alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02635-RPM

DEBRA A. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODNEY D. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Grand County, also known as the

Grand County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff’s Office, and in his individual capacity,

Defendants. 

 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

 

Pursuant to the Stipulated Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice, filed November 15, 2012 [43], it is

ORDERED that plaintiff’s claims are withdrawn and her right to pursue any and all claims that

have or could have arisen out of the underlying subjected matter is waived, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that no funds will be paid to the plaintiff and defendant waives and

releases his claims for fees and costs. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that this civil action is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED: November 15th , 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

__________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02635-RPM Document 44 Filed 11/15/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM Monarch
Community Bancorp, Inc. 
375 North Willowbrook Road 
Coldwater, MI 49036 We consent to
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.
333105546 and Form S-8 No. 333105548) of Monarch Community Bancorp, Inc., of
our report dated February 15, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Monarch Community Bancorp, Inc. included in this Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2006.  -s- Plante & Morse, PLLC Grand Rapids,
Michigan 
February 15, 2007 107
Cmfttf /tffoU-S Fb£T4t £\VSr D^nuor $• -fey/6 ATVWSTdM FILED IN 1 ST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS MAY - 4 2015

CHRISTQP

CLERK PRINE

TftAL fcoM^T £#36 fOuMfe* 8\\ 1^152



### mTN): cfe-nce Michael. n4^s«5k}&ale
60 3ftt0. U Od\?> Sdia VSaadD AiO <*DeR £F AfeAT©vleKTT RsR APPeiLL

### tcwPr ft£ AtO A&neMerJT dM*# -fetfWfi at vMtri CAuk) BvWS

. A fePPegoOWTivte * irte <?We <*- TUt Affeiuwr W/& To ft-TfeOD. do JTho. 3i 2di*> Tite A?teiuvMr w)A6 feocM Wft£&WT*-l\te 4eft£u06

Mew*. ££&* N2u££feD ~K\e "HUM- CsuK lb KAA^s vJIkTloO RfJO^jefl 

### fe6iM^viv^CO\lO>teW^-Tvte AftetUusr \\)foteDib fUPSuETtte /VPPcaL; 60 vAfctelU**- Aa£ CJW&e BU6ii=D lb feUate CAlxJuJ ft#<S c£ *te MV\eS A6 WmJUWTS OoMiOffeL-Ca)v9 &#t> £M6e T>iD EASTS, I3\tt<* /Vk) 

### rf-tep- £EU£\hrO& CAU/mJ &W-S £p V\\£WUe5 Afe APPeviAtJT% towdSeL 

### KtoV e*V£6. c#ft*. GAUluO 9»M^STb &£ Afe&ef uOTWte teu£f k)D LATe£ lHAfO id "Pahs FfWftte ixie #• 1-te ^#mJ&.

tetoiUE vteM2^e ^ ftL£-Kte Maters teCoM) dp Tvte \ta^6(krP-D tOo LATeR'TW^ '2D T*WS Ffcsrvnfe TXTfe TvWWe DP£efc- \\M3


### 1v\e A%al vJdmID ^*We o^d feo fetO-SwrreD *lnH"W*S tcwfcr'S Acawte l^ter Mew "ffte "SuffiatertttL aief^ tedofb *- M»s pete(>[> £P Trie HatfuOS \kft& FiueD *|rw ittVS Coufcr. 

### "WE. AtfeULAiJr riAS -RWionftOtS feJievfet) "Ifel^AL Ccu#T% fefio«& VKi fe&A«> TbTWlS CAtiSe VtaiiieOe*-. £ Uft\fe FbwJD to-zitPPLeMeiCJWL 

### PefeWS MoW> iiO ftiiPStuwriD Tqt. R. AfP. Pfce. Pule. 24. [p W- 

### 'Tfte. A&ATeMaKJT ottseR Hej$-uJ6 i-\eU> oJ fefoMrW 5, 2flES, AS> M,du

P^ujfeHsD. X fl^)E osW feuO)~tte SAffiaAertWL CLEF'S £e£o£0 

### hj fUpawitOTT&TBC.^.^.TPWl. Rule 24.5. 

### DiDSm fefi0\fe'lte SMfl^LeMsJBL Mm&b fcWb R£.TWe AfcAIeMhnJT OpteP-fl^uJfi TD E^PlMJ ArrteLUVTB CowOSel^S &mk)



## nCAM Sew ftefe ^jbTrie M^limta fioW cP ^B^WimiemL

S;2oifcUUL-,-K«FIRSTCOURTOPAPPEALSHOUSTON.TEXASMAY- 42015CHRISTOPHERA.PRINECLERK7700220B&S9OlMAY2015FM1 L1|],i|i|i.|i|ili.i'lillii'i1iliii1liiii1'i>!'ll'i1i11iiilii|i1i
DISTRICT COURT, ARAPAHOE COUNTY, 

COLORADO 

Court Address: 7325 S. Potomac St., Englewood, CO 

80112 

Plaintiff: CS Capital Corp. dba The Invoice Bankers 

Corp. 

Defendants: Local Senior Services, a Nevada corporation, 

and Randy Kalani Fahilga 

Attorney for CS Capital Corp. dba The Invoice Bankers 

Corp.: 

Name: Andrew M. Toft 

Address: 216 16th Street, Suite 1210 

 Denver, CO 80202-5194 

Phone Number: (303) 436-0980 

Fax Number: (303) 436-0983 

E-mail: andrewmtoft@andrewmtoft.com 

Atty.Reg. #12550

S COURT USE ONLY S

Case Number 11CV502 

Division 408 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RETURNS OF 

SERVICE 

THE COURT, having read plaintiff's motion for extension of time file returns of service, 

ORDERS: 

Plaintiff CS Capital Corp. dba The Invoice Bankers Corp. is granted an extension of time 

to and including Friday, July 1, 2011, to file returns of service. 

SO ORDERED this day of 2011 

BY THE COURT: 

________________________________ 

Elizabeth A. Weishaupl 

Arapahoe District Court Judge 

GRANTED The moving party is hereby ORDERED 

to provide a copy of this Order to 

any pro se parties who have entered an 

appearance in this action within 10 days 

from the date of this order. Elizabeth A. Weishaupl 

District Court Judge 

DATE OF ORDER INDICATED ON ATTACHMENT 

EFILED Document 

CO Arapahoe County District Court 18th JD 

Filing Date: May 4 2011 2:07PM MDT 

Filing ID: 37403392 

Review Clerk: N/A

Case 1:11-cv-02357-WYD-MEH Document 3 Filed 09/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 12

- 00582

- CV

ESTATE OF Ellen Jane HENDERSON , Deceased

From the County Court a t Law No

. 1, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- PC

- 0125

Honorable Linda Z. Jones, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 7, 2012

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellant Margaret Jean Fischer, who is pro se, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We

grant the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We order all costs assessed against appellant.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d) (absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.1

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 Salomon Smith Barney Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci                                     Jerry Pascucci Citigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director

March 30, 2007                                        Date

----
ADDENDUM TO LEASE DATED OCTOBER 4, 1991

                                     between
                            S&R Costa (the "Lessor")
                                       and
                           INRAD, Inc. (the "Lessee")

The parties agree to the following terms and conditions:

1.   The Lessor will extend the term of the lease for the existing premises
     (31,042 sq ft) for five years at the fixed rate of $6.30 per square foot.
     The term of the extension is from November 1, 1996 through October 31,
     2001.

2.   The lessee's area of 31,041 square feet represents 44.4003% of the total
     building.

3.   The base rent of $6.30 per square foot is fixed and not to be increased by
     changes in the consumer price index.

4.   The Lessee has the option to renew the lease for one additional term of
     five years at a negotiated rate.

5.   The Lessor, at the Lessor's expense, will install a new roof on the
     Lessee's space by June 30, 1997. The Lessor will also have semi-annual
     preventive maintenance performed on the roof.

