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


  I, Bruce Kaiserman, 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 Adjustable Rate Mortgage 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:
    Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP as Servicer, LaSalle Bank, National
    Association as Custodian, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. as Servicer,
    Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. as Servicer, Wells Fargo
    Bank, N.A. as Servicer and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer
    and Trust Administrator.

    Dated:   March 27, 2008


    /s/ Bruce Kaiserman
    Signature

    Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Offer of Employment, dated January 8, 1999



 Exhibit 10.2 
 January 8, 1999 
 Diane E. Offereins 
 18728
Thorntree Lane 
 Dallas, TX 75252-2697 
 Dear Diane: 

I am delighted that you have decided to accept our offer as Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer of Discover Financial Services. The revised terms
we discussed are as follows: 
 The starting annual salary will be $400,000 with a 75% annual target bonus, with payout ranging from 0% to 200% based on
Company and individual performance. For 1999 your minimum bonus will now be $400,000 (approximately 80% cash, with 20% going to MSDW Stock at a 20% discount). Your minimum guaranteed cash compensation for each of the first two years is $800,000,
unless you voluntarily resign. 
 If a Change of Control occurs, other than a Discover Financial Services, Inc. IPO, you will be paid two years target annual
compensation if you choose to leave the company because of lack of equivalent job opportunities. In addition, all restricted and stock options will vest. 
 In addition, your revised long-term bonus this year will be as follows: 
  

						
	Restricted Stock*	  	$	225,000    	  	(3,156 shares at $71.29; vesting 1/3 per year)
	Discount on Restricted Stock*	  	$	75,000    	  	(1,052 shares at $71.29)
	Stock Options*	  	$	300,000    	  	(12,623 shares at $71.29, vesting 1/3 per year)
	Total	  	$	600,000    	  	 

 You will also be eligible for long term compensation in 1999 and thereafter. 
 *Annual final price and share amounts will be determined based on the average price of the last seven trading days of November. 
 You will also be eligible for a $100,000 sign-on bonus and will be entitled to four weeks of vacation. 
 We are looking forward to having you join Discover Financial Services, Inc. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to call me. 
 Sincerely yours, 
 /s/ David W. Nelms 
 David W. Nelms 
 cc: M.T. Cunningham
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




Amendment to

Avatar Holdings Inc. Amended and Restated 1997 Incentive and Capital Accumulation Plan (2005

Restatement)




On May 31, 2007, at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Avatar Holdings Inc. (the “Company”), the
stockholders approved an amendment to the Avatar Holdings Inc. Amended and Restated 1997 Incentive
and Capital Accumulation Plan (2005 Restatement) (the “Plan”). The Compensation Committee of the
Company’s Board of Directors had adopted the amendment on April 23, 2007, subject to stockholder
approval.



After giving effect to the amendment, the text of Section 5 of the Plan is as follows:



5. Common Stock Available Under the Plan. Subject to the provisions of this Section 5 and any
adjustments made in accordance with Section 12 hereof, the aggregate number of shares of Common
Stock that may be subject to Benefits granted under this Plan shall be 1,500,000 shares of Common
Stock, which may be authorized and unissued or treasury shares. The maximum number of shares of
Common Stock with respect to which Benefits may be granted or measured to any individual
participant under the Plan during the term of the Plan shall not exceed 950,000, subject to
adjustments made in accordance with Section 12 hereof). Any shares of Common Stock subject to a
Stock Option or Stock Appreciation Right which for any reason is cancelled or terminated without
having been exercised, any shares subject to Stock Awards, Performance Awards or Stock Units which
are forfeited, any shares subject to Performance Awards settled in cash or any shares delivered to
the Company as part or full payment for the exercise of a Stock Option or Stock Appreciation Right,
and any shares withheld by the Company to satisfy tax withholding with respect to Benefits shall
again be available for Benefits under the Plan. The preceding sentence shall apply only for
purposes of determining the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock subject to Benefits under
the Plan but shall not apply for purposes of determining the maximum number of shares of Common
Stock with respect to which Benefits (including the maximum number of shares of Common Stock
subject to Stock Options and Stock Appreciation Rights) that may be granted to any individual
participant under the Plan.
SCWC-11-0001060
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I ANTHONY K. SELVAGE, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. LAURA MOIRE, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-11-0001060; FC-D NO. 08-1-0252)
ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nak ayama, Mc Kenna, Po llack, an d Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Laura Moire’s application for writ of certiorari filed on September 29, 2015, is hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, November 10, 2015. Samuel P. King, Jr., for petitioner
Peter Van Name Esser for respondent /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0001060 10-NOV-2015 08:37 AM
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

April 27, 2021

a0419 

# Order

Clerk April 27, 2021

161978

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161978

COA: 353530

Benzie CC: 18

- 002596

- FH;

MICHAEL RUSSELL BANCROFT, 2018

- 002598

- FH; 18

- 002599

- FH

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the app lication for leave to appeal the July 20, 2020 order

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

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
A03A2492.

