alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1


RULE 13a-14(d) Certification





I, In-Young Chase, 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 SATURNS Trust No. 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 statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports,the servicer, U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) as successor-in-interest to Bank of America, National Association (“BANA”),of SATURNS Trust No. 2007-1,has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement, which is the Trust Agreement relating to SATURNS Trust No. 2007-1; 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. 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:U.S. Bank as successor-in-interest to BANA and its officers and agents.








By:          /s/ In-Young Chase
 Name:     In-Young Chase
 Title:       Vice President
 Date:       March 26, 2013
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phillip Zabriskie, Appellant.

[964 NYS2d 425]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J), rendered December 17, 2008, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. The record demonstrates that the plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently *(see People v Fiumefreddo,*82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]). Furthermore, the facts admitted by the defendant during his plea allocution were sufficient to support his plea of guilty *(see People v Goldstein,*12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009]; *People v Seeber,*4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Mastro, J.E, Chambers, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Juwanna Wrotten, Respondent.

Submitted March 16, 2009;

decided March 26, 2009

*774Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.
#### In the Matter of Ivey Walton et al., Appellants, v New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

Submitted September 14, 2009;

decided September 17, 2009

Reported below, 57 AD3d 1180.

*786Motion by the Innocence Project et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
[915 NE2d 288, 886 NYS2d 363]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter J. Maliszewski, Appellant.

Decided September 3, 2009

*757APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Davison Law*Office, Canandaigua *(Mary P. Davison*of counsel), for appellant.

*Donald H. Dodd, District Attorney,*Oswego *(Michael G. Cianfaraño*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary and was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement the Appellate Division found in a prior order to be illegal. He was offered the chance to withdraw his plea by the sentencing court, and chose not to do so. The sentencing court was not required to offer defendant the option of a lesser sentence, where plea withdrawal can put the defendant in the position he was in prior to admitting guilt *(compare People v Selikoff,*35 NY2d 227 [1974], *with People v McConnell,*49 NY2d 340 [1980]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.
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 March 31, 2011 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),Steven D. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of thePartnership, 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.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 12766 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:10

- cr - 00185

- CG

- C

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v ersus RONALD LARRY AUTREY, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alaba ma

________________________ (May 10, 2013) Before TJOFLAT , MARCUS and KRAVITCH , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-12766 Date Filed: 05/10/2013 Page: 1 of 22 William Gregory Hughes , appointed counsel for Ronald Larry Autrey in this appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appell ant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct . 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merits of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counse l’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Autrey’s conviction and
sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-12766 Date Filed: 05/10/2013 Page: 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

THOMAS ADAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 689 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of May, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7262

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CLAYTON SAMUEL PAUL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 1:13

- cr - 00342

- NCT

- 1 ; 1:21

- cv - 00560

- NCT

- LPA )

Submitted : January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

. Clayton Samuel Paul , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7262 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Clayton Sam uel Paul seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order a ccepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and construing his “Motion Requesting Review of Conviction ” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it a s successive and unauthorized

. The order i s not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). 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). When , as here, 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 constitution al right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Paul has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of a ppealability 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.
DISMISS ED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7262 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

454 

CA 14-01772 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

HELEN F. DRISCOLL AND THOMAS DRISCOLL, 

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS, 

V ORDER

BJ’S WHOLESALE CLUB, INC., 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT, 

AND PAUL F. VITALE, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

MACKENZIE HUGHES LLP, SYRACUSE (LORRAINE R. MERTELL OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.

COSTELLO COONEY & FEARON, PLLC, SYRACUSE (ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAELS & SMOLAK, P.C., AUBURN (MICHAEL G. BERSANI OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

 

Appeals and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court,

Cayuga County (Thomas G. Leone, A.J.), entered December 19, 2013. The

order, inter alia, denied the motion of plaintiffs for sanctions

against defendant BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., for spoliation of

evidence, and denied the motions of defendants for summary judgment

dismissing the complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1416-1417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00146]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of 
Authority

    Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the 
Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of 
the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated 
October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as 
amended most recently at 79 FR 21760-21763, dated April 17, 2014) is 
amended to reflect the reorganization of the Office of Safety, Security 
and Asset Management.
    Section C-B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as 
follows:
    Delete items (1), (2) and (3) of the functional statement for the 
Office of Operations (CAJ13), Office of the

[[Page 1417]]

Director (CAJS1), Office of the Safety, Security and Asset Management 
(CAJS), and renumber the remaining items accordingly.
    Delete item (7) of the functional statement for the Physical 
Security Laboratory and Technical Branch (CAJSEB), Security Services 
Office (CAJSE), Office of the Safety, Security and Asset Management 
(CAJS), and renumber remaining items accordingly.
    Delete item (11) of the functional statement for the Physical 
Security Operations Branch (CAJSEC), Security Services Office (CAJSE), 
Office of the Safety, Security and Asset Management (CAJS), and 
renumber remaining items accordingly.
    After the mission statement for the Security Services Office 
(CAJSE), insert the following:
    Internal Emergency Management Branch (CAJSEE). To lead a 
comprehensive internal emergency management program that efficiently 
coordinates CDC resources to, first and foremost, protect lives, then 
to safeguard the environment and property through mitigation, 
preparedness training, response, continuity and recovery from all 
natural, man-made and technological hazards that may impact CDC 
facilities: (1) Implements, maintains, and updates CDC's Occupant 
Emergency Plan/Program (OEP); (2) conducts and evaluates annual 
tabletop, functional, and full-scale exercises for all CDC facilities 
with Designated Officials and Occupant Emergency Organizations (OEO); 
(3) recommends future emergency management and emergency response-
related programs, policies, and/or procedures; (4) provides leadership 
and coordination in planning and implementation for internal 
emergencies; and (5) provides leadership and coordination in planning 
and implementation for internal emergency incidents affecting the CDC 
facilities, including incident response and support.

