alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 35.1

                          SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
                     PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

                          FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA


                                                            Date: March 28, 2008

         The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of First National Bank of
Omaha (the "Servicer"), pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB and Section
3.05(a) of the Second Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
as of October 24, 2002, among First National Funding LLC, as Transferor, First
National Bank of Omaha, as Servicer, and The Bank of New York Trust Company,
N.A., as successor trustee to The Bank of New York, as Trustee, as amended (the
"Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), does hereby certify that:

         1. A review of the activities of the Servicer from January 1, 2007
through December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") and of its performance under
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

         2. To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in
all material respects throughout the Reporting Period except as described below:

                  In February of 2007, the Transferor Interest fell below the
         Minimum Transferor Interest and the Servicer failed to deposit the
         Transferor's share of daily collections and certain amounts otherwise
         distributable to the Holder of the Transferor's Interest to the Excess
         Funding Account as required by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The
         Transferor's Interest was restored to the required level by an account
         addition on March 1, 2007 and the parties to the privately-placed VFN
         Series 2003-3, VFN Series 2004-1, VFN Series 2006-1 and VFN Series
         2006-2 notes and Series 2005-1 certificates waived the default.




<PAGE>


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this Servicer Compliance Statement
the day and year first written above.

                                              FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA, as
                                              Servicer



                                              By    /s/ Timothy D. Hart
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                    Timothy D. Hart
                                                    Senior Vice President
389 A.2d 181

#### Commonwealth v. Strickler, Appellant.

*546Submitted June 13, 1977.

Paul W. Brann, Public Defender, for appellant;

James F. McClure, Jr., for Commonwealth, appellee.

Order vacated and case remanded for a new hearing.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### Billy Frederick ALLEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 48625.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 26, 1974.

*54James P. Finstrom, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty. and Richard W. Wilhelm, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

This is an appeal from conviction for robbery; punishment was assessed at fifteen years.

By his first and fourth grounds of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new trial and in denying him compulsory process for a witness at the hearing on the motion for new trial. The record reflects that appellant was tried and judgment entered in July of 1970. His original motion for new trial was filed July 30, 1970. Under the provisions of Article' 40.05, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., this motion was overruled by operation of law twenty days thereafter. There is no showing in the record that any extension of time was granted or that good cause for any extension existed. Neither the trial court’s action in overruling the amended motion for new trial nor process for attendance of witnesses for the hearing on said motion is before us for review where it appears from the record that said motion was filed *over two years*after conviction. See St. Jules v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 438 S.W.2d 568.

Appellant next contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the in-court identifications by witnesses Ruiz and Cole. Following a pretrial hearing on the motion to suppress, the court denied the motion and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. After reviewing the evidence, we find the trial court’s decision is fully supported by the .record. It appears that three photographic displays and one line-up were conducted in the investigation of this case. The first photographic display contained no photograph of appellant. At the second display a tentative identification was made, but the witnesses were not positive because of the poor quality of the picture. Identification was positive at the third display and also at the line-up, at which counsel for the accused was present. Each identification by each witness was made in the absence of the other. No suggestion was made by the investigating officers regarding who, if any of the persons in the line-up, were suspects in the case. The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that the identifications were untainted and admissible.

Appellant’s remaining contention is that the court erroneously overruled his special requested charge for an instruction under Article 38.23, V.A.C.C.P., with respect to the identification testimony. He cites no authority for the application of that article to in-court identifications. By its own terms it applies to illegally obtained evidence. We hold that in-court identifications are not within the scope of Article 38.23, supra.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 3.5



STATE of DELAWARE

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

CERTIFICATE of FORMATION



|First:  | The name of the limited liability company is ATT Southern LLC.                                                                                                                                      
|------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|        |                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|Second: | The address of its registered office in the State of Delaware is:                                                                                                                                   
|        |                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|        | 251 Little Falls Drive, New Castle County, Wilmington, Delaware 19808-1674.                                                                                                                         
|        |                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|        | The name of its registered agent at such address is Corporation Service Company.                                                                                                                    
|        |                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|Third:  | The existence of the limited liability company shall continue until cancellation of its Certificate of Formation.                                                                                   
|        |                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|Fourth: | Management of the limited liability company is vested in a board of managers as provided in a limited liability company agreement as the same may be adopted, amended or restated from time to time.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned hereby executes this Certificate of Formation of ATT Southern LLC, on this 30th day of January, 2019.