#### ROUSE v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al.

(629 SE2d 500)

Barnes, Judge.

In *MARTA v. Rouse,*279 Ga. 311 (612 SE2d 308) (2005), the Supreme Court reversed our decision in *Rouse v. MARTA,*266 Ga. App. 619 (597 SE2d 650) (2004), holding that

> a common carrier, in exercising extraordinary care, must stay informed of safety advances in product design, but is not held to a *per se*rule that requires those carriers to buy and incorporate those safety advances into previously-purchased, non-defective products. The carrier need not necessarily utilize the most approved pattern in use up to that time.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) *MARTA v. Rouse,*supra, 279 Ga. at 315. Accordingly, Division 2 of our opinion is vacated, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Division 1 of its opinion is substituted therefor.

The Supreme Court then remanded the case to this court for consideration in light of its holding stated above. The facts are stated in detail in our prior opinion in this case. *Rouse v. MARTA,*supra, 266 Ga. App. at 620-623 (3). Having reconsidered Rouse’s appeal in light of the Supreme Court’s holding, we find that the trial court did not err by finding no evidence existed that MARTA and Millar knew or should have known of any malfunctioning of the escalator in question. *Sparks v. MARTA,*223 Ga. App. 768, 769-770 (2) (478 SE2d 923) (1996).

The record shows that the defendants had a program of inspection for and repair of any problems with the escalator and that the escalator had been inspected the day of the incident. Moreover, the record shows that before Rouse’s foot was removed from the escalator, “all the comb plates were intact.” The statement of Rouse and her cousin about defects in the escalator reflect observations after Rouse’s foot was caught in the escalator and while efforts were being made to remove her foot. In particular, the cousin’s statement that the “escalator” had “chips and cracks” was about the escalator, and not the comb plate. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Ruffin, C. J., Andrews, R J., Johnson, P. J., Blackburn, P. J., Smith, P. J., Miller, Ellington, Phipps, Mikell, Adams and Bernes, JJ., concur.*

*768Decided March 27, 2006

Reconsideration denied April 13, 2006.

*Andrew J. Hinton, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Lokey & Smith, Malcolm Smith, Kevin A. Doyle, G. Melton Mobley,*for appellees.
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20549
 FORM 6-K REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the month of July 2004 Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc.(Translation of Registrants Name Into English) Canadian Pacific Tower, Ste 1600, 100 Wellington Street W., Toronto, Ontario M5K 1B7, Canada
(Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
reports under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F.) Form 20-F o                     Form 40-F þ (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 o                     No þ (If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-. This report furnished on Form 6-K shall be incorporated by reference into
each of the Registration Statements under the Securities Act of 1933 of the
registrant: Form S-8 No.333-13960. Page 1 of 2 Pages
Exhibits Index appears on Page 3




---



##### 



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. FAIRMONT HOTELS & RESORTS INC.
                         (Registrant)Date: July 14, 2004
    By /s/ Terence P. BadourName:
    Terence P. BadourTitle:
    Executive Vice President, Law and Administration
and Corporate Secretary




---



##### 



Exhibits Index The following is a list of Exhibits included as part of this Report on Form 6-K. Exhibit No.
    
    Description of Exhibits99.1
    
    Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc. Agrees to Sell The Fairmont Glitter Bay
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CRESPIN MORALES, DC #S06078, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. )

) Case No. 2D18-2434

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed October 11, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee 

County; Frederick P. Mercurio and Janette

Dunnigan, Judges.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Jonathan S. Tannen,

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Bailey v. State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1631 (Fla. 2d DCA 

June 26, 2019).

KHOUZAM, C.J., and VILLANTI and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
#### Nata Bob, Respondent, v Steve Cohen et al., Appellants.

[967 NYS2d 690]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered May 11, 2011, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered July 14, 2011, which denied defendants’ motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint against defendants.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss was not untimely, as found by the motion court, since the parties had stipulated, both orally and in writing, to extend defendants’ time to “respond” to the complaint to January 31, 2011, and defendants had served and filed their motion to dismiss by that date *(see DiIorio v Antonelli,*240 AD2d 537 [2d Dept 1997]; *Del Valle v Office of Dist. Attorney of Bronx County,*215 AD2d 258 [1st Dept 1995]; CPLR 320 [a]; 3211 [e]; *compare McGee v Dunn,*75 AD3d 624, 625 [2d Dept 2010]). On the merits, defendants were entitled to dismissal of this legal malpractice action commenced by their former client on res judicata grounds. The Workers’ Compensation Board’s award of legal fees to defendants, imposed as a lien against the ultimate award of compensation to plaintiff *(see*Workers’ Compensation Law § 24), precludes plaintiffs present claim that defendants represented him negligently, a claim that could have been raised in opposition to defendants’ fee application *(see e.g. Lusk v Weinstein,*85 AD3d 445 [1st Dept 2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 709 [2011]; *Zito v Fischbein Badillo Wagner Harding,*80 AD3d 520 [1st Dept 2011]).

In view of the foregoing, we need not consider defendants’ remaining argument. The decision and order of this Court entered herein on October 2, 2012 (99 AD3d 414 [2012]) is hereby recalled and vacated *(see*2013 NY Slip Op 70400[U] [decided simultaneously herewith]).

Concur—Friedman, J.E, Acosta, Renwick, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
if it is endorsed in blank. . . ."); NRS 104.3205(2) ("When endorsed in 

blank, an instrument becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by 

transfer of possession alone . . . ." (emphasis added))'; see also Edelstein, 

128 Nev., Adv. Op. 48, 286 P.3d at 261 ("If the note is payable to bearer, 

that 'indicates that the person in possession of the promise or order is 

entitled to payment." (quoting Leyva, 127 Nev. at 478, 255 P.3d at 1280)). 

Thus, by demonstrating that it was in possession of 

appellants' note that was endorsed in blank by appellants' original lender, 

CAM Mortgage established that the note had been properly negotiated 

and that CAM Mortgage was entitled to enforce it. This was a legal 

conclusion that was properly reached by the district court and that 

rendered an evidentiary hearing regarding additional supporting 

documentation unnecessary. As such, the district court was within its 

discretion in denying appellants' petition for judicial review without 

holding an evidentiary hearing. See FMR 21(2) (2013) (providing the 

district court with the discretion to determine the extent to which an 

evidentiary hearing is necessary). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the jud ft of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Saitta 

Gibbons 

Pia&t. J. 

Pickering 

'In other words, a second or third blank endorsement is 

unnecessary. To the extent that appellants suggest that the FMP Rules 

impose requirements beyond those in the Uniform Commercial Code, we 

reject this suggestion. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e 
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge 

M. Nelson Segel, Settlement Judge 

James S. Kent 

Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas 

Aldridge Pite, LLP 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 194m e
LaSalle Bank N.A.135 South
      LaSalle StreetSuite 1625Chicago, IL 60603Global
      Securities and Trust Services




Annual Statement of
Compliance




VIA: EMAIL




Bear Stearns Asset Backed
Securities I LLC


383 Madison Avenue


New York, New York 10179


regabnotifications@bear.com




EMC Mortgage
Corporation


2780 Lake Vista Drive


Irving, Texas 75067




Re:       Bear Stearns Asset Backed
Securities I Trust 2007-HE2






Reference is
made to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2007 (the
“Agreement”), among Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, as Depositor,
EMC Mortgage Corporation, as Seller and Master Servicer, and LaSalle Bank
National Association, as Trustee.




I, Barbara L.
Marik, a Senior Vice President of LaSalle 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 Trustee under the Agreement has been made under my
supervision; and




(2) To the best of
my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year or
a portion thereof.






Date: February 27, 2008




LaSalle Bank National Association,
as Trustee




/s/ Barbara L. Marik


Barbara L. Marik


Senior Vice President
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 1 0

- 2 0 2 7 7 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. W I L L I A M L E R O Y F E R G U S O N , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 4 : 0 9

- C R

- 6 0 4

- 1

B e f o r e H I G G I N B O T H A M , G A R Z A , a n d E L R O D , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t W i l l i a m L e r o y F e r g u s o n h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e

w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f

o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. F e r g u s o n h a s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. T h e r e c o r d i s i n s u f

f i c i e n t l y d e v e l o p e d t o a l l o w c o n s i d e r a t i o n a t t h i s t i m e o f F e r g u s o n ’ s c l a i m o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l ; s u c h a c l a i m g e n e r a l l y

“ c a n n o t b e r e s o l v e d o n d i r e c t a p p e a l w h e n t h e c l a i m h a s n o t b e e n r a i s e d b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s i n c e n o o p p o r t u n i t y e x i s t e d t o d e v e l o p t h e r e c o r d o n t h e m e r i t s U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 15 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-20277 Document: 00511382451 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2011N o
. 1 0

- 2 0 2 7 7

o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s
. ” U n i t e d S t a t e s v
. C a n t w e l l , 4 7 0 F

. 3 d 1 0 8 7 , 1 0 9 1 ( 5 t h C i r
. 2 0 0 6 ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w

o f t h e r e c o r d , c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f , a n d F e r g u s o n ’ s r e s p o n s e d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D ,
c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

.

2 Case: 10-20277 Document: 00511382451 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2011