alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.1

** **

[U.S. Bank National Association Letterhead]

** **

** **

**Annual Statement of Compliance**

SATURNS Trust No. 2007-1

 

VIA: EMAIL

 

MS Structured Asset Corp.

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10036

 

Reference is made to theTrust Agreement (the “Agreement”), between MS Structured Asset Corp., as Depositor and U.S. Bank National Association,as Trustee, as successor-in-interest to Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, as successor by merger to LaSalle BankNational Association, as Trustee, for SATURNS Trust No. 2007-1, dated March 1, 2007, together with Schedules I, II and III attachedthereto, and the Standard Terms for Trust Agreements, between MS Structured Asset Corp., as Depositor and U.S. Bank National Association,as Trustee, as successor-in-interest to Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, as successor by merger to LaSalle BankNational Association, as Trustee dated April 13*,* 2006. Capitalized terms used herein and not defined shall have the meaningsdefined in the Trust Agreement and the Standard Terms for Trust Agreements.

 

I, Kimberly O. Jacobs, a Senior Vice Presidentof U.S. Bank National Association as successor-in-interest to Bank of America, National Association, as successor by merger toLaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee hereby certify that:

 

1.      A review of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year and of the performance of the under the Agreementhas been made under my supervision; and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Trustee has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year exceptas follows:

 

1122(d)(3)(i) The 10-D report required to befiled on or before March 16, 2013 was filed on March 22, 2013 due to an internal notification error. The late filing was identifiedthrough normal review. Additional controls have been instituted successfully to ensure timely filings.

 

 

Capitalized terms used but not defined hereinhave the meanings set forth in the Agreement.

 

 

 

 

Date: 3/14/2014

 

U.S. Bank National Association as successor-in-interestto Bank of America, National Association as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee

 

 

 

/s/ Kimberly O. Jacobs            
Kimberly O. Jacobs

Senior Vice President
Exhibit 10.28

                              FLAG LUXURY RIV, LLC
                               650 Madison Avenue
                            New York, New York 10022

                                  May 29, 2007

Rivacq LLC
591 West Putnam Avenue
Greenwich, CT  06830
Attention: Barry Sternlicht

RH1, LLC
c/o Torino Companies
4445 Wagon Trail Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89118
Attention: Brett Torino

      Re:   Allocation of Fee Under Option Agreement
            ----------------------------------------

Dear Barry and Brett:

Reference is made to the Agreement (the "Option Agreement"), dated March 21,
2007, among Riv Acquisition Holdings, Inc. ("RAH"), Triple Five Investco LLC
("Triple Five") and Dominion Financial LLC (together with Triple Five, "T5").

This will confirm that (i) each of Flag Luxury Riv, LLC ("Flag") and Rivacq LLC
("Rivacq") contributed 50% (or $1,150,000) of the aggregate payment of
$2,300,000 paid by RAH to T5 pursuant to the Option Agreement and, accordingly,
(ii) each of Flag and Rivacq are entitled to the beneficial ownership of 50% of
any shares of Riviera Holdings Corporation that RAH may acquire from T5 upon
exercise of the option under the Option Agreement.

Please sign below to indicate your acknowledgment of the foregoing.


                                    Very truly yours,


                                    FLAG LUXURY RIV, LLC


                                    By:/s/ Paul Kanavos
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Name: Paul Kanavos
                                       Title: President

<PAGE>

Acknowledged and Agreed:


RIVACQ LLC

By: SOF U.S. Hotel Co-Invest Holdings,
    L.L.C.

    By: SOF-VII U.S. Hotel Holdings, L.L.C.

        By: /s/ Barry S. Sternlicht
            ----------------------------
            Name: Barry S. Sternlicht
            Title: Chief Executive Officer


By: I-1/I-2 U.S. Holdings, L.L.C.

