alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                       ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-17T1
             MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-17T1


      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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Epps, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered November 3, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to hear and report on the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court is to file its report with all convenient speed.

The defendant established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in jury selection by the prosecutor, who exercised 50% of her peremptory challenges to strike seven of nine available prospective black jurors from the panel of approximately 46 venirepersons *(see, People v Jenkins,*75 NY2d 550; *People v Dove,*154 AD2d 705; *People v Sandy,*150 AD2d 625; *People v Hassell,*149 AD2d 530). That the jury, as finally constituted, included two black jurors, is of no avail to the People. As the Court of Appeals recently declared in *People v Jenkins (supra,*at 559): “For the purposes of equal protection, the constitutional violation is the exclusion of *any*blacks solely because of their race. If any blacks are so excluded, it is of no moment that the jury nevertheless contains a token number of blacks”. Under the circumstances, the prosecutor must articulate racially neutral explanations for the exclusion of these individuals *(see, People v Jenkins, supra; People v Dove, supra).*Accordingly, the matter is remitted for an evidentiary hearing during which time the appeal from the judgment of conviction is held in abeyance *(see,*
      *326
      *People v Dove, supra; People v Howard,*128 AD2d 804). Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
IIB 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6899 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2022 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from engaging 

in transactions involving the exchange of Special Drawing Rights issued by the International Monetary Fund 

that are held by the Russian Federation or Belarus. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6899 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Russia and Belarus 

3 SDR Exchange Prohibition Act of 2022’’. 

4 SEC. 2. SPECIAL DRAWING RIGHTS EXCHANGE PROHIBI5 TION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury 

7 may not engage in any transaction involving the exchange 

8 of Special Drawing Rights issued by the International 

9 Monetary Fund that are held by the Russian Federation 

10 or Belarus. 

11 (b) ADVOCACY.—The Secretary of the Treasury 

12 shall— 

13 (1) vigorously advocate that the governments of 

14 the member countries of the International Monetary 

15 Fund, to the extent that the member countries issue 

16 freely usable currencies, prohibit transactions involv17 ing the exchange of Special Drawing Rights held by 

18 the Russian Federation or Belarus and 

19 (2) direct the United States Executive Director 

20 at each international financial institution (as defined 

21 in section 1701(c)(2) of the International Financial 

22 Institutions Act) to use the voice and vote of the 

23 United States to oppose the provision of financial 

24 assistance to the Russian Federation and Belarus, 

25 except to address basic human needs of the civilian 

26 population. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 6899 RFS

1 (c) TERMINATION.—The preceding provisions of this 

2 section shall have no force or effect on the earlier of— 

3 (1) the date that is 5 years after the date of the 

4 enactment of this Act; or 

5 (2) 30 days after the date that the President 

6 reports to the Congress that the governments of the 

7 Russian Federation and Belarus have ceased desta8 bilizing activities with respect to the sovereignty and 

9 territorial integrity of Ukraine. 

10 (d) WAIVER.—The President may waive the applica11 tion of this section if the President reports to the Congress 

12 that the waiver is in the national interest of the United 

13 States and includes an explanation of the reasons therefor. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 11, 2022. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent-*490Appellant, v Severn Jackson, Appellant-Respondent.

Appeal (1) by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered October 21, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) by the People from an order of the same court, dated December 6, 1989, which granted the defendant’s *pro se*motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10.

Ordered that the order dated December 6, 1989, is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, and the judgment of conviction is reinstated; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of robbery in the second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Although it was improper for Assistant District Attorney Penofsky to have prosecuted this matter, since he was not admitted to the practice of law in this State, the defendant has failed to demonstrate any resulting prejudice. Absent such a showing of prejudice, this procedural irregularity is insufficient to constitute reversible error *(see, People v Reyes,*161 AD2d 201; *People v Linares,*158 AD2d 296; *People v Munoz,*153 AD2d 281, 284-285; *cf., People v Felder,*47 NY2d 287, 295-296).

