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


  I, Valerie Kay, 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 MSCC HELOC Trust 2007-1 (the "Exchange Act periodic
    reports");

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

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

  4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required
    in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
    disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the 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 asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
    assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
    securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
    Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
    have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
    disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance
    described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
    10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. as Indenture Trustee and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
    Custodian.

Dated:    March  28, 2008

     /s/ Valerie Kay
     Signature

     Vice President
     (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


GPMF
2007-HE1


I,
Michael Gathright, an authorized officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.
(the "Servicer"), certify that:


1.  A review
of the Servicer's activities during the period from and including January 1,
2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (or applicable portion thereof) and
of the Servicer's performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been
made under my supervision.


2.  To the
best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.


Capitalized
terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the
Agreement.








Date:  February
29, 2008








/s/
Michael Gathright


Michael
Gathright


Senior
Vice President, Loan Administration
#### Nora Infante, Respondent, v Sol Del Mar Hacking Corp. et al., Appellants.

[974 NYS2d 284]

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated January 24, 2013, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see *Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.
#### Lee N. Koehler, Appellant, v The Bank of Bermuda Limited, Respondent.

Submitted March 30, 2009;

decided April 2, 2009

Motion by the Clearing House Association L.L.C. for leave to appear amicus curiae on consideration of the certified question herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
Exhibit32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of National Property Investors4 (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer ofthe Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financialofficer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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 thePartnership.

 

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2082 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for The Judiciary, Court 

of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services, Salaries and 

Expenses for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for The 

Judiciary, Court of Appeals, District Courts, and Other 

Judicial Services, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 

2024. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2082 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 THE JUDICIARY, COURT OF APPEALS, DIS3 TRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERV4 ICES, SALARIES AND EXPENSES FOR FISCAL 

5 YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for The Judiciary Court of Appeals, District Courts, 

9 and Other Judicial Services, Salaries and Expenses for fis10 cal year 2024 may not exceed $5,144,383,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT 32







<PAGE>




                                  CERTIFICATION

     In connection with the Annual Report of Whispering Oaks International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Dr. Ricardo
Moro, President and Principal Executive Officer and Dr. Gerald Wittenberg,
Principal 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 to the best of their knowledge:

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

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


Date:  March 31, 2008          By: /s/ Dr. Ricardo Moro
                                   -------------------------------------
                                   Dr. Ricardo Moro, President and Principal
                                   Executive Officer


                               By: /s/ Dr. Gerald Wittenberg
                                   -------------------------------------
                                   Dr. Gerald Wittenberg, Principal Financial
                                   Officer
Exhibit 32.1
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cubic Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2004 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, CEO and
CFO, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date: February 15, 2005                     Signature: /s/ Calvin A. Wallen, III
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Calvin A. Wallen, III, CEO

Date: February 15, 2005                     Signature: /s/ Jon Stuart Ross
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Jon Stuart Ross, CFO
<PAGE>
================================================================================


                                    FORM 6-K

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549



                            REPORT OF FOREIGN ISSUER


                    PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16 OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


                         For the month of February 2006


                             CAMPBELL RESOURCES INC.
                               (Registrant's Name)


                          1155, University, Suite 1405,
                                Montreal, Quebec
                                 Canada H3B 3A7
                    (Address of Principal Executive Offices)


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F

                          Form 20-F [X]    Form 40-F [ ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information
contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                                Yes [ ]     No [X]

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-


================================================================================
<PAGE>


Filed with this Form 6-K is the following which are incorporated herein by
reference:

99.1    Press Release -- February 15, 2006: Letter of Intent Signed with
        Strateco Resources Inc.


<PAGE>


                                   SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


                                            CAMPBELL RESOURCES INC.


                                            /s/  Lucy Brun
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Lucy Brun
                                            Executive Vice-President and
                                            Chief Administrative Officer


DATE: February 16, 2006



<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT INDEX


99.1    Press Release -- February 15, 2006: Letter of Intent Signed with
        Strateco Resources Inc.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00158

- CR

E X PARTE R EKEEM L A C LINTON D ORY §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from Criminal District

Court No. 3

of Tarrant County ( 1644029 )

December 17, 2020

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(nfp)

JU D GMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
##### 



FORM 6-K SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 Report of Foreign Private Issuer Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the month of August, 2004 Commission File Number: 00-30082 Envoy Communications Group Inc. 
 (Translation of registrants name into English)
 172 John Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 1X5 
 (Address of principal executive offices)
 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F. Form 20-F   þ
    
    Form 40-F   o
 Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Yes   o
    
    No   þ
 If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant
in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-    Signatures Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.  Envoy Communications Group Inc.(Registrant)By:
    /s/   Geoffrey B. GenoveseName:
    Geoffrey B. GenoveseTitle:
    President,
Chairman andChief
Executive Officer Dated:   August 24, 2004




