alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Somsak Chivavibul,
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 Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-5 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my
knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing
and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, 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: Xerox Education Services, LLC, as subservicer, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.

[Signature Page Follows]



---

|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2016                 
|                                     
|/s/ SOMSAK CHIVAVIBUL                
|Somsak Chivavibul                    
|President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Senior Securitization Officer)      
|Navient Funding, LLC
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
    1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)), and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the
dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
 Date: May 8, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Ronald E. Hermance, Jr.Ronald E. Hermance, Jr.Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 8, 2009
    By:
    /s/ James C. KranzJames C. KranzExecutive Vice President 
and Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20327

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

FERNANDO LOPEZ-TRUJILLO

Defendant - Appellant

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-785-1

--------------------

February 5, 2003

Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fernando Lopez-Trujillo appeals his conviction for

reentering the United States without permission after deportation

following an aggravated felony. Lopez argues that the district

court should have suppressed his prior administrative deportation

because, at the time of his deportation, the Board of Immigration

Affairs had held that a single conviction for possession of a

controlled substance, which is a federal misdemeanor, was not an
No. 02-20327

-2-

aggravated felony. He recognizes that his argument is foreclosed

by this court’s decision in United States v. Hernandez-Avalos,

251 F.3d 505, 509-10 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 305

(2001), but states that he raises it to preserve it for further

review.

In Hernandez-Avalos, this court reaffirmed its holding in

United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir.

1997), that the term “drug trafficking crime” includes a crime

that is a felony “under either state or federal law.” 251 F.3d

at 508. Consequently, the district court did not err in

admitting into evidence his prior administrative deportation.

Lopez also argues that the Sentencing Commission has chosen

a narrower definition of “drug trafficking” than this court’s

former interpretation of “drug trafficking” in 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(43)(B), and, therefore, his prior conviction for simple

possession of drugs is not a “drug trafficking offense” under

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) or an “aggravated felony” under

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). He recognizes that we have held in

United States v. Caicedo-Cuero, No. 02-20751, 2002 WL 31521599

(5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2002), that a previous state conviction for

simple possession of narcotics is an “aggravated felony” under

the November 2001 Guidelines. However, he states that he wishes

to preserve this issue for further review. 

Lopez is correct that his argument was recently rejected by

this court in Caicedo-Cuero. 2002 WL 31521599, *8, *11.
No. 02-20327

-3-

Accordingly, the district court did not err in overruling Lopez’s

objection to the eight-level enhancement imposed for his prior

felony conviction for possession of cocaine. The judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
#### STATE ex rel. Bladimir Antonio Lazo OROZCO v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2435.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 29, 2010.

In re Orozco, Bladimir Antonio Lazo; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 01-06-0416; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW1430.

Denied.
Exhibit 99.4


                        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 Quarterly Report of Liberty Property Limited
Partnership (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, GEORGE J. ALBURGER, JR., Chief Financial Officer
of Liberty Property Trust (the sole general partner of Liberty Property
Limited Partnership), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
based on my knowledge:

	(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 result of operations
of the Company.



/s/ GEORGE J. ALBURGER, JR.
-----------------------------------
George J. Alburger, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from consolidated financial
statements for the period ending June 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           27577
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    25332
<ALLOWANCES>                                       420
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 58081
<PP&E>                                          600435
<DEPRECIATION>                                   87330
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  698205
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            34365
<BONDS>                                         333652
<COMMON>                                           361
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      307755
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    698205
<SALES>                                          55683
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 55683
<CGS>                                            62757
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    62757
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   367
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               16071
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19426)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (6190)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13236)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    715
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (12521)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.42)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2010

p1018 

# Order

October 26, 2010

141117

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141117 COA: 294725 Wayne CC: 00-003536 DAWAIN POPE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 31, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

D AVIS 

### , J., not participating. I recuse myse lf and am not participating because I was on the Court of Appeals panel in this case. See MCR 2.003(B).
585 A.2d 354

#### NANCY MacCLUGGAGE WHITE v. CYNTHIA HOWARD AND AGENCY RENT-A-CAR, INC. AND CYNTHIA HOWARD AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY AND AGENCY RENT-A-CAR.

July 17, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 240 *N.J.Super.*427, 573 A.2d 513)
585 A.2d 385

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BARBARA ANN PULERO.

October 2, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Somsak Chivavibul,
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 Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-2 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my
knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing
and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, 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: Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc., as subservicer, Xerox Education Services, LLC, as subservicer, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.



|                                                                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2015                                                                                        
|                                                                                                            
|/S/ SOMSAK CHIVAVIBUL                                                                                       
|Somsak Chivavibul
President and Chief Financial Officer (Senior Securitization Officer)
Navient Funding, LLC
#### P. W. Gallagher & Co. v. Chas. Heidenheimer & Co.

(No. 1811.)

Error from Gonzales County.

Opinion by

"White, P. J.