James D. Seligman,
Acting Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2015-00146 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-18-P
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 this Report of Uplift Nutrition, Inc. (the "Registrant") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the " Report"), I, Gary C. Lewis, hereby 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 my knowledge and belief:  (1) This 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:August 2, 2010By:/s/Gary C. LewisGary C. Lewis
President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO)  Date:August 2, 2010By:/s/Gary C. LewisGary C. Lewis
Principal Financial Officer (CFO) and Principal Accounting Officer
From: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY FAHLGREN, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-07-382 DECISION

On May 23, 2008, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: Thirty (30) years in the Montana State Prison, with fifteen (15) years suspended and credit of ninety (90) days served for the offense of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol - Fourth Offense, a felony; Count II: A commitment to the Missoula County Detention Center for *84six (6) months, with credit for one hundred eighty (180) days served, for the offense of Driving While License Suspended or Revoked, a misdemeanor; and Count III: A commitment to the Missoula County Detention Center for ten (10) days, with credit for ten (10) days served, for the offense of Failure to Carry Proof of Liability Insurance, Fifth Offense, a misdemeanor. Defendant shall not be eligible for parole for at least ten (10) years. Court recommends after ten (10) years served at the Montana State Prison, defendant be placed in WATCh Program followed by Pre-Release. The Court designated the defendant a persistent felony offender.

On November 12, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Kara Docherty. The state was represented by Shawn Thomas who appeared via videoconference.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 12th day of November, 2009.

DATED this 25th day of November, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.
# Co u r t o f A p p eals

o f th e S tate o f G eo r g ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 D0 13 1 . MARY LOU ELLI S v . ESTATE OF LEACH.

Ap p li can t M ary

Lo u El l i s h as fi l ed a m o t i o n t o wi t h d raw t h i s ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary

ap peal . Th e m o t i o n t o wi t h d raw i s h ereb y GRANTED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## November 17, 2023

11/17/2023
*

The Honorable Daniel Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2705

___________

State of North Dakota, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of North Dakota.

*

Michael H. Nowik, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 21, 2003

Filed: November 25, 2003

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael H. Nowik appeals the district court's*

 order denying Nowik's motions

for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and for default

judgment, both filed after the district court dismissed his purported removal of a state

court criminal action. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying either the Rule 60(b) motion, see Swope v. Siegel-Robert, Inc., 243 F.3d 486,

498 (8th Cir.) (Rule 60(b) motion must demonstrate exceptional circumstances for
-2-

relief; reviewed for abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 887 (2001), or the

motion for default judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DAVID HANCOCK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 2:09-00026-KD-N

)

JAMES HOOD, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED

and DECREED that plaintiff’s federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice and that

supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim under the Alabama Medical Liabilities

Act, Ala. Code § 6-5-484 (1975) asserted in Count Five of the Third Amended Complaint

is hereby DECLINED and Count Five is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

Thus, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that this action is

DISMISSED in its entirety. 

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of February, 2010.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00026-KD-N Document 66 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRAIG CLIFFORD WISSINK

No. 484PA05

(Filed 29 June 2007)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 172 N.C. App. 829, 617 S.E.2d 319 (2005), finding no error in part in judgments entered 1 April 2004 by Judge Knox V. Jenkins in Superior Court, Cumberland County, but remanding for resentencing on defendant’s conviction for *419discharging a firearm into occupied property. Heard in the Supreme Court 7 May 2007.

*Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Daniel R O’Brien, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.*

*M. Alexander Chams for defendant-appellee.*

PER CURIAM.

Although the Court of Appeals addressed several issues in its opinion, we allowed review solely for consideration of whether the trial court’s finding of defendant’s probationary status constituted error under *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), and whether defendant had knowingly and voluntarily stipulated to his probationary status. The decision of the Court of Appeals to remand for resentencing is reversed, and we remand this case to that court for reconsideration of these two issues in light of our decisions in *State v. Hurt,*361 N.C. 325, 330, 643 S.E.2d 915, 918 (2007) (holding “a judge may not find an aggravating factor on the basis of a defendant’s admission unless that defendant personally or through counsel admits the necessary facts or admits that the aggravating factor is applicable”) and *State v. Blackwell,*361 N.C. 41, 44, 49-51, 638 S.E.2d 452, 455, 458-59 (2006) (explaining that *Blakely*error is subject to harmless error review), *cert.*denied, -U.S. —, — L. Ed. 2d -, 75 U.S.L.W. 3609 (2007). The Court of Appeals opinion remains undisturbed in all other respects.

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.