alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------





                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWMBS, INC.
                    CHL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH TRUST 2004-8
               MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-8


     The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

         (i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the
         preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer
         under the Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

         (ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master
         Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement
         throughout such year.




/s/ Joseph M. Candelario                                Dated: March 30, 2005
------------------------

JOSEPH M. CANDELARIO
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT



/s/ Mark Wong                                           Dated: March 30, 2005
-------------

MARK WONG
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
Exhibit 12.2



I, Derek Palaschuk, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of eLong, Inc.;



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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The companys other certifying officer 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 company 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 company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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 change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the company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 company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 companys internal controls over financial reporting.



Date:
June 29, 2005



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/    DEREK PALASCHUK 
|Name:  |  | Derek Palaschuk        
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1215 CA 13-00613 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF HOLIMONT, INC., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

VILLAGE OF ELLICOTTVILLE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND VILLAGE OF ELLICOTTVILLE, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

DAMON MOREY LLP, CLARENCE (COREY A. AUERBACH OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

BACKHAUS & SIMON, P.C., OLEAN (ROBERT J. SIMON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County (Michael L. Nenno, A.J.), entered June 21, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment, among other things, denied the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to challenge the determination of respondent Village of Ellicottville Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) denying its request for a use variance to permit it, inter alia, to extend a ski lift over a parcel of land that it had acquired at 36 Adams Street in the Village of Ellicottville. Supreme Court properly denied the petition. “The determination of the ZBA is entitled to great deference and must be sustained where, as here, it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence” ( Matter of Farrell v Johnson , 266 AD2d 873, 873). The ZBA properly determined that petitioner failed to show that it was entitled to the use variance inasmuch as it failed to establish that it could not realize a reasonable rate of return without the use variance ( see generally Matter of Cohen v Hahn , 155 AD2d 969, 970). Although petitioner presented the testimony of an expert on that point, we note that it is the “sole province of the ZBA . . . as administrative factfinder” to resolve issues of credibility ( Matter of Supkis v Town of Sand Lake Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 227 AD2d 779, 781). Additionally, petitioner failed to establish that its proposed development would not alter the essential character of the surrounding neighborhood ( see Matter of Genser v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead , 65 AD3d 1144, 1147). Indeed, the record establishes-2- 1215 CA 13-00613

that permitting petitioner to maintain an active ski lift and snowmaking equipment on its parcel will alter the quiet residential area surrounded by nature in which that parcel is located because of the increased use of the parcel. Finally, the record establishes that petitioner’s hardship was self-created inasmuch as petitioner previously had stipulated to restrictions calling for an “undisturbed green area” in the location petitioner now seeks to develop ( id. ; see Matter of Carrier v Town of Palmyra Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 30 AD3d 1036, 1038, lv denied 8 NY3d 807).

Entered: December 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
** **

 

**EXHIBIT31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Scott J. Miller, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-K of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisannual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant's othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosedin this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant's othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): 

 

a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

|   |   |                                                                        |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:    |   |  /s/ Scott J. Miller                                                   |
|   |   |  Scott J. Miller

* Chief Reporting and  Compliance Officer* |

 

Date: November 14, 2007
10052.

#### Tyson *v.*The State.

Decided November 7, 1918.

Indictment for assault with intent to murder; from Wayne superior court—Judge Highsmith. July 13, 1918.

*James B. Thomas,*for plaintiff in error.

*Alvin V. Sellers, solicitor-general,*contra.

Harwell, J.

1. The evidence for the State made out a case of assault

with intent to murder. The theory of mutual combat, on which the plaintiff in error insists the court should have charged the jury, was raised, if at all, only by the defendant’s statement at the trial. In the absence of a timely written request therefor, the court did not err in failing to charge the law of voluntary manslaughter. *Lott*v. *State,*18 *Ga. App.*747 (2, 3) (90 S. E. 727); *Green*v. *State,*22 *Ga. App.*793 (97 S. E. 201).