6.   The Lessor, at the Lessor's expense, will pave the parking lot by September
     30, 1997.

Agreed to by                           Agreed to by


--------------------------             -----------------------------
S&R Costa                              INRAD, Inc.
NO. 07-06-0447-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	JUNE 5, 2007

	______________________________

	IN THE INTEREST OF M.D.J., M.D.J., AND M.D.J.

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 69TH DISTRICT COURT OF MOORE COUNTY;

	NO. 02-66; HON. DAVID L. GLEASON, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Memorandum Order of Dismissal

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Michael Jones appeals from orders holding him in contempt and revoking his previously suspended commitment.  He seeks to reverse the “contempt finding” and obtain his release by contending that he was denied due process and effective counsel at the hearing.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.  

	An appellate court may not review a contempt order on direct appeal.  Texas Animal Health Comm’n v. Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952-53 (Tex. 1983); In re B.C.C., 187 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Tex. App.–Tyler 2006, no pet.); Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied).  Review occurs through either a petition for writ of habeas corpus or for writ of mandamus depending upon whether the complainant suffers confinement.  Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d at 671.  Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal and dismiss it.

							Brian Quinn 

						          Chief Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1716 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1716

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, 
     and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, to strike a 
               requirement relating to forage producers.

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

SECTION 1. CONTRACT WAIVER.

    The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and 
Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 110-28; 121 
Stat. 112) is amended by striking section 9012.

            Passed the Senate July 25, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1716

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, 
     and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, to strike a 
               requirement relating to forage producers.
```
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge David L. West

Criminal Case No. 11-PO-00149-DLW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. MARK HALPER,

Defendant.

 

ORDER

 

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID L. WEST

The Defendant sent a letter to the Court requesting that he be released from custody to 

perform community service in the State of New York;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s request is DENIED.

DATED: December 4, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/David L. West 

United States Magistrate Judge
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

Pursuant to the filing of the plaintiff’s Notice of Withdrawal of Plaintiff’s Motion to

Compel [229], on August 7, 2013,

IT IS ORDERED that the Okland Construction Company, Inc.’s Motion to Compel

Production of Documents from Defendant The Travelers Indemnity Company of America

and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America [208] is DENIED AS MOOT and the

hearing set for August 8, 2013, is VACATED.

DATED: August 7, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB Document 230 Filed 08/07/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of DirectorsTierOne
Corporation:

We consent to the use of our reports
dated March 10, 2008 with respect to the consolidated statements of financial condition of
TierOne Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders equity and comprehensive
income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2007 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2007, included herein.

As discussed in note 1 to the
consolidated financial statements, effective January 1, 2006, the Company changed its
method of accounting for stock-based benefit plans.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Lincoln, NebraskaMarch 10, 2008
#### THOMPSON v. LEACH & McCLAIN et al.

No. 2478.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Feb. 17, 1943.

For prior opinion, see 11 So.2d 109.

Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Elton A. Darsey, of Houma, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

An application for rehearing was filed in this case on January 23, 1943, and a motion has been filed by the appellee to not entertain or to dismiss the application as having been filed too late. Notice of the judgment of this court was received by counsel for appellant on December 30, 1942, from which date the delay for filing an application for a rehearing is to be counted. Section 24, Article 7, Constitution of 1921.

Under Act 16 of 1910, judgments rendered by this court become final and ex-ecutory on the fifteenth calendar day after rendition (after service of notice under Article of the Constitution supra).

Excluding the day on which the notice was served, fourteen days were allowed in which to file the application. From December 31, 1942 to January 13, 1943, inclusive, was the period in which to file the application. The application was filed some ten days thereafter.

Therefore the application comes too late and it cannot be considered.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

s hould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 95-60463 Summary Calendar

_______________________

JAYA SUNDARA UDAYA,
Petitioner,

versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.

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

(A70-629-603)

_________________________________________________________________ April 17, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jaya Sundara Udaya petitions this court to review the

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his
applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. Jaya Sundara Udaya contends that he established a well-founded fear of
persecution based on his political opinion and his membership in a particular social group, consisting of people who have attempted to

foreswear membership in the terrorist JVP party. We have reviewed-2-

the record, the BIA’s decision, the briefs and determine that the

evidence does not compel reversal of the BIA’s determination. C hun

v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). There is no evidence that

Uda ya made his political opinions known to the JVP or that JVP
attempted to persecute him because of his opinion. G omez-Mejia v.

INS , 56 F.3d 700, 701 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, there is no

evidence that those members who have left the JVP have been
persecuted because of the factors identified in the statute, as
opposed to their breaking the JVP’s rules.

Petition DENIED

.
#### Theodore RUSSELL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 4255.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 1937.

Eugene Meacham, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Howard L. Robinson, U. S. Atty., of Clarksburg, W. Va., and Joe V. Gibson, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Kingwood, W. Va., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant
1

 Plaintiff’s Motion was filed a day after this deadline and therefore violates the court’s

Minute Order. Plaintiff’s prior failures to comply with court-ordered deadlines resulted in the

court entering an Order to Show Cause against her. (See Doc. No. 20.) Nevertheless, the court

proceeds to the substance of Plaintiff’s Motion. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02696–REB–KMT

THERESA L. DOWLING,

Plaintiff,

v. 

BLACK AND MCDONALD/CUSTOM LIGHTING SERVICES, 

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to (Partially) Cancel CM/ECF Due

to Continual Unresoved [sic] Problems.” (Doc. No. 57, filed May 24, 2012.) Plaintiff’s Motion

is ostensibly responsive to the court’s May 9, 2012 Minute Order, which directed Plaintiff to file

a motion no later than May 23, 20121

 demonstrating good cause to support the revocation of her

Electronic Case Filing (ECF) privileges. (Doc. No. 43.) Plaintiff’s Motion, however, seeks only

a partial revocation of her ECF registration and access—specifically, Plaintiff proposes that she

retain her ECF access to file documents electronically, but be served via United States Mail. 

Case 1:11-cv-02696-REB-KMT Document 62 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

The court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion is properly denied. Registration as an ECF

participant “shall constitute consent to electronic service of all documents . . . .” See ECF

Procedures for the District of Colorado (Civil Cases) 3.2C (emphasis added). Thus, a registered

party’s consent to receiving electronic service is part and parcel of their privilege to file

documents electronically. Accordingly, the court is not at liberty, nor is it otherwise inclined, to

grant Plaintiff’s proposed partial revocation of her ECF registration and access.

Additionally, because Plaintiff has not sought to fully revoke her ECF privileges, the

court finds that Plaintiff’s ECF registration and access shall remain in effect. Hereafter, Plaintiff

shall file all documents electronically using the ECF System consistent with ECF Procedure

1.1—unless electronic service is excepted under ECF Procedure 1.2—and will be served

electronically consistent with ECF Procedure 3.2C. In other words, Defendant is no longer

required to serve Plaintiff with any filings via U.S. Mail, nor will the court be serving Plaintiff

via U.S. Mail with paper copies of court-initiated filings.

It is ORDERED 

Plaintiff’s “Motion to (Partially) Cancel CM/ECF Due to Continual Unresoved [sic]

Problems” (Doc. No. 57) is DENIED.

Dated this 30th day of May, 2012.

Case 1:11-cv-02696-REB-KMT Document 62 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,265
<SECURITIES>                                    10,947
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,362
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,948
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,988
<PP&E>                                          15,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,434
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,333
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,276
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           124
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,333
<SALES>                                         18,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,954
<CGS>                                            6,164
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,820
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,754
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,009
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,891
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,891
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
        


</TABLE>
#### Jerry J. PHELAN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
Exhibit 99.1        Officer's Certificate regarding Annual Statement of
                    Compliance of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.

                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

     The undersigned officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies on behalf of the Company
and on his own behalf for purposes of the WAMU MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-AR4, as follows:

     1. I am the duly appointed, qualified and acting President of the Company.

     2. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement related to the
above-referenced series of Certificates.

     3. I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate
on behalf of the Company.

     4. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and performance under this Agreement has been made under my
supervision.

     5. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 15, 2004.





                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.


                     By: /s/ Michael L. Parker
                         Michael L. Parker,
                         President and Director