However, we agree with the defendant’s contention that the evidence, even when viewed in a light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction for robbery in the second degree. The only evidence presented by the People to support this charge was the complainant’s testimony that the defendant grabbed her pocketbook and removed an order of protection therefrom. A trier of fact could not reasonably conclude from the record that the defendant intended to "deprive” the complainant of her property *(see,*Penal Law § 155.00 [3]; *People v Williams,*147 AD2d 515, 516; *People v Pierre,*131 AD2d 604; *People v Gentile,*127 AD2d 686, 687-688). Moreover, the People failed to establish that the complainant suffered from a "physical injury”, another necessary element of robbery in the second degree as charged here *(see,*Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]). The complainant’s testimony, and the hospital records admitted into evidence, merely revealed that she suffered from a bruised eye, with slight swelling and redness, and received medical attention for it. In addition, there was *491no indication that the complainant experienced any pain *(see, People v Franklin,*149 AD2d 617; *People v Holden,*148 AD2d 635; *People v Goins,*129 AD2d 733, 734). Therefore, the conviction for that charge must be reversed.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or need not be addressed in light of the foregoing analysis. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                            Exhibit 10.15

                                                    January 24, 1994


Antonino Fernandez R.
Grupo Modelo, S.A. de C.V.
Campos Eliseos 400
11000 Mexico, D.F.

Dear Don Antonino:

This letter shall serve to confirm the understanding and agreement between
A-B and the Controlling Shareholders regarding Section 5.5 of the Investment
Agreement, which reads as follows:

      "5.5  Election of A-B Director.  The Controlling Shareholders shall be
            -------------------------
            entitled to designate a G-Modelo director for election to the A-B
            Board of Directors.  Following such designation, A-B will use its
            best efforts to nominate and cause such designee to be elected to
            the A-B Board of Directors at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders
            of A-B next succeeding such designation and to continue to
            nominate and cause such a designee to be elected for so long as
            the Investor owns ten percent or more of the total outstanding
            shares of G-Modelo capital stock."

It is acknowledged and agreed that Anheuser-Busch fulfilled its obligations
under Section 5.5 when Pablo Aramburuzabala was appointed to the A-B Board as
a Class I Director, with a term continuing until the Annual Meeting of
Shareholders in 1995.  A-B will use its best efforts to cause Pablo
Aramburuzabala (or another designee of the Controlling Shareholders) to be
nominated and elected to the A-B Board at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders
in 1995 and future years as long as the Investor owns ten percent or more of
the total outstanding shares of G-Modelo capital stock.

Capitalized terms used in this letter shall have the meanings given such
terms in the Investment Agreement.

Please indicate the Controlling Shareholders' agreement with the foregoing by
signing and returning the attached copy.

Sincerely,

ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, INC.

S/JOHN H. PURNELL
---------------------------------------------------
John H. Purnell, Vice President and Group Executive

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED as of the date above.


S/ANTONINO FERNANDEZ R.
---------------------------------------------------
Antonino Fernandez R., on behalf of
the Controlling Shareholders
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7080 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7080

 To amend section 5326(a), of title 31, United States Code, to clarify 
  that an order may be issued that covers the entirety of the United 
States, to amend section 5314 of title 31, United States Code, to allow 
     the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to obtain necessary 
   information concerning foreign non-financial trades or businesses 
 involved in illicit financial activities, including those of Russian 
           and Belarussian oligarchs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2022

  Ms. Waters (for herself, Mr. Lynch, and Mr. Casten) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 5326(a), of title 31, United States Code, to clarify 
  that an order may be issued that covers the entirety of the United 
States, to amend section 5314 of title 31, United States Code, to allow 
     the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to obtain necessary 
   information concerning foreign non-financial trades or businesses 
 involved in illicit financial activities, including those of Russian 
           and Belarussian oligarchs, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Nowhere to Hide Oligarchs' Assets 
Act''.

SEC. 2. RECORDS OF CERTAIN DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS.

    Section 5326(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``in a geographic area''.

SEC. 3. RECORDS AND REPORTS ON FOREIGN FINANCIAL AGENCY TRANSACTIONS 
              AND FOREIGN NONFINANCIAL TRADE OR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 5314 of title 31, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in the heading, by striking ``foreign financial agency 
        transactions'' and inserting ``foreign financial agency 
        transactions and foreign nonfinancial trade or business 
        transactions''; and
            (2) in subsection (a) by striking ``foreign financial 
        agency'' each place it occurs and inserting ``foreign financial 
        agency or foreign nonfinancial trade or business''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections located in 
subchapter II of Chapter 53 of Subtitle IV of Title 31 is amended in 
the item relating to section 5314 by striking ``foreign financial 
agency transactions'' and inserting ``foreign financial agency 
transactions and foreign nonfinancial trade or business transactions''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31

          CERTIFICATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITOR WITH FORM 10-K

      Re:   Soundview Home Loan Trust, Series 2006-OPT4
            Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-OPT4

      I, Robert McGinnis, certify that:

      l. 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 included in the year covered by
this report in Form 10-K of Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006-OPT4 (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 upon the annual 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 each of its
obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement; 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: Option One
Mortgage Corporation and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

                                        FINANCIAL ASSET SECURITIES CORP.

                                        By: /s/ Robert McGinnis
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: Robert McGinnis
                                        Title: President
                                        Date: March 30, 2007
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-11051

J. MARK JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CVS PHARMACY, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 3:07-CV-1383

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Mark Jones sued CVS Pharmacy, Inc., under title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, for retaliation and for other claims not relevant to this appeal.

Jones appeals a summary judgment that was granted to the company on the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-11051 Document: 00511207928 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2010
No. 09-11051

ground that Jones had not shown a causal link between the protected activity

(reporting the sexual advances of former supervisors) and any adverse employment actions, including, ultimately, termination.

We have read the briefs and pertinent portions of the record and have reviewed the applicable law. After hearing oral argument, we conclude there is no

reversible error. As the district court determined, the company provided legitimate justifications for its actions, taken in large part because of Jones’s many

incidents of misconduct and inadequate performance. Jones failed to offer evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his former employer’s justifications were pretextual.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 09-11051 Document: 00511207928 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2010
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RENE A. CRUZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70888

Agency No. A095

- 025

- 283

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2022 * *

Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Rene A. Cruz

, a native and citizen of El Salvador

, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 14 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 16

- 70888

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

-

85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Cruz does not contest the BIA’s conclusion that he

waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of his asylum and withholding of removal

claims, s ee Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013)

(issues not speci fically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived),

and we lack jurisdiction to consider his contentions as to whether his drug

conviction constitutes a particularly serious crime because he failed to raise them

to the BIA, s ee Barron v. Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court

lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). We do not reach

Cruz’s remaining contentions as to his eligibility for asylum and withholding of

removal. See Santiago

- Rodriguez v. Holder , 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)

(review lim ited to the grounds relied on by the BIA)

. Thus, we deny the petition

for review as to Cruz’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Cruz failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador

. See Aden v.

Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009)

.3 16

- 70888

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7028 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that the 3-month 

State residency requirement for applicants for naturalized citizenship 

do not apply with respect to spouses of members of the Armed Forces 

serving on active duty at a location in the United States, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2022 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER (for herself and Mr. THOMPSON of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide 

that the 3-month State residency requirement for applicants for naturalized citizenship do not apply with respect to spouses of members of the Armed Forces serving 

on active duty at a location in the United States, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Security for 

5 Military Spouses Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7028 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO STATE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR 

2 SPOUSES OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

3 FORCES SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY AT A LO4 CATION IN THE UNITED STATES. 

5 Section 319 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

6 (8 U.S.C. 1430) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(f) In the case of a person lawfully admitted for per9 manent residence in the United States who is the spouse 

10 of a member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty 

11 at a location in the United States, the requirement under 

12 subsection (a) of this section and under section 316(a) 

13 that a person have resided within the State or the Service 

14 district in the United States in which the applicant filed 

15 his application for at least three months shall not apply.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS