alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2

                           ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

      I, David J. Kolibachuk, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, the Trustee in respect of the Corporate Backed Trust
Certificates, DaimlerChrysler Debenture-Backed Series 2002-4 Trust (the
"Trust"), certify that:

    1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
        Trust and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing
        reports of the Trust filed by Lehman ABS Corporation in respect of
        periods included in the year covered by this annual report of the
        Trust;

    2.  Based on my knowledge, the information in those reports, taken as a
        whole, does 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
        report;

    3.  Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be
        provided to the Depositor or the certificateholders by the Trustee
        under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement for inclusion in
        such distribution reports is included in such reports; and

    4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Trustee
        under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement and based on my
        knowledge, except as disclosed in such reports, the Trustee has
        fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

Date: March 27, 2006


      /s/ DAVID J. KOLIBACHUK
------------------------------------------
David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President
Exhibit 99(e)

Household Finance Corporation
HRSI Funding, Inc. II
Household Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust I, Series 2002-3


Original Class A Principal                       673,000,000.00
Number of Class A Bonds (000's)                      673,000.00
Original Class B Principal                        98,060,000.00
Number of Class B Bonds (000's)                       98,060.00
Original Class C Principal                        69,090,000.00
Number of Class C Bonds (000's)                       69,090.00


Distribution Date

CLASS A
-------
Class A Principal Distributions                                            0.00
Class A Interest                                                     647,762.50


CLASS B
-------
Class B Principal Distributions                                            0.00
Class B Interest                                                     150,440.38


CLASS C
-------
Class C Principal Distributions                                            0.00
Class C Interest                                                     166,449.33
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40075 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. NOE REYES, JR., also known as Noe Reyes, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:10-CR-944-2

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Noe Reyes, Jr., appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute 178 kilograms of marijuana. He argues that the district court clearly erred in applying the two-level enhancemen t for possession of a firearm under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). “The district court’s determination that § 2D1.1(b)(1) applies is a factual finding reviewed for clear error.” See United States v. Ruiz , 621 F.3d 390, 396 U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 24 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-40075 Document: 00512030689 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2012No. 12-40075

(5th Cir. 201 0)

. A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record as a whole. Id. Our review of the record does not show that a connecti o n b e t w e en the handguns and Reyes’s drug-related offense was “clearly improbable.” See § 2D1.1, comm e nt

. (n.3). To the contrary, this review shows “that a temporal and spatial r elation existed between the weapon, the drug trafficking activity, and the defendant.” See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 764- 65 (5th Cir. 2008). Both the loaded handguns and the drugs were discovered in Reyes’s home. The loaded handguns were discovered under the mattress in the bedroom where Reyes slept, and the drugs were discovered in a back bedroom. Moreover, Reyes pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distrib u t e the marijuana seized from in the back bedroom, and Reyes’s brother told agents that Reyes coordinated the transportation of the marijuana found at his home. The district court di d not clearly err by imposing the two-level enhancement. See Ruiz, 621 F.3d at 396. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-40075 Document: 00512030689 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02590-BNB

JOSE VELEZ-AROCHO,

Plaintiff,

v.

VIRTUOSO SOURCING GROUP LLC,

SARAH BILES,

MICHELLE COONEY,

JUDITH A. LASPADA, and

DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

ORDER DRAWING CASE

On completion of the Court’s review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2C, it

appears that this case is not appropriate for summary dismissal. Therefore, the case

will be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2D. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate

judge.

DATED November 7, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02590-WJM Document 9 Filed 11/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Michael A. Gerlich,
Chief Financial Officer of Gastar Exploration, Ltd. (the Company), hereby certify that the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report), filed by the Company with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 fully complies with the requirements of that section.

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: March 31, 2006



/s/ MICHAEL A. GERLICHMichael A. GerlichChief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02566-RPM-MEH 

MICHAEL GREEN, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 

 Defendant. 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE 

 THE COURT having reviewed the Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice 

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and being fully advised in the premises, DOES 

HEREBY ORDER that this case is Dismissed with Prejudice, with each party to pay his 

or its own attorney’s fees and costs. 

 BY THE COURT: 

March 9th, 2012 s/Richard P. Matsch 

__________________ ____________________________________ 

DATE Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Beresford Williams, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), rendered March 17, 1988, convicting him of assault in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Considering (1) the over-all quantity of evidence against the defendant *(see, People v Wood,*66 NY2d 374, 380; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242; *People v Roopchand,*107 AD2d 35, *affd*65 NY2d 837), (2) the extent to which the prosecutor’s comments during summation were provoked by defense counsel’s own misconduct *(see, People v Wood, supra; People v Morgan,*66 NY2d 255, 259), and (3) the probable effect of the court’s admonition that the jury should disregard certain comments *(see, People v Wood, supra; People v Arce,*42 NY2d 179), we conclude that a new trial is not warranted. Since the defendant’s trial was fundamentally fair, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. " 'Reversal is an ill-suited remedy for prosecutorial misconduct; it does not affect the prosecutor directly, but rather imposes upon society the cost of retrying an individual who was fairly convicted’ ” *(People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 401, quoting *United States v Modica,*663 F2d 1173). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JAVARES L. ROBINSON, DOC #T68047, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2063

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 12, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Vivian T. Corvo, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Alisa Smith, Assistant Public Defender, 

Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and David Campbell, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>




                                    EXHIBIT 2

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                       TO THE ARTICLES OF INCORPOARTION OF

                        EMPIRE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

      The undersigned, Susan M. Grant, the President, Secretary and sole member
of the Board of Directors of Empire Communications Corporation, a Nevada
corporation (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify that:

                                        I

      Pursuant to Section 78.390 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, the Articles of
Incorporation of the Corporation shall be amended as follows:

      The name of the Corporation is "Front Porch Digital Inc."

