alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31
CERTIFICATION

Re:	CDC Mortgage Capital Trust 2004-HE2 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2004-HE2, issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated
as of May 1, 2004 (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), among Morgan Stanley
ABS Capital I Inc., as depositor (the "Depositor", CDC Mortgage Capital Inc.,
as unaffiliated seller, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee (the
"Trustee"), and Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, as servicer (the
"Servicer").

I, Craig Phillips, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ("Annual Report"), and
all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports
(collectively with this Annual Report, the "Reports") filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this Annual Report of the Depositor
relating to the above-referenced trust and series of certificates;

2.	Based on my knowledge, the information in the Reports, taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this Annual Report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the Trustee by the Servicer under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement for inclusion in the Reports is included in these Reports;

4.	Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included
in this Annual Report and required to be delivered to the Trustee in accordance
with the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and except as disclosed
in the Reports, the Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Pooling
and Servicing Agreement; and

5.	The Reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
Servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review
in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
or similar procedure, as set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, that
is included in the Reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: the Trustee and the
Servicer.

Date: March 24, 2005
/s/: Craig Phillips
Signature: Craig Phillips
Title: President
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of American Power Conversion Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 26, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard J. Thompson,Senior Vice President, Finance, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| /s/ Richard J. Thompson                                      |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                         |
| Richard J. Thompson                                          |
| Senior Vice President, Finance, and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

May 5, 2006

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of aseparate disclosure document.

----
10211.

#### Blackstock *v.*Jefferson Insurance Agency.

Jenkins, J.

This was a suit upon a promissory note given by the defendant to the plaintiff in payment of a premium upon a fire-insurance policy issued to the defendant and another upon certain buildings and live stock. The defendant admitted signing the note, and that the plaintiff was the legal holder thereof, but denied liability thereon, alleging, that the note was without consideration, for the reason that *643the insurance policy contained the following provision: “The entire policy, unless otherwise provided hy agreement endorsed hereon or added to, shall be void. . . if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership, or if the subject of insurance be a building on ground not owned by the insured in fee simple;" that the title to the property covered by the policy, and the land upon which the buildings were situated, was not in the defendant; and that, by reason of this provision in the policy, he could not have collected anything thereon had the buildings or live stock been destroyed. The only portion of the policy of insurance appearing in the record is the provision quoted from. While there was no proof that the policy was fraudulently procured by virtue of false representations made by the insured, such as might prevent him from setting up such a defense, the undisputed evidence shows that the agent knew at the time the policy was issued the real facts as to ownership. *Held:*While ordinarily a policy of fire insurance, containing such a provision as the one above quoted, is void if the insured be not the.sole and unconditional owner of the property covered by the policy, together with the land upon which the buildings a;re situated *(Phœnix Insurance Co.*v. *Asberry,*95 *Ga.*792 (22 S. E. 717); *Orient Insurance Co.*v. *Williamson,*98 *Ga.*464 (25 S. E. 560); *Williamson*v. *Orient Insurance Co.,*100 *Ga.*791 (28 S. E. 914); *Palatine Insurance Co.*v. *Dickenson,*116 *Ga.*794 ( 43 S. E. 52) ), still, even though the insured be not such sole owner, if the agent of the insurance company knew at the time of the issuance of the policy the real facts as to ownership, the policy would nevertheless be binding, since the company would be estopped, by reason of such knowledge, from setting up the non-compliance of the insured with this condition of the policy. Civil Code (1910), § 2472; *Creech*v. *Richards,*76 *Ga.*36; *Phenix Insurance Co.*v. *Searles,*100 *Ga.*97 (27 S. E. 779) ; *Johnson*v. *Ætna Insurance Co.,*123 *Ga.*404 (51 S. E. 339, 107 Am. St. R. 92) ; *Springfield Fire Insurance Co.*v. *Price,*132 *Ga.*687 (64 S. E. 1074) ; *Athens Mutual Insurance Co.*v. *Ledford,*134 *Ga.*500 (68 S. E. 91). Eor this reason alone the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Decided April 19, 1919.

Appeal; from Jackson superior court—Judge Cobb. Juné -22, 1919.

*Ray & Ray,*for plaintiff in error. *P. Cooley,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001049535
<NAME> CAVALRY BANCORP INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,463
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          77,301
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     10,051
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           6,808
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             6,816
<LOANS>                                        230,334
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,861
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 350,854
<DEPOSITS>                                     246,687
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,464
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,901
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,802
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 350,854
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,281
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  219
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   934
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,434
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,653
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,653
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,781
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       54
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,794
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,211
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,211
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,381
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.86
<LOANS-NON>                                         36
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,804
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        3
<RECOVERIES>                                         6
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,861
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,861
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03952

Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal, without prejudice, as to the following Defendant(s) identified on Schedule A of the 

Complaint:

NO. DEFENDANT

256 oceanmall

320 Cooloh Bike

407 Quanzhou Balune Bags Co.,Ltd.

394 Outddor Camping Accessories Store

553 sz_saien

527 outdoor_tops

530 pilgrim001

DATED: August 24, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt (Bar No. 6207971)

Keith Vogt, Ltd.

111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: 312-675-6079

E-mail: keith@vogtip.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case: 1:20-cv-03952 Document #: 26 Filed: 08/24/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:9311
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document was electronically filed on August 24, 2020 with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system, which will automatically send an email notification of such filing to all registered 

attorneys of record.

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt

Case: 1:20-cv-03952 Document #: 26 Filed: 08/24/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:9312
#### Letebirhan Naizghi GEZEHNE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-74144.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 15, 2004.

Bart Klein, Law Offices of Bart Klein, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, OIL, Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

*593Before GOODWIN, ALARCÓN and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Letebirhan Naizghi Gezehne, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. *478, 481,*112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA’s finding that petitioner failed to establish persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of an enumerated ground is supported by substantial evidence. *See id.*at 481 n. 1,112 S.Ct. at 815 n. 1 (“To reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it.”). Because petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because the BIA failed to address Gezehne’s contention that the IJ erred in designating Eritrea as an alternate country of removal, we remand under *INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam) to permit the BIA to conduct further proceedings consistent with *El Himri v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 932, 938-39 (9th Cir.2004).

We deny Gezehne’s request for attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 without prejudice to its renewal upon proper application.

See 28 U.S.C § 2414(d)(1)(B); 9th Cir. R. 39-1.6, 39-2.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; REMANDED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Charles Humphrey *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 2-275A41.

Filed October 22, 1975.]

*300
      *Stephen J. Cuthbert,*of Lafayette, for appellant.

*Theodore L. Sendak,*Attorney General, *Robert F. Alden,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam

Pursuant to Indiana Rules of Procedure for Post-Conviction Remedies, Rule 2, Humphrey appeals his Second Degree Burglary conviction. His attack is directed solely to the sufficiency of the evidence.

We affirm.

The evidence of record, together with the inferences which might be reasonably drawn therefrom discloses:

On August 28, 1973, an automatic alarm system was activated alerting Lafayette police that the Arth Drug Store in Lafayette was being entered. Several police cars immediately *301responded to the radio dispatch, and the arriving officers noticed that the front doors had been pried open.

Several officers entered the store and found Humphrey behind the counter holding an empty drug bottle with numerous other drugs strewn around him. A tire tool was lying directly beside him on the floor. The drug cabinet from which the drugs had been taken evidenced that it had been forced open.

The store manager who was called to the scene testified that he had previously closed and locked all the doors and set the alarm system. When he arrived, he noticed that the front door had been forced open. A subsequent investigation revealed that 37 Dilaudid tablets (an opium derivative) were missing.

The elements of second degree burglary are: (1) breaking (.2) and entering (3) into a building or structure other than a dwelling house or place of human habitation (4) with intent to commit a felony therein. *Cook*v. *State*(1972), 258 Ind. 667, 284 N.E.2d 81; *Reas*v. *State*(1975), 163 Ind. App. 316, 323 N.E.2d 274; *Gorbett*v. *State*(1974), 162 Ind. App. 164, 318 N.E.2d 592.

It is well settled that felonious intent at the time of the entry may be inferred from acts committed after entry. *Farno*v. *State*(1974), 159 Ind. App. 627, 308 N.E.2d 724; *Smith*v. *State*(1971), 256 Ind. 603, 271 N.E.2d 133.

The evidence in the present case amply supports a reasonable inference that Humphrey forcibly entered the building with intent to commit a felony. *Chappell*v. *State*(1972), 258 Ind. 537, 282 N.E.2d 810.

*302
      *301Defendant’s further contention that the value of the missing Dilaudid tablets was not proved to be more than $100.00 and *302could not therefore be a felony need not be considered for he fails to support such contention by citation of any authority. Ind. Rules of Procedure, AP. 8.3 (A) (7). In any event, such contention is wholly without merit. *Young*v. *State*(1970), 254 Ind. 379, 260 N.E.2d 572.

The judgment is affirmed.

Note. — Reported at 335 N.E.2d 629.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       146,848,292
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             146,848,292
<CASH>                                       2,784,185
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       5,184,420
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             166,680,454
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              4,505,521
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                          2,950,970
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       94,230,393
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       280,057
<OTHER-SE>                                  61,311,787
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               166,680,454
<PREMIUMS>                                   6,661,339
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          4,535,908
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                           (908,888)
<OTHER-INCOME>                               1,110,340
<BENEFITS>                                   3,275,219
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    470,307
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                299,147
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            299,147
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   299,147
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                              11,545,700
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                          3,391,391
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                         (2,591,391)
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                           (7,840,179)
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                              4,505,521
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27370]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 15, 2014.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Olney Bancshares of Texas, Inc., Olney, Texas; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of HBank Texas, Grapevine, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 14, 
2014.
Margaret McCloskey Shanks,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-27370 Filed 11-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Continuing Education Units

VERIFICATION OF ATTENDANCE FORM

Certification Number: ________________

 attended the following professional educational activity. 

(NAME)

Title: National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Webinar: The Information Technology Workforce 

and Skills for the Future

Date(s): September 15, 2021 CEU Hours Earned: 1 hr 

Sponsor(s): National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Explanation of Event: This webinar will focus on the evolution, growth, and outlook for IT occupations, jobs, work roles, and 

skills. Webinar attendees will hear presentations from: 

• Dr. Ann Beheler, Principal Investigator, National Convergence Technology Center, Principal Investigator, IT Skill 

Standards 2020 and Beyond, Collin College

• Pam Frugoli, O*NET and Competency Model Team Lead, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor

Location: Virtual Webinar; www.nist.gov/nice/webinars

Name of Meeting Host: Rodney Petersen, Director of the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE)

 

Contact Information:

nist.gov/nice

nice@nist.gov

The Continuing Education Units form is provided as a courtesy. It is the responsibility of the 

attendee to complete and submit with their certifying authority.