alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  Re:  MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2007-2

  I, John Lingenfelter, 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 MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2007-2 (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.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
    servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
    conducted in preparing 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 servicers have fulfilled
    their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material
    respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
    for ABS 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 party:
    Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP as Servicer.

    Dated:   March 28, 2008


    /s/ John Lingenfelter
    Signature

    Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master
    servicer)
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT NO. 4

UNITED AMERICA INDEMNITY, LTD.

SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN




     This AMENDMENT No. 4 (the “Amendment”) effective 31 March 2007 amends the terms and conditions
of the United America Indemnity, Ltd. Share Incentive Plan dated 5 September 2003, as amended (the
“Plan”).



     WHEREAS, the Directors of United America Indemnity, Ltd., an exempted company incorporated
with limited liability under the law of the Cayman Islands, desire to effect the revisions to the
Plan set forth herein effective the date hereof.



     NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:



     1. The fifth paragraph of Section 3 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following:



     “In the event any merger, reorganization, consolidation, recapitalization, spin-off, stock
dividend, share split, reverse share split, extraordinary distribution with respect to the Common
Stock, any sale or transfer of all or part of the Company’s assets or business or other change in
corporate structure affecting the Common Stock occurs or is proposed (such event, an “Equity
Restructuring”), the Committee or the Board shall, effective as of the time of the Equity
Restructuring, make such substitution or adjustment in the aggregate number and kind of shares or
other property reserved for issuance under the Plan or any limitations under the Plan, in the
number, kind and Exercise Price (as defined herein) of shares or other property subject to
outstanding Stock Options, in the number and kind of shares or other property subject to Restricted
Stock Awards or other Awards, and/or such other substitution or adjustments, in each case as the
Committee or the Board shall determine in its discretion to be appropriate, such that the value of
the adjusted shares or other property immediately prior to the Equity Restructuring is the same as
the value of such adjusted shares or other property immediately following the Equity Restructuring,
provided that, in no case shall such determination adversely affect in any material respect the
rights of a Participant hereunder or under any Award Agreement. In connection with any event
described in this paragraph, the Committee may provide, in its sole discretion, for the
cancellation of any outstanding Stock Option and payment in cash or other property in exchange
therefor.”



     2. The following shall be inserted into the second paragraph of Appendix A of the Plan such
that it becomes the second sentence thereof:



     “Furthermore, such Performance Criteria may be supplemented by reference to per share
determinations.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
National Property Investors 4 1998 Second Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified 
in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000318508
<NAME> NATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTORS 4
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998   
<CASH>                                           2,763
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          26,303
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,429   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,277   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         19,300     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0     
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,782)    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,277    
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,259    
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,049    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 744    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       466     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     7.69<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
EX-10.26



 






	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 10.26




Mylan Laboratories Inc.

Arrangements for Director Compensation

In Effect as of May 21, 2007



In accordance with guidance provided by the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in late November 2004, Mylan Laboratories Inc. (the
“Company”) is providing a written description of the oral compensation arrangements that the
Company currently has with its Board of Directors (“Board”), which the SEC may deem to be material
definitive agreements with the directors.



Non-employee directors receive $50,000 per year in cash compensation
for their service on the Board. In addition, Milan Puskar receives an additional
$200,000 per year for his service as Chairman.
Non-employee directors are also reimbursed for actual expenses relating to meeting attendance and,
at the discretion of the full Board, are eligible to receive stock options or other awards under
the Company’s 2003 Long-Term Incentive Plan.
Directors who are also employees of the Company do not receive any consideration for their service
on the Board.




In addition:





	•	 	Non-employee directors (other than Mr. Puskar) receive fees for each
Board meeting they attend (other than any Board meeting held primarily
to consider board compensation matters). The fee is $1,500 for each
meeting attended in person and $1,000 for each meeting attended by
phone.






