alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(LOGO) KPMG Peat Marwick LLP 
            750 B Street 
            San Diego, CA 92101


                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

The Board of Directors
Wells Fargo and Company:

We have examined the accompanying Management's Report on Compliance with Minimum
Servicing  Standards  (management's  assertion)  about Wells Fargo and Company's
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE
BANKERS  (USAP) as of and for the year ended  December 31, 1996.  Management  is
responsible  for  Wells  Fargo  and  Company's  compliance  with  those  minimum
servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis, evidence about Wells Fargo and Company's compliance
with the minimum servicing  standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on Wells Fargo and Company's  compliance  with the minimum
servicing standards.

In our opinion,  management's  assertion  that Wells Fargo and Company  complied
with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended
December 3l, 1996 is fairly stated in all material respects.



February 17,1997                                 /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



               Member Firm of
               Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1416 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1416

To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States and to 
 repeal the prohibition on treaty obligations establishing grounds for 
                            certain claims.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 2007

Mr. Nadler (for himself, Ms. Harman, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Jackson-Lee of 
Texas, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and Ms. Lee) introduced 
    the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 
 Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States and to 
 repeal the prohibition on treaty obligations establishing grounds for 
                            certain claims.

    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 ``Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THOSE DETAINED BY THE UNITED 
              STATES.

    (a) In General.--Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by striking subsection (e).
    (b) Title 10.--Section 950j of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
    ``(b) Limited Review of Military Commission Procedures and 
Actions.--Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or in section 
2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court, justice, or judge 
shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of 
action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the 
date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating 
to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under 
this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of 
military commissions under this chapter.''.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON TREATY OBLIGATIONS ESTABLISHING 
              GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS.

    The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366) is 
amended by striking section 5.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY.

    The amendments made by this Act shall--
            (1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; 
        and
            (2) apply to any case that is pending on or after the date 
        of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1335 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 508 East Main Street in Seneca, South Carolina, as the ‘‘S/Sgt Lewis G. Watkins Post Office Building’’. 

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

•HR 1335 EH

1 SECTION 1. S/SGT LEWIS G. WATKINS POST OFFICE BUILD2 ING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 508 East Main Street in Seneca, 

5 South Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘S/ 

6 Sgt Lewis G. Watkins Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘S/Sgt Lewis G. Wat11 kins Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1335 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostWatkins Post Office Building’’. Seneca, South Carolina, as the ‘‘S/Sgt Lewis G. al Service located at 508 East Main Street in
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              COMMENDING STUDENTS FROM WAIAKEA HIGH SCHOOL

                                 ______

                           HON. PATSY T. MINK

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, June 7, 1995
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, today I want to recognize the 
stellar performance of Waiakea High School students from Hilo, HI in 
the We the People--The Citizen and the Constitution national 
competition. The outstanding performance of these students against 49 
other schools from across the Nation demonstrated a thorough grasp of 
the fundamental principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.
  I commend the Waiakea High School students and their teacher, Patrick 
Marquart for their commitment and dedication to learning about the 
freedoms and responsibilities which the Constitution and Bill of Rights 
bestows on us all. The district coordinator, Helen Kobayashi, and the 
State coordinator, Sharon Kaohi also contributed a significant amount 
of time and effort to help the team reach the national finals.
  The We the People program, supported and funded by Congress, is the 
most extensive educational program in the country developed 
specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the 
Bill of Rights. The 3-day national competition simulates a 
congressional hearing in which students' oral presentations are judged 
on the basis of their knowledge of constitutional principles and their 
ability to apply them to historical and contemporary issues.
  This program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain 
an informed perspective of the significance of the U.S. Constitution 
and its place in our history and our lives. I am proud of Waiakea High 
School's achievement in reaching the national finals, and of their 
outstanding performance in the national competition.
  My congratulations to: Elijah Clark, Brienne Colton, Deborah Dacallo, 
Lannis Enriques, Jeffrey Fuke, Chatney Gram, Rhiannon Kauwa, Ian 
Kawamoto, Joy Kobayashi, Janelle Kuroda, Christine Miyasaki, Jill 
Nagashima, Celina Nelson, Shane Okimoto, Brandon Tenn, Malia Uyehara, 
and Kristy Yamamoto.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Jennifer M. Davis, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect
of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2011-4 (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. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed
by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer 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 its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; 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: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.