    By: /s/ Barry S. Sternlicht
        ----------------------------
        Name: Barry S. Sternlicht
        Title: Chief Executive Officer


RH1, LLC

By: Flag Leisure Group, LLC
    Its sole member

    By: /s/ Paul Kanavos
        ----------------------------
        Name: Paul Kanavos
        Title: President



                                       -2-
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Sandro Rogérioda Silva Gamba, certify that:

 

1.       Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Gafisa S.A.;

 

2.       Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;

 

3.       Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;

 

4.       [Omitted]

 

5.       [Omitted]

 

Date: August 14, 2018
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Windwood Presbyterian Church, Inc. v. The Presbyterian Church 

(U.S.A.) and Prebytery of New Covenant, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-10-00861-CV

Trial court case number: 2008-53684

Trial court: 281st District Court of Harris County

While a motion for rehearing was pending in this case, the Texas Supreme Court issued 

an opinion in Masterson v. The Diocese of Northwest Texas, No., 11-0332, (Tex. Aug. 30, 2013). 

The issues in Masterson are also raised in the present case. Thus, this Court requests

supplemental briefing on rehearing in light of the Masterson opinion. Appellant’s supplemental 

brief is due 30 days from the date of this order. Appellees supplemental brief is due 30 days 

after appellant’s brief is due.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 30, 2013
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3674 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women’s footwear not covering 

the ankle with coated or laminated textile fabrics. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 17, 2006 

Mr. CARPER (for himself and Mr. GREGG) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women’s footwear not covering the ankle with coated or laminated 

textile fabrics. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN’S FOOTWEAR NOT COVERING 

4 THE ANKLE WITH COATED OR LAMINATED 

5 TEXTILE FABRICS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3674 IS 

‘‘ 9902.64.12 Women’s footwear, except 

vulcanized footwear and 

footwear with waterproof 

molded bottoms, including 

bottoms comprising an outer 

sole and all or part of the 

upper, valued over $20/pair, 

not covering the ankle, designed to be worn in lieu of, 

but not over, other footwear 

as a protection against 

water, oil, grease or chemicals or cold or inclement 

weather where such protection includes protection 

against water that is imparted by the use of a coated or laminated textile fabric 

(provided in subheading 

6404.19.20) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### Ruby Emanuel, Plaintiff, v Sheridan Transportation Corp. et al., Defendants. Kenneth Heller, Appellant, v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, Respondent.

[870 NYS2d 912]

*584Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered on or about January 26, 2007, March 9, 2007 and April 26, 2007, which, inter alia, held appellant, plaintiffs former attorney, in contempt for failing to turn over his file to plaintiffs successor attorney, authorized the seizure of the subject file, and sentenced appellant to 30 days in prison and a $10,000 fine, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The finding of contempt and subsequent punishment and seizure order were warranted by appellant’s disobedience of successive court orders unequivocally directing him to turn over his file to plaintiffs new attorney and the resulting prejudice to plaintiffs right to a new trial in this action for maritime wrongful death (10 AD3d 46 [2004]; Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [1]; *see McCain v Dinkins,*84 NY2d 216, 226 [1994]). We note that motions by appellant asserting a retaining lien and seeking payment of his fee and disbursements prior to his turning over the file were denied in orders that were not challenged in a timely and proper manner and constitute law of the case. We have considered and rejected appellant’s other arguments.

Motion seeking leave to adjourn appeal and enlarge record denied.

Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.
#### Kevin NIXON; Brandon Ancelet, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Buryl WHEATLEY; PD George Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-40148.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 27, 2006.

See also 368 F.Supp.2d 635.

*675Bruce Wayne Cobb, Craig J. Schexnaider, Conley, Schexnaider & Associates, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Shannon Robbie Ramirez, Michael Murphy Gallagher, Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

“A party *must*reserve its right to appeal prejudgment rulings in the offer of judgment, otherwise no appeals from judgment will be allowed.” *Ramming v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am.,*390 F.3d 366, 370 (5th Cir.2004) (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs’ failure to do so here extinguished their right to appeal, and their subsequent statement purporting to reserve this right could not resurrect it.

The Motion to Dismiss the Case is GRANTED. Appeal DISMISSED. Costs shall be borne by plaintiffs.

*

 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.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15(d) -14(a), AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of ShoreTel, 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 registrant as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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;
andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants fourth fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date:
September 27, 2007
    
    /s/ JOHN W. COMBS
 
John W. CombsChairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rafael Omar VILLEGAS-MARTINEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-4838.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 16, 2009.

Decided: April 22, 2009.