§ 574. *Pleading; general demurrer; effect of; case stated.*Heidenheimer & Co. sued Gallagher & Co. upon a draft, purporting to have been accepted by said Gallagher & Co. The petition alleged that the firm of Gallagher & Co. was composed of P. W. Gallagher and W. D. W. Peck. Peck pleaded: 1. General denial. 2. Denial of partnership with Gallagher, and *non est factum.*which plea was duly sworn to. 3. A special plea alleging a limited partnership with Gallagher, and that under the terms thereof he was not liable for this debt. A general demurrer to all these pleas was sustained by the court, and judgment was rendered against Gallagher & Co. and Peck individually for the plaintiffs’ debt, interest and costs. *Held:*1. The plea of *non est factum*and denial of partnership was properly verified by affidavit, and upon its face was a good plea. [R. S. art. 1265.] Even if it was defective in form, such defect could not be reached by a general demurrer. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 698, 792.] 2. There can be no question but that the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to the general denial. The rule is well settled that a general demurrer will not reach a general denial. *[Ante,*§ 491; Bedwell v. Thompson, 25 Tex. Sup. 245.] 3. The special answer, though defective in form, perhaps, presented a valid defense, and was not obnoxious to a general demurrer. A pleading for the want of specific averments *507may be bad on special exception, yet if it states, though in terms too general, a cause of action or-defense, *prima*facie, an exception to it, which does not point out specifically the defect, should be overruled. [R. R. Co. v. Montier, 61 Tex. 122; W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 1, 71, 693, 792.]

March 7, 1885.

Reversed and remanded.
EXHIBIT 32.2


HERITAGE OAKS BANCORP

Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB
for the Quarter ended June 30, 2004



                                  CERTIFICATION

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


         The  undersigned,  who is the Chief Financial  Officer of Heritage Oaks
Bancorp (the  "Company"),  hereby  certifies,  pursuant to 18 USC Section  1350,
that,  to my knowledge,  (i) the Quarterly  Report on Form 10QSB for the quarter
ended June 30, 2004,  as filed by the Company with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission (the "Quarterly Report"),  to which this Certification is an Exhibit,
fully  complies with the applicable  requirements  of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of
the Exchange Act; and (ii) the  information  contained in this Quarterly  Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



Dated:  August 9,  2004                 /s/ Margaret A. Torres
                                        ----------------------------
                                        Margaret A. Torres
                                        Executive Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Heritage Oaks Bancorp, and will be
retained by Heritage Oaks Bancorp and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
85/85/2814 81:43 5106386263 BLB CONSULTING ING PAGE 01/82

BLB SE RSH Pelee Laden Hnagement Consng,

a i
cy. ff P.O. Box 521
7 Phone: (610) 638-8263—Fax: (510) 635-9053 Alameda, CA 94501
Principal Advisor io
i

| 03 May 2014

i
4
4

SERVED VIA FAX AND U.S. F: CLASS MAIL: (202) 653-7130

William D. Spencer

I
Clerk of the Board i mes
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Zen
1615 M Street, NW I o= Rm
Washington, D.C. 20419 i tas
4 = ©
Re: Comments Concerning the Béard’s Proposed Rule a Ss

Regarding Jurisdiction

ee %

co

Proposed Rule 5 C.F.R. §1201,56(d)
77 FR 62350 ;

Dear Clerk of the Board: i
4 i

The undersigned is the principal advisor for BLB Consulting, Inc., for over 25
years, under which we exclusively represent federal employees in administrative
complaints, appeals and claims. t

i
BLB Consulting supports a fetleral register interpretation of proposed rule at §
1201.56(d), that requires the Administrative Judge (AJ) to inform the parties of the proof
required as to the issue of jurisdiction, the timeliness of the appeal, and affirmative
defenses. 77 FR 62350, See Burgess v. Merit Systems Protections Board, 758 F.2d 641,
643-44 (Fed, Cir. 1985) (an appellant must receive explicit information on what is
required to establish an appealable jurisdictional issue).

In this regard, the federal agerley ‘is generally an interested and opposing party in
an employee Board appeal, under which it does not have authority nor the legal obligation
to determine the burdens of proof on i juitisdictional dispute, as [an] interested party [to]
the outcome of the case; unlike the Ai, who is not an interested or an opposing party to
the matter. This avoids the appeararle, if not actual, ‘conflict of interest’ in the case of
an AJ relying on the agency to issue d prdper Burgess notice in a motion to dismiss or
i]
H
‘Professional Adelinitialing Paavices and Acdoios

i


85/85/2014 1:43 5186386263 BLB CONSULTING INC PAGE 02/82
i
|
|
otherwise. |
Accordingly, based on the Bard's proposed rule on jurisdiction, explicit

information concerning what is required'to establish appellant burden of proof in an
appeal, should come exclusively from the AJ. Any Board decisions that allow, e.g., an
agency’s motion to dismiss to inform the appellant of what he or she has to allege to
establish his/her burden of proof should be overruled, like Bradley y. U.S. Post Service,
96 M.S.P.R. 539, J 10 (2004); Gonzitled v. US. Postal Service, 77 M.S.P.R. 382, 386
(1998). Similarly, the AJ should be tequired to issue a 1201,56(d) notice prior to the
issuance of an initial decision (ID), Overiuling cases like Scott v. Department of Justice,
105 M.S.P.R. 482, J 6 (2007); thus, affording the appellant an opportunity to develop
(through discovery or otherwise) and meét his/her jurisdictional burden prior to an appeal.

ce: File

i
i
i
j
j
1
a
i
i
i
|
i
4
584 A.2d 206

#### CATHERINE LITTLE v. TECHBESTOS, INC.

May 1, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                               HMN FINANCIAL, INC.

                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 Quarterly Report of HMN Financial, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael McNeil,
President of the Company, and Jon Eberle, Senior Vice President and CFO of the
Company, 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 result of operations
            of the Company.

Date: May 10, 2004               /s/ Michael McNeil
                                -----------------------------------------------
                                Michael McNeil,
                                President/Chief Executive Officer
                                (Principal Executive Officer)

                                 /s/ Jon Eberle
                                -----------------------------------------------
                                Jon Eberle,
                                Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
                                (Principal Financial Officer)