2. Certain special grounds of the motion for a new trial were based upon alleged newly discovered evidence of two witnesses. The supporting affidavits did not comply with the rule that.“If the newly discovered evidence is that of witnesses, affidavits of their residence, associates, means of knowledge, character, and credibility must be adduced,” (Civil Code, § 6086) ; and the court did not err in overruling these special grounds of the motion for new trial.

3. The* defendant was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and upon recommendation of the jury the court sentenced him as for a misdemeanor. The evidence authorized the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and, Bloodworth, J., concur.*
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 OF MARYLAND

 

Misc. Docket AG No. 59 

September Term, 2015 

Misc. Docket AG No. 12

September Term, 2016 

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION

OF MARYLAND

v. 

BONNIE ELIZABETH PLANK

Barbera, C.J. 

Greene

Adkins

McDonald

Watts 

Hotten

Getty,

 JJ.

PER CURIAM ORDER

Filed: April 4, 2017 

Circuit Court for Baltimore County

Case No. 03-C-15-014239

Case No. 03-C-16-006873

Argued: April 4, 2017
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE * In the

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND 

 * Court of Appeals 

 

v. * of Maryland 

 

* Misc. Docket AG No. 59

 September Term, 2015

BONNIE ELIZABETH PLANK 

* Misc. Docket AG No. 12 

 September Term, 2016 

 

 PER CURIAM ORDER

For reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be filed, it 

is this 4th day of April 2017, 

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the 

Respondent, Bonnie Elizabeth Plank be, and she is hereby, disbarred, 

effective immediately, from the further practice of law in the State 

of Maryland; and it is further 

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of 

Bonnie Elizabeth Plank from the register of attorneys, and pursuant 

to Maryland Rule 19-761, shall certify that fact to the Trustees 

of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals 

in the State; and it is further 

ORDERED that Respondent shall pay all costs as taxed by the 

Clerk of this Court, including the costs of all transcripts, pursuant 

to Maryland Rule 19-709, for which sum judgment is entered in favor 

of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland against Bonnie 

Elizabeth Plank.

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera 

 Chief Judge
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





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 True North Energy Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Massimiliano Pozzoni, Chief Financial Officer 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)
                ofthe
                Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects,
                the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/
      Massimiliano Pozzoni


Name:  Massimiliano
      Pozzoni


Title:  Chief
      Financial Officer


Date:  July
      27,
      2007
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

WHAM-O HOLDING, LTD. and 

INTERSPORT CORP. d/b/a WHAM-O, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:20-cv-04196

Judge Matthew F. Kennelly

Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez

STATUS REPORT

Pursuant to the Court’s minute entry order [42], WHAM-O HOLDING, LTD. and 

INTERSPORT CORP. d/b/a WHAM-O (“WHAM-O” or “Plaintiffs”) file this status report 

solely on behalf of Plaintiffs to report any defendants not disposed by the Final Judgment Order 

[42].

The following Defendants were excluded from the Final Judgment Order [42] and are 

represented by the same counsel. Plaintiffs have settled with two of the Defendants and are still

in negotiation with the other four Defendants. Plaintiffs would like to request a 30-day extension 

for the settlement discussions.

Defendant No. Defendant 

Name

Status

39 Dissylove Settled. Plaintiffs plan to file a notice of dismissal shortly.

95 Jingolden Settled. Plaintiffs plan to file a notice of dismissal shortly.

191 Settlede Under Settlement Negotiation.

192 Shantan Under Settlement Negotiation.

213 Taimot Under Settlement Negotiation.

218 Tomoyou Under Settlement Negotiation.

Case: 1:20-cv-04196 Document #: 46 Filed: 10/27/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2402
2

DATED: October 27, 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 PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

document was electronically filed on October 27, 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-04196 Document #: 46 Filed: 10/27/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2403
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DEFENDANTS= MOTION TO DISMISS

The federal defendants, by their attorney, John R. Lausch, Jr., United States Attorney for 

the Northern District of Illinois, move to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and 

mootness under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In support, the federal 

defendants state:

1. On August 21, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint under the Administrative 

Procedure Act alleging that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' July 23, 2020 denials of 

their I-485 Applications to Adjust status were arbitrary and capricious. Dkt. 1 (Complaint).

2. On October 27, 2020, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §103.5(a)(5), U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services reopened the decisions denying the I-485 applications.

3. The notices of reopening vacated the prior decisions. In accordance with 8 CFR 

§ 103.5(a)(5)(ii), Plaintiffs were allotted 30 days to submit a brief explaining why USCIS should 

not issue an unfavorable decision on the reopened applications. 

MARISELDA QUINTANILLA and 

CRISTOBAL ISRRAEL QUINTANILLA, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 20 C 4944

Judge Bucklo 

Case: 1:20-cv-04944 Document #: 10 Filed: 11/02/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:27
2

4. The agency has informed undersigned counsel that, in the event Plaintiffs are 

unable to present evidence or briefing compelling a favorable decision in their case, the agency 

intends to certify Plaintiffs' case to the agency's Administrative Appeals Office for consideration 

of the novel legal issues raised in the applications.

5. Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that they are clearly entitled to the relief sought in 

their complaint here where Defendants have reopened the applications at issue and are affording 

plaintiffs another opportunity to establish their eligibility. Since a final agency action no longer 

exists for APA review, the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed as moot. 

6. This matter should also be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because no final agency 

action exists at this time. 5 U.S.C. § 704.

WHEREFORE, the complaint should be dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, Jr.

United States Attorney

By: s/ Elizabeth I. Treacy

 ELIZABETH I. TREACY

 Assistant United States Attorney

 219 South Dearborn Street

 Chicago, Illinois 60604

 (312) 886-7625

Elizabeth.treacy@usdoj.gov

Case: 1:20-cv-04944 Document #: 10 Filed: 11/02/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:28
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 202 A 1 7 Filed 17 August 2018 MARJORIE C. LOCKLEAR

v. MATTHEW S. CUMMINGS, M.D., SOUTHEASTERN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, and DUKE UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED PHYSICIANS, INC.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A

- 30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 80 1 S.E.2d 34 6 (20 1 7 ), reversing an order entered on 2 February 2016 and affirming an order entered on 4 February 2016, both by Judge J ames Gregory Bell in Superior Court, Robeson County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 14 March 2018

. Law Offices of Walter L. Hart, IV, by Walter L. Hart, IV; and Fulmer Law Firm, L.L.C. , by H. Asby Fulmer, III , pro hac vice, for plaintiff

- appellee

. Cranfi ll Sumner & Hartzog LLP, by Katherine Hilkey

- Boyatt, David D. Ward, and Matthew R. Gambale , for defendant

- appellants Matthew S. Cummings, M.D., Duke University Health System, and Duke University Affiliated Physicians, Inc

.

PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court based upon a dissent at the Court of Appeals. Locklear v. Cummings , ___ N.C. App. ___, 801 S.E.2d 346 (2017)

. The dissent concluded that plaintiff pled “a claim of medical malpractice by a healthcare provider in her compla int, not a claim of ordinary negligence as asserted by the majority.” Id.L OCKLEAR V
. C UMMINGS Opinion of the Court

- 2

- at ___, 801 S.E.2d at 352 (Berger, J. , concurring in part and dissenting in part) . We agree that the majority at the Court of Appeals erred when it converted plaintiff’s claim of m edical malpractice into a claim of ordinary negligence

. See Viar v. N. C

. Dep’t of Transp. , 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005) (per curiam) ( “It is not the role of the appellate courts

. . . to create an appeal for an appellant. ”)

. We therefor e reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals on th at ground and remand this

case to that court to address whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint

. See Vaughan v. Mashburn , ___ N.C. ___, ___,

___ S.E.2d ___, ___ ( Aug. 17, 2018) (42PA17) (concluding “that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action may file an amended complaint under Rule 15(a) ” by leave of court “ to cure a defect in a Rule 9(j) certification when the expert review and certification occurred before the filing of
t he original complaint”) ; Thigpen v. Ngo , 355 N.C. 198, 204, 558 S.E.2d 162, 166 (2002) (“[P]ermitting amendment of a complaint to add the expert certification where the expert review occurred after the suit was filed would conflict directly with the clear intent of the legislature.” )

.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.