*261Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Aamra S. Ahmad, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Stephen G. Yoder, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Afflrmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rafael Omar Villegas-Martinez appeals from his judgment of conviction and sentence, based on a jury verdict finding him guilty of illegal re-entry into the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b) (2006). In his sole claim on appeal, Villegas-Martinez challenges the district court’s admission of a warrant of deportation, claiming violation of his confrontation clause rights. We affirm.

Villegas-Martinez specifically challenges the Government’s introduction, through Officer Day, of a warrant of deportation,1 which document reflected that VillegasMartinez held an illegal alien status at the time of his offense. The underlying basis for his objection is *Crawford v. Washington,*541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). We review *de novo*the district court’s admission of alleged Confrontation Clause violations. *United States v. Abu Ali,*528 F.3d 210, 253 (4th Cir.2008).

We find no error in the district court’s admission of the warrant of deportation. The record was admitted as a self-authenticating public record, and hence is not considered to be testimonial hearsay under *Crawford. Crawford,*541 U.S. at 56, 124 S.Ct. 1354. *See also United States v. Burgos,*539 F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th Cir.2008) (collecting cases).2

*262Accordingly, we affirm Villegas-Mar-tinez’s conviction and sentence. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*

1

. Officer Day signed and executed the warrant.

2

. In addition, Officer Day’s presence as a trial witness subjected him to full cross-examination and satisfied any Confrontation Clause concerns, and Villegas-Martinez's complaints on appeal as to the unavailability at trial of another officer who actually witnessed Ville-gas-Martinez's departure and the failure of Officer Day to specifically testify as to the departure go to the credibility of the testimony of the testifying officer, which this court leaves to the jury to assess. *See United States v. Lomax,*293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir.2002); *United States v. Manbeck,*744 F.2d 360, 392 (4th Cir.1984).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6789

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID RICH, a/k/a Oakie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:08-cr-00438-WDQ-1; 1:12-cv-03226-WDQ)

Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Rich, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, James 

Thomas Wallner, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Rich seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.* The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

 * The district court granted Rich’s motion in part and 

resentenced him. Rich appealed the sentence imposed by the 

district court, and we affirmed. United States v. Rich, F. 

App’x , 2014 WL 2958806 (4th Cir. July 2, 2014) (No. 13-

4867).
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Rich has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

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 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,901-01

EX PARTE CHUNG KIM, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W13-52168-U(A) IN THE 291 DISTRICT COURT ST

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). This Court remanded the writ application for

a response from counsel and findings from the habeas court. Ex parte Kim, No. WR-83,901-01 (Tex.

Crim. App. Nov. 11, 2015) (not designated for publication). The District Clerk forwarded a

supplemental record to this Court containing, among other things, findings of fact and conclusions

of law in which the habeas court recommends that relief be denied. The findings and conclusions

refer to pleadings filed by Applicant, including a Motion to Supplement and Amend Writ in which

he raised additional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the supplemental record
2

returned to this Court with the findings of fact contains no additional pleadings filed by Applicant.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07 § 3(d). 

The District Clerk of Dallas County shall file a response that includes any subsequent

pleadings filed by Applicant, including motions and additional writ grounds. Should the District

Clerk determine it has no such supplemental pleadings on file, it shall certify that Applicant filed no

additional pleadings under Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after his initial writ

application, which was filed in the trial court on August 13, 2015. 

This application will be held in abeyance the District Clerk responds. A supplemental

transcript containing any additional pleadings filed by Applicant along with any other supplemental

material relating to this habeas corpus application shall be forwarded to this Court within 30 days

of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: March 22, 2017

Do not publish
#### Rachel Djeddah, Appellant, v Richard Djeddah, Respondent.

Submitted February 9, 2009;

decided April 7, 2009

*802Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of the Cancelation of a NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the cancelation of a meeting of the NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force.

# DATES:

The meeting scheduled for June 9, 2009 starting at 1 a.m. to 4 p.m. is canceled.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 833-9434; Web site                         *http://www.rtca.org.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for the cancelation of a NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force meeting.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 4, 2009.

Francisco Estrada C.,

RTCA Advisory Committee.

[FR Doc. E9-10984 Filed 5-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P