| | /s/ Jennifer Adamy | 
| | ------------------ | 
| | Authorized Person  | 
| | Jennifer Adamy     |
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Honorable A. J. Luokett County Attorney coma1 County llewBraunfels, Texas Dear Sir: Rer Uould /ts a deed

eque8ting the opinion of thir depar question reads aa iollous c County Clerk of

attestation aats to be exeauted bj peraonr rubjeat-to mill.- tary “lav.“’ “Vernon*8 Texas Statute8 OD the artiale governing persons eligible to tak;lw aaknowledgments doea not lmalude U. 9. AnagOifioials a8 notaries publIa.

### 104

Honorable A. J. Luck&t, page 2

“The speaifia question that I vould apprealate your ansveMng is as foll0Vsr ‘Yould an acknowledgment to a deed of aonvegance concernlug real estate taken under the foregoing be a legally suffialent aoknovledgment in the Stat0 or Texas? ‘1 hare not born able to rind satisfaotory Texas authority ORthe &bove questlon.and vould appreoiate your giving maan opinion. Seatlon 1 or Artfclo 6602, Vernon*8 Annotated Clvll Statutes vas.:amended by House Bill Xo. 4, Acts of the 

### 48th bglslature, Hegular Session, 

### 1943. I:

Hoase Bill 30. 4, supra, provides: 

### %cct10n 1. Artlole 6602, Title 115, Chapter 2 of the Revised Civil 3tatutea of Texas of 1925, Is hgreby amendedso as to hereafter read as iollows; g*ArLrtlole6602. OnTheaaknovledgment or proof or an lnstrunmnt or vrlting for record maybe ssrde oft&In this State before : “‘1. A alerk of the dlstrlat Gouzt. “‘2. A judge or olerk of the bounty aourt. 

### "'3. A notary public. ‘Without the State, but within the United Staies or their territories before: “‘1. A alark 0r some oourt 0r record having a seal. “2. A commissioner of deed6 duly appointed under the laws of the State, T;3. A notary publlt. .* 6 *4

### 105

i
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Hickory Tech Corporation (HickoryTech) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Christensen,Chief Financial Officer of HickoryTech, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 
| (1)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of  section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and                 |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| (2)    | The information contained in the Report fairly  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of  operations of HickoryTech. |

 

 
| /s/ David A.  Christensen |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| David A. Christensen      |
| Chief Financial Officer   |
| November 1, 2005     |

 

1

----
#### Glen CORK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46374.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 20, 1972.

Dewey Cox, Jr., Ranger, for appellant.

Emory C. Walton, Dist. Atty., Eastland, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.

The record reflects that appellant on October 7, 1969, plead guilty to the offense of robbery and his punishment was assessed at five (5) years, probated.

One of the terms of his probation was that he “commit no offenses against the laws of this or any other State in the United States”.

On April 17, 1972, the State filed an amended motion to revoke probation alleging, among other things, that appellant had violated the conditions of his probation by driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation for, among other reasons, driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated on April 16, 1972.

At the hearing Highway Patrolman Brewer testified that on the night in question he observed a pickup truck driven by the appellant driving in an erratic manner and brought the same to a halt. He stated that appellant smelled of alcoholic spirits, was unsteady on his feet and expressed the opinion that he was intoxicated and placed him under arrest.

County Judge Bailey testified that appellant appeared before him on April 17, 1972, and plead guilty to the offense of driving while intoxicated.

Appellant contends his plea of guilty to the driving while intoxicated charge was not voluntary and was entered without the benefit of counsel.

Appellant testifying in his own behalf stated that he was unable to employ an at*84torney at the time of his plea of guilty to the charge of driving while intoxicated. He admitted that he “hadn’t drank but maybe a six pack and a half, but I guess it effected my driving.”

Appellant’s probation was not revoked because he was convicted of driving while intoxicated, but because he was guilty of such offense and the same constituted a breach of one of the conditions of his probation. Mitchell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 483 S.W.2d 481, and the cases cited therein.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1


I, Ronald E. Johnson, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q of Mortgage  Assistance
Center Corporation, ("Registrant").