---



##### 



Exhibit Index Exhibit
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press release on share buy-back.
#### In the Matter of Skyla H. and Another, Infants. Jefferson County Department of Social Services, Respondent; James H. II, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 815]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Richard *V.*Hunt, J.), entered June 27, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order determined the subject children to be abused and derivatively abused.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order adjudicating the subject children abused and derivatively abused, respondent father contends that Family Court violated his right to due process by conducting proceedings in his absence. That contention is not preserved for our review *(see Matter of Atreyu G. [Jana M.],*91 AD3d 1342, 1342 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 801 [2012]) and, in any event, we conclude that it is without merit. “ ‘While due process of law applies in Family [Court] Act article 10 proceedings and includes the right of a parent to be present at every stage of the proceedings, that right is not absolute’ ” *(Matter of Assatta N.P. [Nelson L.], 92*AD3d 945, 945 [2012]; *see Atreyu G.,*91 AD3d at 1342). Here, at the time of the article 10 proceeding, the father was incarcerated on criminal charges stemming from his conviction of sexually abusing one of his *1286daughters, i.e., the same conduct that formed the basis for the article 10 proceeding. The father was not present at the court appearance when the court decided petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, but we conclude that the father was not prejudiced by his absence from that appearance *(see Matter of Eric L.,*51 AD3d 1400, 1401-1402 [2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 716 [2008]; *see also Assatta N.P.,*92 AD3d at 945). “It is well settled that evidence that a parent has been convicted of having raped or sexually abused a child is sufficient to support a finding of abuse of that child within the meaning of the Family Court Act” *(Matter of Miranda F. [Kevin D.],*91 AD3d 1303, 1305 [2012]; *see Matter of Doe,*47 AD3d 283, 285 [2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 709 [2008]), and under the circumstances of this case there was nothing the father could have stated at the appearance that would warrant the denial of petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. The father was also not present at the scheduled dispositional hearing, but the father’s attorney indicated that his office obtained permission from the father to agree to the proposed disposition *(see generally Matter of Patricia C.,*63 AD3d 1710, 1711 [2009]).

We reject the father’s further contention that his attorney was ineffective for failing to protect his due process right to appear at the proceedings. The father failed to “demonstrate] both that he . . . was denied meaningful representation and that the deficient representation resulted in actual prejudice” *(Matter of Michael C.,*82 AD3d 1651, 1652 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 704 [2011]; *see Assatta N.P.,*92 AD3d at 945-946). Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Garni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2
------------
CERTIFICATION
-------------

I, Donald Rabinovitch Co-Principal Executive Officer of AFP Imaging Corporation,
certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFP Imaging
    Corporation;

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 officers 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 enable 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; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers 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; and

         b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
             other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
             internal controls over financial reporting.





Date: February 13, 2004                           /s/__Donald Rabinovitch_______
                                                        Donald Rabinovitch
                                                            President
                                                  Co-Principal Executive Officer


                                       19
#### REMSEN v. C. F. BLANKE TEA & COFFEE CO.

(Circuit Court, N. D. Georgia.

June 7, 1911.)

No. 1,329.

Removal of Causes (§ 102*) — Motion to Remand — Grounds.

Where an action lias heen removed to the federal court for diversity of citizenship, the fact that plaintiff filed a ))ill of exceptions and appealed to the state -Supreme Court from the order of removal was not ground for remand.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Removal of Causes, Dec. Dig. § 102.*]

In Equity. Petition by Nathan C. Remsen against the C. E. Blanke Tea & Coffee Company, On motion to remand.

Denied.

Edgar Eatham, for petitioner.

' King, Spalding- & Underwood and O. E. Thornton, for defendant.

*

For otiier cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 *to*date, &• Rep'r Indexes

NEWMAN, District Judge.

This is a motion to remand. The only ground of the written- motion is that, since the order of removal in the state court, the plaintiff has filed a bill of exceptions in the case and carried it to the .Supreme Court of Georgia, alleging error in the order of removal.

While it was not made a part of the motion, it was contended in the argument at the'bar that the record shows that only $1,500 is involved in this case, and that consequently there is no jurisdiction here. Plaintiff’s suit was an equitable petition against the defendant to rescind a contract, and he prays for the rescission of the contract and judgment for $3,500, stating that he is willing to return certain stock, the subject-matter of the suit, upon receipt of the $3,500.

It is claimed by the plaintiff, also, that it is on.ly a proceeding in rem, and the $1,550 is the total amount realized from certain property seized. The trouble about this is that there was an application for service on the defendant company by publication, under the Georgia statute. The state court appears to have recognized this as a proper case for such service, and directed the same. There is in the record a report of the clerk of the court showing that he had mailed a copy of the paper containing the notice-to perfect- service to the defendant company, and then an order by the court that, service having been perfected as required by law, it be declared perfected, and that the case proceed. So it would' seem that this suit was changed, or certainly endeavored to be changed, from an action in rem, if it'was that originally, to one in personam, and it looks, from an examination of the record, as if it was a suit in personam, for $3,500.

But it is unnecessary for me to determine this question, because the only ground of the motion to remand, as stated, is the fact that the case has gone to the Supreme Court of the state. No question is made that the plaintiff is a citizen and resident of this district, and that the defendant company is a corporation of another state and doing business and residing therein.

The motion to remand must be denied.
#### State v. Lakey

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 608

No. 130P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-602)

Denied 05/03/07