	•	 	Non-employee directors receive fees for each Board Committee meeting
they attend (other than: (i) Committee meetings held in conjunction
with Board meetings; (ii) any Committee meetings held primarily to
consider board compensation matters; and (iii) meetings of the
Executive Committee). The fee is $750 for each meeting attended in
person and $500 for each meeting attended by phone.
	 
	•	 	The Chairperson of the Audit Committee receives an additional fee of
$10,000 per year.






	•	 	The Chairpersons of the Compensation Committee, the Finance Committee,
the Governance and Nominating Committee, and the Compliance Committee
each receive an additional fee of $5,000 per year.
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 6, 2015

No. 04-14-00895-CR

Meliton Chairez-MURILLO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR7291

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea 

bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. Therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately 

reflects that the criminal case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).

This court must dismiss the appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has a right 

of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” Id. R. 25.2(d); see Chavez v. 

State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

Therefore, we ORDER that this appeal will be dismissed under rule 25.2(d) of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure unless Appellant causes an amended trial court certification to be 

filed within THIRTY days of the date of this order showing Appellant has the right of appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.).

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of January, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Iwona Maciaszek, Appellant, v Leonard Sloninski et al., Respondents.

[963 NYS2d 382]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Siegal, J.), entered August 4, 2011, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

*1013Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she fell on an interior staircase of the apartment building where she resided, which was owned by the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that she was walking down the staircase when she slipped on a hole in one of the steps connecting the first floor to the second floor, and fell. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that the alleged defect was trivial and, therefore, not actionable. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

A property owner may not be held liable for trivial defects, not constituting a trap or nuisance, over which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or her toes, or trip (see *Rogers v 575 Broadway Assoc., L.P.,*92 AD3d 857 [2012]; *Sokolovskaya v Zemnovitsch,*89 AD3d 918 [2011]; *Koznesoff v First Hous. Co., Inc.,*74 AD3d 1027 [2010]). In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the “width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury” (Trincere *v County of Suffolk,*90 NY2d 976, 978 [1997] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, prima facie, that the alleged defect at issue was trivial and, therefore, not actionable. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that the semi-circular hole was one inch in diameter, half an inch deep, and located at the edge of the step. She used the staircase all the time, and she never had a problem traversing the area prior to the accident. Under the circumstances presented here, the alleged defect did not possess the characteristics of a trap or nuisance, and was trivial and, therefore, not actionable (see *Sawicki v Conklin Realty Co., LLC,*94 AD3d 1083 [2012]; *Grosskopf v 8320 Parkway Towers Corp.,*88 AD3d 765 [2011]; *Sulca v Barry Hers Realty, Inc.,*29 AD3d 779 [2006]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). The new theory of liability espoused by the plaintiff for the first time on appeal is not properly before this Court (see *Walker v George,*97 AD3d 741 [2012]).

Skelos, J.P, Balkin, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 12-12416 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 4:04-cr-00322-RDP-TMP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JEREMY LAMAR HARRIS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Northern District of Alabama

 ________________________

(August 30, 2012)

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jeremy Lamar Harris, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial

Case: 12-12416 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 1 of 3 
of his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence. Harris pled

guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or

more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, distributing

and possessing with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of cocaine base, in

violation of § 841(a)(1), conspiring to commit money laundering, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and 9 counts of money laundering, in violation of

§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). His drug offenses involved at least 1.5 kilograms of cocaine

base.

The district court calculated a guidelines range of life imprisonment because

Harris was subject to a statutorily-mandated sentence of life imprisonment based

upon his prior convictions for two felony drug offenses. After granting a

downward departure for Harris’s substantial assistance, the district court

calculated a guidelines range of 235 to 293 months’ imprisonment, and sentenced

Harris to a total sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment. Harris subsequently filed

a § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based upon Amendment 750 to the

Sentencing Guidelines and the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”).