/s/ Jennifer M. DavisName:

Jennifer M. DavisTitle:

Deputy Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 29, 2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          14,346
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          17,156
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     57,255
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        725,677
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 858,934
<DEPOSITS>                                     635,969
<SHORT-TERM>                                    51,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             10,848
<LONG-TERM>                                     85,170
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 858,934
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 14,457
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  962
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   204
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                15,622
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,053
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,069
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,553
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      150
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  64
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,424
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,701
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,716
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.32
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,391
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,127
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,129
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      264
<RECOVERIES>                                        15
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,030
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,336
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            694
        

</TABLE>
#### Raymond Charles CREASON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; Joseph Pickelsimer, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 00-6930.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 8, 2000.

Decided Jan. 5, 2001.

*122Raymond Charles Creason, pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Charles Creason appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed .R.App.P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)). Parties to civil actions are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal. *See*Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal upon a motion made within thirty days of the appeal period, *see*Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period upon a motion filed within 180 days of the judgment, or within seven days of the receipt of notice, whichever is earlier, *see*Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on October 5, 1999. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on April 19, 2000, which is beyond both the thirty-day appeal period and the 180-day period within which to move the district court to reopen the appeal period. Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
583 A.2d 345

#### REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

March 26, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
News United States Air Force
 Battlefield Airmen pay tribute to fallen commanderPublished April 20, 2016
                        
                        By Senior Airman Ryan Callaghan
                        
                        
                        23rd Wing Public Affairs
                **AVON PARK AIR FORCE RANGE, Fla. (AFNS) --**
                More than 200 Airmen from the 93rd Air Ground Operations Wing gathered here April 15 to mourn and pay tribute to Lt. Col. William Schroeder, who was fatally shot a week before.Schroeder, the 342nd Training Squadron commander at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, Texas, was killed after an incident of workplace violence April 8. Schroeder was well-known throughout the tactical air control party community and served alongside many of the Airmen assigned to the 93d AGOW.“As I was reading all the stories that have been posted about him this week, the three words that kept coming up were: leader, mentor and friend,” said Lt. Col. Kenneth Ferland, the 18th Weather Squadron commander. “The last act he made as a leader was to take care of his Airmen, at all costs.”Col. Joseph Locke, the 93rd AGOW commander, read an excerpt written by a friend of Schroeder’s, which elaborated on the incident and painted a picture of heroism.“Bill shielded his first sergeant,” Locke said. “He got her out of harm’s way and then actively engaged the shooter. Bill went out swinging; his actions undoubtedly saved lives. His immediate, aggressive, and selfless response reflects the very essence of what warriors aspire to be.”The memorial was held at the end of a weeklong exercise, which brought together TACPs from across the country.“We’ve spent a week here refining combat skills and preparing to face an enemy in combat and yet, occasionally, we find that enemy here at home,” Locke said. “Bill faced it in an instant. I can’t think of a higher aspiration for each and every one of us to be, and I hope that each of us will have the courage that he had in that moment of truth.”The ceremony ended with the playing of taps and memorial pushups, a tradition that honors the fallen in the TACP community.“I think it’s important that we mourn, but I think it’s more important to pay tribute,” Ferland said. “Gen. George Patton said it best: ‘It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived.’”memorial 



Avon Park Air Force Range 



TACP
#### N.R., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 5D08-4328, 5D08-4329.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Dec. 4, 2009.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Allison A. Havens, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PALMER, J.

N.R. appeals the final orders entered by the trial court adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to a high-risk, level 10 commitment program, rejecting the Department of Juvenile Justice’s (DJJ) recommended sentence of Level 6, moderate-risk commitment program. As the State properly concedes, reversal is required.

The Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in *E.A.R. v. State, 4*So.3d 614 (Fla.2009), while this appeal was in the pipeline. In that case, the Supreme Court set forth a more rigorous analysis for a trial court to follow before it can depart from DJJ’s recommendation regarding placement. Understandably, the trial court’s explanation for departing from the recommendation of the DJJ is not in accordance with this newly articulated standard. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the entry of an order which complies with the requirements of *E.A.R.*

REVERSED and REMANDED.

MONACO, C.J. and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alain NDONG-NTOUTOUM, a/k/a “Niang Moussa,” Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-1329.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 16, 2001.

Joseph V. De Marco, Assistant United States Attorney, New York, NY; Mary Jo White, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Baruch Weiss, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief, for appellee.

Alexander E. Eisemann, New York, NY, for appellant.

Present JACOBS, LEVAL and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the *89district court be, and it hereby is, AFFIRMED.

Alain Ndong-Ntoutoum (“Ntoutoum”) appeals from his conviction after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sprizzo, J.) on one count of bank fraud arising out of his deposit of a counterfeit check into an account under his control. Ntoutoum argues that (i) the district court committed reversible error by receiving into evidence certain pre-and post-arrest statements that were arguably taken in violation of Ntoutoum’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and (ii) the district court abused its discretion when it denied Ntout-oum’s motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 29, to dismiss on the ground that the government failed to present adequate proof that the bank from which the proceeds of the check would have been withdrawn was insured by the FDIC.

With respect to Ntoutoum’s statements, the other evidence against him so powerfully proved his guilt that, even assuming the statements should not have been received, the error would be harmless. With respect to the federally insured status of the defrauded bank, we find no merit in Ntoutoum’s contention that the government was obligated to prove the insured status of the drawee bank (Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.) rather than the bank (Chase Manhattan) in which the defendant sought to deposit the counterfeit check, or his contention that the federally insured status of Chase was not adequately proved.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
#### STATE ex rel. Thomas WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0133.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Williams, Thomas; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial *22Writs, Parish of Lasalle, 28th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 8783.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
Exhibit 10.12


 


	
  

  	
  memorandum
from Jeffrey R. Cramer

  President & CEO

  
	
  

  	
   

  



 


 


	
  Date

  	
   

  	
  November 12,
  2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  To

  	
   

  	
  Edward P.
  Smoot

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  cc

  	
   

  	
  David Orr,
  Chairman of the Compensation Committee

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Subject

  	
   

  	
  Part-Time
  Employment Agreement

  



 


 


As approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors,
you will be a part-time employee of Anacomp, Inc. for fiscal year 2003.  You have agreed to work ten (10) hours per
pay period and be paid $1923.06 bi-weekly ($50,000.00 per year).  You will work on special projects assigned
by the President and Chief Executive Officer, including matters such as:
acquisitions and divestures, banking and investor issues.  In the event that you work in excess of ten
(10) hours in a pay period, you will be paid at an hourly rate commensurate
with your bi-weekly pay.  You will not
be eligible for vacation accrual, holiday pay or any other employee
benefits.  You will be subject to all
policies contained in Anacomp’s Employee Handbook.


 


This letter agreement may only be modified by mutual written agreement
between the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors and yourself.  This letter agreement shall be governed by
the laws of the State of California, without regard to its conflict of laws.


 


Please sign below to indicate your acceptance of the terms and
conditions of this letter agreement.


 


 


	
   

  	
  Best
  regards,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Jeffrey
  R. Cramer

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Jeffrey R.
  Cramer

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  President
  and CEO

  



 


AGREED TO AND
ACCEPTED:


 


	
  Reply

  	
  (858)
  848-5701

  	
  Fax:  (858) 679-8359

  	
  E-mail: jcramer@anacomp.com

  



 

















 


	
   

  	
  /s/ Edward P. Smoot

  	
   

  	
  Nov 12, 02

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Edward P.
  Smoot

  	
   

  	
  Date

  



 


2