(2) Based on my knowledge,  this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report.

(3)  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

(4)  The  Registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  Registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the  effectiveness  of the  Registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any changes in the  Registrant's  internal  control
over  financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  Registrant's  most recent
fiscal quarter (the Registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely to materially
affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

(5) The Registrant's  other certifying  officers and I have disclosed,  based on
our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting,  to
the Registrant's  auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's  board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the  design or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  Registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.


 Date:  May 20, 2008                 By:  /s/ Ronald E. Johnson
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Ronald E. Johnson
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
Pitney Bowes Credit Corporation - Form 10-Q
Three Months Ended March 31, 1997
Page 16 of 17


<TABLE>
                                                Exhibit (i)
                             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                             -------------------------------------------------


(Dollars in thousands)
<CAPTION>
                                        Three Months Ended 
                                            March 31,                   Years Ended December 31,         
                                        ------------------    -------------------------------------------
                                           1997       1996       1996     1995     1994     1993     1992
                                        -------    -------    -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
<S>                                    <C>        <C>        <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Income before income taxes. . . . . .  $ 66,339   $ 62,057   $266,089 $231,334 $218,913 $189,960 $185,704
                                        -------    -------    -------  -------  -------  -------  -------

Fixed charges:
 Interest on debt . . . . . . . . . .    49,895     50,315    201,543  202,090  151,239  137,372  146,594
 1/3 rental expense . . . . . . . . .       340        412      1,530    1,519    1,463    1,575    1,491
                                        -------    -------    -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
Total fixed charges . . . . . . . . .    50,235     50,727    203,073  203,609  152,702  138,947  148,085
                                        -------    -------    -------  -------  -------  -------  -------

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $116,574   $112,784   $469,162 $434,943 $371,615 $328,907 $333,789
                                        =======    =======    =======  =======  =======  =======  =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed 
 charges (1). . . . . . . . . . . . .     2.32X      2.22X      2.31X    2.14X    2.43X    2.37X    2.25X
                                        =======    =======    =======  =======  =======  =======  =======
<FN>

(1) The ratio of earnings to fixed charges is computed by dividing income before income taxes and fixed charges by fixed charges. 
    Fixed charges consist of interest on debt and one-third rental expense as representative of the interest portion of rentals.

</TABLE>
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1835 

To require a report and audit on the transfer of personnel and functions 

from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 19, 2007 

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. MENENDEZ) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require a report and audit on the transfer of personnel 

and functions from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONDITIONS ON FUNDING TRANSFER OF PER4 SONNEL AND FUNCTIONS FROM FORT MON5 MOUTH, NEW JERSEY. 

6 (a) CONDITIONS.—The Secretary of Defense or the 

7 Secretary of the Army shall not fund the transfer of per8 sonnel or functions from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, 

9 pursuant to the recommendations of the Defense Base 

10 Closure and Realignment Commission contained in the reVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:22 Jul 21, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1835.IS S1835

ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1835 IS

1 port transmitted to Congress on September 15, 2005, 

2 under section 2903(e) of the Defense Base Closure and 

3 Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public 

4 Law 101–510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) until at least 30 days 

5 after the date on which the Comptroller General completes 

6 an audit of a report of the Secretary of Defense stating 

7 that the movement of organizations, functions, or activi8 ties from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen Proving Ground 

9 will be accomplished without disruption of their support 

10 to the global war on terror or other critical contingency 

11 operations and that safeguards exist to ensure that nec12 essary redundant capabilities are put in place to mitigate 

13 potential degradation of such support and to ensure max14 imum retention of critical workforce, as required by the 

15 Commission recommendations. 

16 (b) SUBMISSION OF REPORT.—The report and audit 

17 referred to in subsection (a) shall be submitted to— 

18 (1) the Committee on Armed Services, the 

19 Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 

20 Education and Labor, and the Committee on Over21 sight and Government Reform of the House of Rep22 resentatives; and 

23 (2) the Committee on Armed Services, the 

24 Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 

25 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•S 1835 IS

1 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

2 Affairs of the Senate. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS