, but to date he has not filed a response. We will enforce an appeal waiver if (1) “the disputed appeal falls within” the waiver’s scope; (2) “the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights”; and (3) enforcing the waiver would not “result in a miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). The government argues that all three of these conditions are met in this case. Consistent with our obligation un der Anders , we conducted an independent review of the proceedings. See 386 U.S. at 744 . After doing so, we agree with the government that Mr

. Burger’s appeal waiver should be enforced under Hahn

. We therefore grant the government’s motion and dismiss th e appeal. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 654 

AN ACT 

To provide the Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities 

Support Program the authority to waive the Federal 

fund limitation for the Drug-Free Communities Support 

Program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 654 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Drug-Free Commu3 nities Pandemic Relief Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF FEDERAL FUND LIMITATION FOR THE 

5 DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PRO6 GRAM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), if the 

8 Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities Support 

9 Program determines that, as a result of the public health 

10 emergency declared pursuant to section 319 of the Public 

11 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) as a result of 

12 COVID–19, an eligible coalition is unable to raise the 

13 amount of non-Federal funds, including in-kind contribu14 tions, agreed to be raised by the coalition for a fiscal year 

15 under an agreement entered into with the Administrator 

16 pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) or (3) of section 1032(b) 

17 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1532(b)), 

18 the Administrator may, notwithstanding such paragraphs, 

19 provide to the eligible coalition the grant or renewal grant, 

20 as applicable, for that fiscal year in an amount— 

21 (1) with respect to an initial grant or renewal 

22 grant described under paragraph (1)(A) or (3)(A) of 

23 such section, that exceeds the amount of non-Fed24 eral funds raised by the eligible coalition, including 

25 in-kind contributions, for that fiscal year; 
3 

•HR 654 EH

1 (2) with respect to a renewal grant described 

2 under paragraph (3)(D)(i) of such section, that ex3 ceeds 125 percent of the amount of non-Federal 

4 funds raised by the eligible coalition, including in5 kind contributions, for that fiscal year; and 

6 (3) with respect to a renewal grant described 

7 under paragraph (3)(D)(ii) of such section, that ex8 ceeds 150 percent of the amount of non-Federal 

9 funds raised by the eligible coalition, including in10 kind contributions, for that fiscal year. 

11 (b) LIMITATION.—The Administrator may not pro12 vide a grant or renewal grant to an eligible coalition in 

13 an amount exceeding the amount of funds initially agreed 

14 to be provided by the Administrator under the applicable 

15 agreement. 

16 SEC. 3. RAISING CAP ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 

17 UNDER ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1988. 

18 Section 1024(b) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 

19 (21 U.S.C. 1524(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘8 percent’’ 

20 and inserting ‘‘12 percent’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 20, 

2021. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 654 

AN ACT 

To provide the Administrator of the Drug-Free 

other purposes. Free Communities Support Program, and for waive the Federal fund limitation for the DrugCommunities Support Program the authority to
Exhibit 35.1

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(SM)


                       REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance

I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transaction listed below and I certify:

a)    A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
      its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made
      under my supervision.

b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
      below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
      agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

c)    None


                                By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------
                                    Robert M. Abramian
                                    First Vice President
                                    Home Loan Servicing
                                    Investor Reporting
                                    Indymac Bank


                                By: /s/ Barbara Perez
                                    ----------------------
                                    Barbara Perez
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Indymac Bank



Prepared for:   Deutsche Bank

Date:           February 28, 2007

Ref:            671 - INDS 2006-1



                                                             www.indymacbank.com


             460 Sierra Madre Villa Ave., Pasadena, CA 91107   Tel: 626.535.5555
#### Leopold August MURAIRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Oct. 22, 1954.

Pine, Taylor, Bo'ehme & Yocum, Miami, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Bart L. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MATHEWS, Justice.

We have examined and considered the record in this case in the light of briefs filed and have also, pursuant to subpara-graph (2) of Section 924.32, Florida Statutes, and F.S.A., reviewed the evidence to determine if the interests of justice require a new triál, -with the result that’ we find no reversible error is. made to appear and the evidence does not reveal that the ends of justice require a new trial to be awarded.

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1763-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1763-DR), dated May 27, 2008, and related determinations.

# Effective Date:

 August 13, 2008.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective August 13, 2008.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs, 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E8-19984 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1030
PAUL YONGO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HARRIS TEETER, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:07-cv-00092-F) Submitted: May 9, 2008 Decided: June 2, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Yongo, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Paul Yongo appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Yongo v. Harris Teeter, Inc. , No. 5:07-cv-00092-F (E.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2007). 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Favonta ASKEW, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6829.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 24, 2002.

Decided Nov. 8, 2002.

Derrick Favonta Askew, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Derrick Favonta Askew seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 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 Askew has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See United States v. Askew,*No. CR-99-38 (E.D.Va. Apr. 17, 2002). 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.*
#### Patrick J. Cosgrove, Appellant, v. Forty-second Street, Manhattanville and St. Nicholas Avenue Railway Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
        THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
        INTERIM CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTH
        PERIOD  ENDED  MARCH 31,  1999 AND THE  INTERIM  CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED
        BALANCE  SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
        REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000075679
<NAME>                        GCI, INC.
<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>                                         6,169
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  41,660
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,384
<INVENTORY>                                    1,611
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               53,209
<PP&E>                                         412,067
<DEPRECIATION>                                 91,342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 637,560
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          49,451
<BONDS>                                        355,874
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       209,605
<OTHER-SE>                                     (13,845)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   637,560
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               61,338
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  27,870
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               32,757
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1,079
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7,080
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,328)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,052)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,521)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      (344)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,865)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (48,650)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (48,650)
        


</TABLE>
#### Rehburg *v.*The Astrup Co.

(No. 23499

Decided May 11, 1932.)

*Messrs. Evans, Whitney é Zuck,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John EL. McNeal,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the *634reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen and Kinkade, JJ., concur.

Stephenson, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT
32.2




Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as
Adopted


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Brown & Brown, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Form 10-Q), I, Cory T. Walker, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. § 78m or § 78o(d)); and




(2) The
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Dated:
August 10, 2009




/s/ Cory
T. Walker


Cory T.
Walker


Chief
Financial Officer
****EXHIBIT 32.2****

 

****Certificationof Periodic Financial Report****

****Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350****

 

Forpurposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Dannette Boyd, the ChiefFinancial Officer of Integrated Management Information, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

 
|   |   | (i)    |   | the  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the years ended  December 31, 2007 and 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of  section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|   |   | (ii)   |   | the  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                              |

 
| Date:  March 27, 2008              |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/  Dannette Boyd                      |   |
| Dannette  Boyd, Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

 

WHOLEHEALTH PRODUCTS, INC.

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 Wholehealth Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period  ended August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joe Arcaro, Principal  Executive  Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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.

 

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

 

 

 

 Dated: October 4, 2012

 

By: /s/ Joe Arcaro

Joe Arcaro

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

EXHIBIT 32.2

 

 

WHOLEHEALTH PRODUCTS, INC.

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 Wholehealth Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K  for the period  ended August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joe Arcaro, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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.

 

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

 

 

 

Dated: October 4, 2012

By: /s/ Joe Arcaro

Joe Arcaro 

Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)