Because Harris’s guidelines range of life imprisonment was based upon the

statutorily-mandated sentence of life imprisonment to which he was subject,

Amendment 750 did not affect his applicable guidelines range. Moreover, even

2

Case: 12-12416 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 2 of 3 
assuming that the FSA applies to defendants who, like Harris, were sentenced

before its enactment, Harris remains subject to a statutorily-mandated sentence of

life imprisonment and an identical guidelines range. Harris was, therefore,

ineligible for a sentence reduction. 

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 12-12416 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 3 of 3
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130923 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130923 

 COA: 257334 

Wayne CC: 04-004965-01

OTEAGO WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 23, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1218 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 28, 2006 

 Clerk
Exhibit 10.1 - Amendment to Series C Letter

                                                                    Exhibit
    10.1

    [

    


    


     

    


    


    May
      [__],
      2007

    


    


    


    BY
      FACSIMILE

    


    [Name
      of
      Series C2 Holder]

    [Address
      of Series C2 Holder]

    


    


    Re: Amendment
      to the Letter Agreement, Dated February 15, 2007, Between Millennium Cell Inc.
      (the “Company”) and Certain Holders of the Company’s Series C2 Convertible
      Preferred Stock.

    


    


    Ladies
      and Gentlemen:

    


    Reference
      is made to that certain Letter Agreement, dated February 15, 2007 (the
“Letter
      Agreement”),
      between the Company and certain holders of the Company’s Series C2 Convertible
      Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 (the “Series
      C Preferred Stock”).
      Capitalized terms used but not defined in this letter shall have the meanings
      given to such terms in the Letter Agreement. 

    


    Effective
      upon the execution and delivery to the Company of a counterpart to this letter
      by a number of holders of at least a majority of the aggregate outstanding
      Series C Preferred Stock,
      the
      Letter Agreement is hereby amended so that the Interim Conversion Waiver Period
      shall end on July 15, 2007, instead of on June 15, 2007.

    


    
 

    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

     

    
 

                                                       Very
      truly yours, 

    
      	 	
              MILLENNIUM
                CELL INC.

               

               

              By:
                ________________________

              Name:
                John Giolli 

              Title:
                Chief Executive Officer 

            


    

    


    


    ACKNOWLEDGED
      AND AGREED TO:

    


    


    [SERIES
      C2 HOLDER]

    


    By:
      ________________________

    Name:
      

    Title:
      

     

     

    
      
         

      

      
        2
<PAGE>
                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Potlatch Corporation:

We consent to the use of our report dated September 10, 2004, with respect to
the balance sheets of the Oriented Strand Board Manufacturing Facilities of
Potlatch Corporation as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related
statements of operations, parent's equity and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, included herein, and to the
reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the prospectus.



/s/ KPMG LLP

Portland, Oregon
February 18, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2605 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2605

   To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to exclude qualified 
   institutional buyers and institutional accredited investors when 
    calculating holders of a security for purposes of the mandatory 
     registration threshold under such Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2023

 Mr. McHenry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to exclude qualified 
   institutional buyers and institutional accredited investors when 
    calculating holders of a security for purposes of the mandatory 
     registration threshold under such Act, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSIONS FROM MANDATORY REGISTRATION THRESHOLD.

    (a) In General.--Section 12(g)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l(g)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (A)(i), by inserting after ``persons'' the 
        following: ``(that are not a qualified institutional buyer or 
        an institutional accredited investor)''; and
            (2) in paragraph (B), by inserting after ``persons'' the 
        following: ``(that are not a qualified institutional buyer or 
        an institutional accredited investor)''.
    (b) Nonapplicability of General Exemptive Authority.--Section 36 of 
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78mm) shall not apply to 
the matter inserted by the amendments made by subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.5**CONSENT**     I, Emily Berlin, hereby consent to being named in the proxy statement/prospectus included inthe registration statement on Form F-4 (No. 333-126936) filed by Henry Birks & Sons Inc. as aperson named as a person who will become a director of Henry Birks & Sons Inc.        Dated:  September 28, 2005   /s/ Emily Berlin    Emily Berlin