                                       II

      The foregoing amendment was adopted by the written Consent of the sole
member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation pursuant to Section 78.315
of the Nevada Revised Statutes; and by consent of the majority stockholder who
owned in excess of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the
Corporation pursuant to Section 78.320 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.

                                       III

      The number of shares entitled to vote on the amendment was 46,400,000.

                                       IV

      The number of shares voted in favor of the amendment was 40,000,000, with
none opposing and none abstaining.

      IN WITNESS THEREOF, the undersigned officer of the Corporation, certifying
that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury, has set her
hand this 1st day of May, 2000.

By:  /s/ Susan M. Grant
     ------------------
     Susan M. Grant,
     President, Secretary and Director



                                       14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB

OKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Utah corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company,

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut insurance

company,

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company,

ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company,

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut insurance

company, 

EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey insurance company,

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a New

Jersey insurance company,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Minute Order Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

This matter is before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to Vacate Scheduling

Conference [docket no. 40, filed February 10, 2012] (the “Motion”).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and the Scheduling Conference set for

March 2, 2012, is vacated and reset to April 12, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom A-401,

Fourth Floor, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado

80294. The proposed Scheduling Order, submitted pursuant to District of Colorado ECF

Procedures V.4.0., is due on or before April 5, 2012. Please remember that anyone seeking

entry into the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse will be required to show a valid photo

identification. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.2B.

DATED: February 13, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB Document 42 Filed 02/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02576-WYD-MEH

CALVIN LYNIOL ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOCTOR DAVID ALLRED, Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Employee,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 8, 2011.

To the extent the Plaintiff sought to file his “Information for Temporary Restraining Order”

as a “motion” in this matter [filed September 30, 2011; docket #3], such request is denied without

prejudice for failure to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 65.1A, which requires applications for

temporary restraining order to be filed as separate motions. The “Information” sheet filed by the

Plaintiff is meant to accompany any such motion for temporary restraining order. See D.C. Colo.

LCivR 65.1C. No motion seeking a temporary restraining order, other than the “Information for

Temporary Restraining Order,” has been filed in this case.

Case 1:11-cv-02576-WYD-MEH Document 20 Filed 11/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 11-CV-02619-RBJ-KLM

MINDY BURTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

POWELL LAW OFFICE, P.C., 

Defendant.

ORDER TO SET SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The parties are ordered to set an initial 

scheduling conference in this Court (with Judge Jackson) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 

D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 no later than 45 days after all responsive pleadings are filed. Each 

party’s lead trial counsel shall attend the conference. The conference shall be held in Courtroom 

A-702, Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. The parties are 

directed to jointly contact Mary DeRosa by telephone at (303) 844-4694 or by email at 

Jackson_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov to obtain a scheduling conference date. 

A meeting for the purposes of attempting to agree on a scheduling order and satisfying 

the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) should be held no later than 21 days before the 

proposed scheduling order is tendered. The proposed scheduling order, which should be 

prepared as described in Appendix F to the local rules, should be tendered no later than five days 

before the scheduling conference. The proposed scheduling order should set forth the parties’

agreement or their respective positions on the matters set forth in Appendix F. A copy of 

instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form scheduling order can be 

downloaded from the Court’s website (http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx).

DATED this 12th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02619-RBJ Document 2 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         209,697
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,356,899
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               581,317
<PP&E>                                       1,018,844
<DEPRECIATION>                               (285,664)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,881,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,451,969
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       276,564
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    872,543
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,719,983)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,881,093
<SALES>                                      6,767,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,767,120
<CGS>                                        3,693,525
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,693,525
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,093,904
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,560
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,082,869)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,082,869)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,082,869)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00325

- CR

R OBERT E VERETT W INSETT

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 372nd District Court

of Tarrant County (1488017D)

May 23, 2019

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment

of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
FINANCIAL STATEMENT INCLUDED IN THIS QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             353,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,079,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,851,000
<INVENTORY>                                      2,102,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,963,000
<PP&E>                                             638,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     129,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,721,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,796,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            44,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,881,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,721,000
<SALES>                                          9,931,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,931,000
<CGS>                                            9,557,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,557,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,410,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  84,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,175,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,175,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,175,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.27)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1420 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1420

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require staff working 
with developmentally disabled individuals to call emergency services in 
               the event of a life-threatening situation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 17, 2007

Mr. Menendez (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require staff working 
with developmentally disabled individuals to call emergency services in 
               the event of a life-threatening situation.

    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 ``Danielle's Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT OF STAFF WORKING WITH DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED 
              INDIVIDUALS TO CALL EMERGENCY SERVICES IN THE EVENT OF A 
              LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION.

    (a) Requirement.--Section 1902(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1396a(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (69), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (70), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (70) the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(71) provide, in accordance with regulations of the 
        Secretary, that direct care staff providing health-related 
        services to an individual with a developmental disability or 
        traumatic brain injury are required to call the 911 emergency 
        telephone service or equivalent emergency management service 
        for assistance in the event of a life-threatening emergency to 
        such individual and to report such call to the appropriate 
        State agency or department.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) take 
effect on January 1, 2008.
                                 <all>
```